It's pretty sad that you are so wrong on the facts that you need a fact check. You should read the transcripts. The moderator actually admitted she was wrong to msnbc after the debate...know your stuff so you don't sound so ignorant.
Also, it does add up. Kennedy (a democrat) did the same thing and had a balanced budget.
Obama has built up more debt for the nation than all other presidents combined. He is the one who has no plan at all...except to raise taxes, spend money, and take away our rights.
You guys need to look at all the facts. If Barack wins this country is going to suffer even worse than the last four years.
Barack was on defense the whole night as he should be. Look at his record...the past four years have been a disgrace. Fewer people working, more people in poverty, and more people on food stamps. His whole concept is take people's rights away and have the government have more power.
Bottom line Barack is a socialist. In case you don't know what that means, which I wouldn't be surprised with your ignorant comment, use google. See what socialism is.

Nick, i think you should fact-check your own claims. The party you apparently favor is actively promoting Marxian economics (theory of Karl Marx, father of communism). You don't know what socialism is, I'm afraid.

re: 'Obama has built up more debt for the nation than all other presidents combined' [Nick]

FYI
debt increased by presidents carter thru BO:

CARTER: 1.3x
REAGAN: 2.6x
BUSH 1: 1.0x
CLINTON: 1.3x
BUSH 2: 1.8x
BO: 1.5x (1.3x)
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

BO increase to date is less than RR and W...

another look at annual debt change and responsible presidents:

B2 12/31/2008: 15.9% INCREASE; TRENDING WORSE
BO 12/31/2009: 15.7% INCREASE; TRENDING BETTER
BO 12/31/2011: 7.8% INCREASE; TRENDING BETTER
BO 06/30/2012: 4.8% INCREASE; TRENDING BETTER
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

america is better off now than in 2008...most economic metrics are trending better...eg, DJI 7000 in 2008; now 13000. losing 750000 job per month in 2008; now gaining jobs...GM now number ONE in world automotive sales.

'It's pretty sad that you [nick] are so wrong on the facts...'

apologies for this repeat...but nick seemed to have missed the post...

We have Obama's record which speaks volumes about his inability to lead the nation.The moderator was out of line and admitted later she was mistaken because Obama was speaking of acts of terror in general when he made his comments in the Rose Garden. He was not speaking about the terroist attack in Benghazi which he did not acknowledge as an actual terrorist attack until two weeks later even though he had intelligence reports. He kept blaming it on the video and he and his staff made official public statements to that effect. Romney knows how to create wealth unlike Obama who is creating poverty for all of us so in that respect I guess you could say Romeny doesn't understand poverty. He does understand how to get people out of poverty by creating jobs and not punishing entrepreneurs with excessive government regulations and taxes. Romney/Ryan have explained a 5 point plan to help the nation recover but I guess you weren't listening. Romney meant resumes when he said binders. The crux of the matter is that he deliberately tried to hire women when he saw their was a disparity in his administration and he corrected that, but some people prefer to concentrate on immaterial details when they look at a candidate and not the overall picture. Romney has a record of success behind him and there is no reason to believe that will change once he becomes president.

Gov. Mitt Romney dominated Debate 2 because President Obama did not give
his vision for America and he messed up by not amplifying the renewal of
America. Also Romney was right that in the presidency of Obama he fixated
more on Obamacare than creating jobs, and we all know how that worked out
Phyllis Kunz

re: Romney has a record of success behind him and there is no reason to believe that will change once he becomes president...

a record of success...maybe if one believes making money is the only measure of success...specifically making money with utter disregard for christian/moral responsibilities...

no reason to believe he will change...surely you jest...he is more successful at flipfloping than making money...as slick wille said:

'WOW...moderate MITT where you been...i missed you boy...' ie:

a primary conservative. a general election moderate. primary would repeal BO-care...general embraces most of BO-care...

what in gawd's name makes one believe MITT wont change...

oh/and he told his kochbro-ilkies (the 1%) the 47% were dead beats...now says he's for 100%...

WOW he wont change...changing is what he does best...

PS
re: We have Obama's record which speaks volumes about his inability to lead the nation...[janet say]

pls provide examples of what his 'record speaks' which leads GOPs to believe that he is unable to lead...

surely not the facts that say economic metrics are trending better now than in 2008...

if unable to provide examples...assume jane just spouts GOP sound bites...aka party line bs...

So .... what has OBAMA explained ??? Has he explained what happened in LIBYA ??? Or has be told LIES to cover his political mistakes? Has he called the murder of people at FT HOOD by a MUSLIM a terrorist act ?? Or does he call it "workplace violence". Does he explain why he gave millions of dollars in stimulous money to "green energy" companies who have give him campaign contributions ... and then gone BANK RUPT ?? Isn't it strange? We find out candidate without faults, but the other guy .... oh man ... he is terrible !

Obama has his bad record for the last four years and no real plan for ecomomic recovery it will just be 4 more years of taxing, spending and borrowing for programs that have not helped America create jobs and recover economically. Obama has continually attacked Romney and tried to characterize him as someone who doesn't care about the middle class. Romney is clearly stating what we currently have under Obama. 47,000,000 on foodstams and 23,000,000 not working. Take off the blinders and look at the reality. Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

The proof is in the pudding and Romney is leading in the electoral and according to Gallup.. That means that the American people are finally getting to hear the truth that Obama is responsible for the last devastating four years and they've had enough. Enough of Obama's broken promises, lies, failed policies, abuses of executive privilege and trampling all over our freedoms. I can understand some people that may have been fooled by his rhetoric about "hope and change" in 2008 voting for him, but anyone who votes for him again is not in their right mind. We see what kind of change he was taling about now and it was a change for the worse. If someone believes in these kinds of ideologies, they should move to a country like China or Cuba, but don't try to change America into a place people want to run away from.

Hey Richard ... you are the DORCHESTER COUNTRY DEMOCRATIC chairperson ? OMG .... When I received my ballot yesterday, I looked at it in horror when I saw NO DEMOCRATIC candidates for many of the offices? Where is the Democratic Party around here. Yes, I am conservative, but I do not believe that one party should control EVERYTHING. That's a great way for the GOOD OLE BOYS to commit fraud.

Alex,
You say Romney is lying. I think not. Ryan acted like a gentleman in contrast to Biden's laughing, interupting, and condescending attitude. If Ryan was embarrassed, he was embarrassed for Biden who was using a cheap political technigue to keep Ryan's message from being heard and understood, but it didn't work. Ryan, with less experience, was able to keep his composure throughout Biden's attempt to unnerve him. I think anybody with an ounce of intelligence could see that.
A fantasy world is believing that the government can take care of you by taking money from those who have worked for it and giving it to people who don't want to work. The Democrats believe in socialism/communist ideas which make everyone poor. That's the "fair share" Obama is talking about, but please notice that his policies do not affect him because as much as he would like to identify with the average person he is living a lavish lifestyle on taxpayer's money. That's the greatest hypocrisy about the Democrat party that they try to make people believe they are for the poor and middle class. Perhaps at one time that may have been partially true, but it's completely false now. The problems with liberals is that they don't understand absolute truth. They believe that everyone can have his own concept of truth so if someone is disagreeing with you, they are lying. It's really completely illogical.

re: 'The problems with liberals is that they don't understand absolute truth. They believe that everyone can have his own concept of truth so if someone is disagreeing with you, they are lying. It's really completely illogical.' [jane say]

the absolute truth liberals believe/know is GOP failed (eg, 1929,2008) voodoo, trickle down economic policies havent WORKED...will never WORK..

what's illogical is GOPs want to repeat the same failed policies...

GOP 'no-reg free market' policies will only work when greed is removed from human nature...maybe in HIS/HER life time...

re: By statistics...

any refs and links...yo opine is not a stat...

BO hasnt forgotten the GOP policies (similar to those of 1929) of 2008 that left 23M (whatever) unemployed...

BO's polices saved GM; has america gaining jobs (not losing 750000/mo as in 2008)...BO hasnt forgotten the 23M unemployed...nor the 30-40M uninsured...nor the women w/o equal pay...

MITT/GOPs have forgotten their failed policies and, to the amazement of most, want to repeat them...

go figger is it: memory loss, stupidity, or have sold their souls to the kochbro-ilkies (aka the 1%)

oh/and seems christian hypocrites have forgotten MITT is not a christian...or perhaps they now believe mormons have been baptized...ie, are now christians.

full disclosure: BO and MITT could be muslims as far as i'm concerned.

re: looking at the state of Massachusetts...

yes MITT did have some measure of success in MA...eg ‘MITT-care’ which he now calls BO-care and promised to repeal it his first day in office...but now he says he will break that promise and embraces most of BO-care.

what other successes were looked at...

BTW

[CLIP] The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed President Obama for reelection Friday, with an editorial that was highly critical of Republican challenger Mitt Romney...criticized Romney’s “servile courtship of the Tea Party” to win his party’s nomination and called him “shameless” in pandering to various constituencies, terming him the GOP’s “shape-shifting nominee.”...the most frequently asked question of the campaign: ‘Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?’... has repeatedly refused to share specifics” of many of his proposals. [end clip]

One should 'look' past GOP talking points (aka bs)

re: the olympic's success

CLIPS
1. taxpayers picked up a big tab for the Salt Lake games. Romney got President George W. Bush to turn around and tuck $2.7 billion into his budget to cover the games’ deficit
2. Of the half-dozen Olympic officials interviewed for this article, none said that the games would have been a failure if not for Romney’s intervention...his involvement is greatly exaggerated.
3. Huntsman Sr. criticized Romney for exploiting his ties to the church. He declared: “These are not the Mormon Games.”
4. McCain denounced the “staggering sums” that Romney wanted the federal government to spend on the games...The taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion and a half dollars,” McCain said...This battle between Romney and McCain raged for two years. McCain said of Romney: “Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

re: he created jobs

overseas...probably destroyed more, in USA, than he created...in any event;

MITT-bain's motive was NOT to create jobs. it was to make money for MITT-bain and its stockholders...he was very successful at making money...with no concern for those who lost jobs...SOP for most business men...eg;

screw the 47%...'what's good for gen. bullmoose is good for the country'

repeating: one should look further than GOP bumper sticker sound bites...and past MITT's rewrite of his resume...

the unemployment and food stamps are the result W/GOP pre 2008 policies (eg, losing 750000 jobs in 2008)...ie, the results of the great recession...blaming BO for recession results is like blaming FDR for the depression results...

opines/conclusions based on GOP talking points are not facts.

facts:

BO's polices saved GM; has america gaining jobs (not losing 750000/mo as in 2008)...30-40M uninsured now on past to affordable health care (similar to 98% in MA)... women have means to demand equal pay...

re: the GOP's fears were obviously well-founded...

obvious to who...

GOPs fears about as well founded as there belief GOP failed (1929, 2008) economic policies have succeeded...and as their myth the economy does better under GOP presidents...

agree...let God judge

re: I'll let the candidates do the debating...

you say this...then you go on to state: opines/conclusions based on the GOP sound bites...kinda like MITT saying something he really doesn't mean...

re: I can dig up arguments to counter yours...

then how about digging up facts to counter these facts:

BO's polices saved GM; has america gaining jobs ...30-40M uninsured now on past to affordable health care... women have means to demand equal pay.

all else is opinion...so minds will not be changed...eg, yo opine: 'so even if they [W and BO bailouts] did create a few jobs, it is not worth the debt'...doesn't change my mind.

BTW GM bailout created/saved a million plus jobs...where our country would be w/o the stimulus...many/most economist say we would have fallen off the cliff...ie, in a depression.

re: Obama had four years

W/GOPs took 8 yrs to get america in the mess...took FDR 6 yrs to get USA on the road to recovery after 1929 HH/GOP mess...and he was not working with a congress whose stated JOB#1 was to make him a one 'termer'...

re: two of which Democrats controlled the House and the Senate

FYI
DEMs controlled House; 2009-2011, 2 full years. DEMs controlled Senate from September 24, 2009 til February 4, 2010...a total of 4 months.

BO had "total control" of Congress for 4 entire months. NOT 2 yrs.

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress-1.332977

"Democrats controlled the House and the Senate" .... Janet, you're only showing how out of touch with reality you are, and how void of fact your opinion is.

re: That premise is simply a LIE

That was not anyone's premise...certainly NOT BO's...as said opines w/o facts are a disservice to america...GOP/DEM bumper stickers are NOT facts ... are there refs/links/data to confirm posted opines???

many/most disagree with posted opine...eg:
CLIPS
1. 2008, the three major U.S. auto industry companies -- GM, Chrysler and Ford -- asked the government for a $34 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. The Big 3 stated that their demise would trigger 3 million layoffs within a year, plunging the economy further into recession.
2. economists agree that restructuring the automobile industry was a critical element of the government’s plan to pull the economy out of a deep recession...
3. “Without financial help from the federal government, all three domestic vehicle producers and many of their suppliers might have had to liquidate many operations, with devastating effects on the broader economy, and especially on the Midwest,” economists Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Analytics, and Alan Blinder, of Princeton University, wrote in an analysis
4. Since stabilizing, the auto companies have enjoyed a robust rebound. Auto companies have added 250,000 jobs. In August, the rate of U.S. vehicle sales surged ahead at a pace of 14.5 million per year.
6. Ford declined to take aid, but many analysts say it was helped by the decision to rescue GM and Chrysler.

6. ETCETC

re: no secret that President Obama’s...foray into venture capitalism has not gone well...

any links/refs that confirm 36 have either gone bankrupt or are laying off...if not have to assume this just another baseless opine...

actually BO’s foray's/investments have done better that most venture capital investments and MITT's bain...eg;

Small business failure rate: Year 1: 85%

the default rate for the [BO’s] entire loan portfolio is less than four percent. By comparison, the default rate for the popular Small Business Administration loan program is three times as high.

re: in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars

CLIPS

Small business owners are pragmatic, and they know clean energy and energy efficiency make sense for their bottom lines.

Despite what critics say, the DoE’s guaranteed loan program is a successful program and government investment to further develop clean energy is the right thing to do.

debunking the Solyndra critique: The company's loans process began under the Bush Administration, it raised $1 billion dollars in private capital, and was named the top cleantech company in 2010 by the Wall Street Journal. Yes, it defaulted and went bankrupt, but Solyndra’s failure is not representative of the industry or government investment. http://www.policymic.com/debates/2834

NO secret ... some are will say anything to help make BO a one 'termer.' GOPs JOB#1.

That's not an article; that's an opinion from the editor of The Heritage Foundation's website. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/ All the garbage about the companies listed never got coverage in real media because the claims aren't real.

someone else once posted a list of these companies on another patch thread; I disproved the claims, too - with two exceptions, either the companies were sold at profit or had repaid the loans. Consider your sources, Janet

Aah, just found your copy/paste source to be heritage. Nuff said.

re: got plenty of these facts for you to chew on...

guess one can call half-truths facts...it's GOPer's SOP...eg

Solar Evergreen Solar Inc., the Massachusetts clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies...NOT DoE loans...
http://bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view/2011_0815evergreen_solar_files_for_bankruptcy_plans_asset_sale

After years of incubation and at least $91.4 million of private capital, silicon cell maker "SpectraWatt" was sold to Canadian Solar for about $4.95 million during an auction. The sale is a dismal end for the Intel-backed company.

$94.4M private capital...no mention of DoE loan...

not sufficient...how boot some refs/links to chew on...

re: you like to blame everything on Bush and the Republicans

i am looking for policies that work...not those that resulted in 1929/2008 and which MITT/GOPs want to repeat...call it blame if you want...i'm just stating 'the facts, mam.'

your facts/links (not half truths) to chew on would help in search for policies that work...ie, the search for truth...and it's not found in GOP/DEM talking points...aka bs...eg,

re: '…Solyandra was his fault...'

'Yes, it defaulted and went bankrupt, but Solyndra’s failure is not representative of the industry or government investment.' http://www.policymic.com/debates/28347

re: you're poor, the government made you that way...etcetc...

say what! if you have any facts for me to chew on please provide...

i'm poor, my parents were poor, most of my immediate family was/is poor...they didn't blame the government...ie, we are basically part of the hard working 47% MITT calls free loaders and apparently you do to...

re: I believe in America's founding principles unlike you and your party.

we all believe in the principles of the declaration of independence and the constitution as written by the founding fathers (FF)...

regarding abortion...the supreme court ruled based on these principles...abortion is legal...that a woman has control over her body...not the government.

right to lifers confuse the role of their religion with that of government...as you know a founding principle was/is the separation of church and state.

agree the sc has made rulings with which many now disagree...eg, corporations are people...but it is the law until overruled and;

it's still the woman's decision and she has to live with it...

in practice repeal of roe v wade will not reduce abortions...prohibition didn't work...making marijuana illegal hasnt worked...neither will making abortion illegal...

re: There is no founding principle of separation of church and state.

opine: the intent of the founding fathers (FF) was to separate church and state...perhaps they got the idea from Jesus: 'render unto caesar [the state] things that are caesar's and unto God [the church] things that are God's ...ie, moral vs legal requirements.

OTOH

perhaps 'we the people' are not protected from a church take over and one day we citizens will be governed by a christian sharia law...ie, laws of the old testament...women will be stoned for abortions and adultery...

re: Obama not impeding the free exercise of religion by forcing Catholics and other religious institutions to go against their religious beliefs...

if BO had forced catholics, etc, to provide abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization then it would be unconstitutional...so...

please provide links that explain how BO has violated our constitution...it may convince me to vote for MITT...

1) abortion was already legal in 20 states before Roe v Wade
2) there are many founding principles of separation of church and state, including the one you post
3) insurance for employees of the Catholic Church includes coverage of Viagra....
4) there are laws that force non-Christians and non-Christian companies to honor the religious beliefs of Christians (Christmas as national holiday, forced time and a half pay for Easter and Christmas work)
5) name these "abortion-inducing drugs," please - all the freaky websites making this claim use the exact same phrase, but none can produce any example.

re: I believe Romney said 47% of the people view themselves as "victims". He didn't use the word "freeloaders".

Agree, he did say victims...but you beg the issue with semantic distractions...ie, ‘view themselves as victims’ or ‘free loaders’ both show utter disdain for 47% of us...

re: I think they do have a victim-mentality...

so do the 1% and MITT/GOPs...

opine: the percentage who fraudulently game the system...those you and MITT/GOPs use to discredit 47%... is small...most of which are hard working middle class folks.

re: let the free enterprise system work

repeating: the 'no reg free market' hasnt (1929/2008) worked...wont work until greed is removed from human nature...

do you have any examples where the 'no reg free market' worked for me to chew on...BTW

and also repeating: it's a myth the USA economy works better under GOP administrations.

While the 47% are crying in their beer; the 1% are laughing in their champagne at how easily they get some of the 47%--99% to believe the myth...

re: "PEOPLE WILLING TO TRADE THEIR FREEDOM FOR TEMPORARY SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER AND WILL LOSE BOTH."

doubt BF had the hard working 47% in mind

re: it's a myth the USA economy works better under GOP administrations

this CLIP posted before but seems some missed it...

Source Los Angeles Times’ article “The Economic Sweepstakes Quiz, 09/19/04

Dispel the myth the economy does better under GOP presidents.
CLIP

Under which president, since WW2 produced:

1. The largest growth in gross domestic product?
2. The largest growth in jobs?
3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?4. The largest growth in industrial production?
5. The biggest rise in hourly wages?
6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?
7. The lowest inflation?
8. The largest reduction in the deficit?
9. During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose on the average how much a year under Republican presidents?
10. During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose on the average how much a year under Democratic presidents?

Answers:
1) Truman 2) Carter 3) Johnson 4) Kennedy 5) Johnson 6) Truman 7) Truman 8) Clinton 9) 7.3% 10) 10.3%

Note the difference in the DJI increase under Democrats and Republicans amounts to 41% increase in net worth to investors.
[end clip]

W’s term ending 2008 would only put DEMs in a moe favorable light…

re: ...the actual word he used shows compassion and empathy...

you sound like wonderland's humpty dumpty: 'a word means exactly what i say it does. nothing more nothing less' (something like that)

but if you say consider 'themselves victims' shows 'compassion and empathy...' i will agree...butbut if so...whyohwhy would MITT refute he is compassionate...ie/eg;
'Romney Says He was ‘Completely Wrong’ About ’47 Percent’ Comments' http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/romney-says-he-was-completely-wrong-about-47-percent-comments/

very true that: 'Changing someone's words to suit your own political agenda is typical of those who are not grounded in truth...'

changing MITT and your word to suit must be very hard considering MITT's stupid flipflops...

re: even though there is always those that aren't able to add 2 + 2 and come up with 4.

more likely, even tho you and MITT/donor/GOPs use 2+2=5 rithmetic...ie, an obviously false dogma/myth one must believe (orwell's 1984 rithmetic)

re: depends on how a person defines "hard working"

'it do!'... and one's definitions evidently depend on one's prejudices...cause i know of no one who defines 'hard working' and 'freedom' as you apply it to the 47% do...

opine: as think said, it's a relatively small fraction of yo and MITT's worthless 47% who game the system and are not worth MITT-donors' (the 1% plus a few) time...

utterly unbelievable that MITT and donors define the 47% as shiftless, freeloaders...not worth his time.

more unbelieveable some of the 99% defend/share his disdain for po folks and vote against their self interest for failed (1929, 2008) GOP policies...

re: Benjamin Franklin and I [janet] are prejudiced if we believe hard working means going to work and earning a living?

janet presumes too much putting herself in the class w/ BF...andAND'

janet conflates definition of hard working with her and MITT's opine of the 47%...she and MITT see them (teachers, firemen, policemen, po folks workin 2and3 jobs to feed their children) as people who consider themselves victims...others see them as THE hardworking middle class and po folks.

re: Dems have their own truth which most often has nothing to do with reality...

the GOP unreality is the myth the economy does better under GOPs...see PATCH post above.

Re pointless

indeed reason with janet-GOPs is pointless as their opines are based on GOP bumper stickers. NOT facts...

indeed pointless to reason with GOPs who refuse to accept america is better now than in 2008, eg: DJI 6500 in 2008 now 13000. losing 750,000 jobs/mo in 2008 now gaining jobs...

indeed pointless to reason with GOP who believe our good earth is 4-6000 yrs old...think until recently they believed the sun revolved the flat earth)...

indeed pointless to reason with GOPs (eg, akin and mourdock) who believe women will not get pregnant if raped...and if they do, it's God’s (HIS/HER) will...

indeed pointless to reason with janet-GOPs who define words the same way humpdy dumpty does...

but the straight lines, which present the opportunity to state facts, are appreciated. thanks janet!

How are the economic circumstances in Greece and Portugal in any way relevant to the US economy? Or even to the premises you're arguing against?

re: How are the economic circumstances in Greece and Portugal in any way relevant to the US economy? [reg say]

reg you disappoint...they are all countries...and this is the only connection janet-GOPs require to confirm their unsubstantiated opines...at least in their minds.

the similarities of Greece and Portugal governments to BO's are about as similar as W's was to nazi germany...janet really reaches to support the failed GOP policies...

perhaps she could change my mind and i would vote for the MITT if janet could explain how she believes GOP 1929/2008 succeeded and/or will succeed if given another chance...

Sorry, Janet - it looks like you missed the news. Greece's economic crisis was caused by its government's provision of misleading data at time of adoption of the Euro. Numbers were fudged to get it underway; after it did, and when the numbers got corrected, private investors (who hold a majority of its GDP) started bailing out. That devalued the currency in Greece, creating additional debt just in conversions. The principal cause of Portugal's crisis was consistency in handing off public utilities to private companies with no security - those companies took the money from the govt, skyrocketed CEO pay and bonuses, and never provided any upgrade/improvement/maintenance. Now that it requires more competitiveness in trade, Portugal couldn't accommodate energy-wise, so it lost more and more trade as a result. As for the treasury of either nation being bankrupted, I must have missed that one. As for Greek riots - those were in 2008, before the economic crisis there hit its lowest point, and were caused by a public protest over police brutality (a 15 year old was killed). There was another one under that same theme, but from communist groups in that country. For the last two years there've been *protests* but not "riots" - and those protests are based on the ongoing economic crisis. --most importantly --*NEITHER GREECE NOR PORTUGAL HAVE THIS "ENTITLEMENT" GARBAGE YOU SPEAK OF.* (And GOP is misusing that term here in the US, too)

Greece and Portugal opted for a socialist government with high taxes and government programs and that caused a financial crisis. The riots in Greece were triggered when the government cut benefits to state workers. Your argument that they were caused by an incident with a 15-year old is similiar to the video excuse for Benghazi.

Tell that Greece, Janet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Greek_riots

And you need to tell both Greece and Portugal that they're socialist countries, too - nobody else knows, even! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

"...when he took office. The debt is 4 trillion dollars more" -- sounds like you're hoping we're not smart enough to know that over $1.3 trillion of that $4 trillion comes from the FY budget created by the Bush administration. You must be praying we don't know that Obama holds the record for the lowest budget increases of any president in the last 60+ years, too (and really really don't want us to know that Bush 2, Reagan and Bush 1 hold the records for the largest increases in government spending).

re: Mitt is talking about the 47-49% that don't pay taxes...

janet keeps defending MITT dissing 47% of the people...MITT has admitted he was wrong and he now loves 100% of us...perhaps janet thinks he will flip again...that aside for now...

MITT was talking about the 47% that likely voted or will vote for BO...firemen, police officers, and "po folks" working 2 or 3 jobs who may or may not pay taxes...oh/and;
BTW
those who do not pay taxes compute their taxes the same way MITT computes his 15% (maybe 0% in some yrs)...except most dont have hi paid tax lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes.

as said those who game the system are a small fraction of the 47% for which janet-MITT have contempt...i know of no one who would rather be unemployed on food stamps than working at a job paying more than poverty wages...

that more are unemployed and on food stamps is the result of failed GOP policies that created the great 08 recession.

The stimulus (even W's stimulus) DID worked. granted not to the extent we all would have wanted...but gawd help us if we had continued the GOP policies...and if;

GOPs job one had been to create jobs vice make BO a one 'termer' the stimulus would have worked much better...(ohand they have failed at their job#1. BO will be reelected.)

re: The debt is 4 trillion dollars more.

see reg's post and;

many reasons for the actual $ amt...a better comparison of GOP v DEM policies is % debt increase.

[to be contd]

[continuation]
FYI
spending increase %:

RR 82-85; 8.7 MW
RR 86-89; 4.9.MW
B1 90-93; 5.4 MW
BC 94-97; 3.2 MW
BC 98-01; 3.9 MW
B2 02-05; 7.3 MW
B2 06-09; 8.1 MW
BO 10-12; 5.2 FC
MW is marketwatch. FC is factcheck

re: If one evangelical GOP Congressman said something stupid...

actually the 'something stupid' is in the GOP platform...eg;

[CLIP] It isn't a couple of gaffes by renegade crackpots. It's the predominant view among Republican nominees for the nation's highest legislative body [the US senate]. It's what the Republican Party is.' http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/crackpots-are-now-mainline-gop/1258313

re: Humpty Dumpty...

actually 'alice in wonderland' is not a nursery rhyme nor just a child' story...

'The tale plays with logic, giving the story lasting popularity with adults as well as children...its narrative course and structure, characters and imagery have been enormously influential in both popular culture and literature, especially in the fantasy genre.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice's_Adventures_in_Wonderland

and HD epitomizes your illogical use of the language...

re: definition of hardworking and freedom...

surely you dont need a definition of hardwork and freedom...the concept of hardwork and freedom are universally accepted...your conflation of hardwork/freedom with janet-MITT disdainful opine of the 47% was/is the issue...

re: a bunch of ramblings.

'none so blind as those who will not see.'

[continuation]
FYI
spending increase %:

RR 82-85; 8.7 MW
RR 86-89; 4.9.MW
B1 90-93; 5.4 MW
BC 94-97; 3.2 MW
BC 98-01; 3.9 MW
B2 02-05; 7.3 MW
B2 06-09; 8.1 MW
BO 10-12; 5.2 FC
MW is marketwatch. FC is factcheck

re: If one evangelical GOP Congressman said something stupid...

actually the 'something stupid' is in the GOP platform...eg;

[CLIP] It isn't a couple of gaffes by renegade crackpots. It's the predominant view among Republican nominees for the nation's highest legislative body [the US senate]. It's what the Republican Party is.' http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/crackpots-are-now-mainline-gop/1258313

re: Humpty Dumpty...

actually 'alice in wonderland' is not a nursery rhyme nor just a child' story...

'The tale plays with logic, giving the story lasting popularity with adults as well as children...its narrative course and structure, characters and imagery have been enormously influential in both popular culture and literature, especially in the fantasy genre.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice's_Adventures_in_Wonderland

and HD epitomizes your illogical use of the language...

re: definition of hardworking and freedom...

surely you dont need a definition of hardwork and freedom...the concept of hardwork and freedom are universally accepted...your conflation of hardwork/freedom with janet-MITT disdainful opine of the 47% was/is the issue...

re: a bunch of ramblings.

'none so blind as those who will not see.'

The majority of people who don't pay Federal Income Taxes (which is who I assume he actually meant) are hard working families that simply don't earn enough money to be taxed. Cops, firemen, and military included---gunnyhighway

I did not know that cops, firemen and military didn't pay taxes. It's funny though I have to pay taxes on my retirement annuity and when employed I'm sure I don't make as much as they do, but I still end up paying taxes. I know they also get breaks on buying homes and I'm all for that because their public servants.

sounds like there's a lot you don't know, or maybe you just aren't paying attention. everyone who works pays federal payroll taxes, but people at the bottom of the wage scale pay no federal income taxes because their income falls below the cut-off level. the money deducted from their paychecks is refunded and if they have children they might even get back more than they had deducted. i know that when i was a junior enlisted member of the u.s. navy with a family i benefited from the earned income credit. kinda sad that we pay the people who we depend on to protect us from evil so little that they qualify for welfare, don't you think?

Amen, Gunny! Just ask the soldiers coming back today - 8-month waiting list to get counseling. Our own Tim Scott said at a Town Hall earlier this year that the medical costs for our soldiers were "astronomical," too, using that as basis to defend his support of the Ryan Budget, which cut $11 billion from vets' benefits. (Scott defended increased spending on other defense budget items, though, and even though he said he knew some of it was wasteful spending.)

During the Biden-Ryan debate Biden was using a cheap political technique to unnerve his opponent, but it didn't work. He was laughing, sneering and interupting in the most obnoxious way and most everyone could see than except you and a few other die hard liberals. You don't tell your enemies when you are going to withdraw. He said he didn't know that Chris Stevens didn't have enough security. Democrats think if they tell us a lie often enough we are going to believe it. They don't have much respect for anyone. If someone believes they can seperate their religious beliefs and values from there actions then they are nothing more than a hypocrite. It's tragic that's what so many "Catholics" are doing and exactly the reason why Obama surrounds himself with them and is trying to tell the Bishops what they should teach.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we now see a secular-humanist attack on these principles. They are trying to redefine marriage and the concept of the family that has existed since history began. My definition of freedom does not include being forced by the government to go against my religious beliefs and conscience and fund abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. Passing laws to regulate how you vote? You are going to have to give me some examples unless you are referring about voter-ID which would prevent voter fraud which is a good thing. I see Democrats as trying to force their lack of values on me in the government-controlled schools with "sex education" and so many other areas. Whether you have children is up to you, but when you choose to terminate their lives that is an entirely different matter.

This country was founded on democratic principles - meaning that all minorities would have equal presence and rights, and not exclusive to religion. Your claim of Judeo-Christian principles is defeated by the non-Christian elements reeking from your comments. And if you don't want the government to go against your religious beliefs ... .what about the beliefs of others? Shoot, time and a half pay is mandatory for Christian holidays; if your Jewish employer disagrees, are you supporting him?

Your defense of voter ID - which is a completely defenseless concept, since you will never be able to provide evidence of voter fraud that this concept could have corrected - further stipulates that you are operating as the spare tire of the GOP.

And by the way - attendance in any sex ed class in public schools requires written permission of the parent. So much for your insinuation of any "force" -

They are trying to redefine marriage and the concept of the family that has existed since history began. (Janet) Not exactly. There have been many different definitions of family throughout history. Even as recently as the the 19th century a Christian organization in this country, the very organization that Mitt Romney belongs to, used religion to redefined marriage and family in a very different way. Nowadays we define those organizations as cults.

My definition of freedom does not include being forced by the government to go against my religious beliefs and conscience and fund abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. (Janet) Hey, guess what? Neither do I. If you're referring to Planned Parenthood, then you should be relieved to know that federal funding of that organization is limited to women's health issues, not abortions.

The bottom line is that no one in this country has the right to force their religious beliefs on others. No matter how 'right' you believe you are, and how 'wrong' you believe they are. That's one of the principles this country was founded on. Too bad it came too late for a group of young women in Salem Mass in the late 17th century. Do you really want this country to be governed strictly by religious doctrine? Because if you do, I suggest you ask the women of Afghanistan how that's working out for them.

re definition of hard work and freedom...

janet say

‘I [JF] said he (BF) probably defined "hard working" as going to work and earning a living if you're able." So Benjamin Franklin and I are prejudiced if we believe hard working means going to work and earning a living?
I [JF] define HARD WORKING as limited government allowing me to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not taking the majority of my money in taxes, regulating me out of business, and denying me the right to conscience. Did I miss something here? Is the latter not what you are supporting? ‘

believe we all agree with apple pie and mother hood statement re hard working and freedom...what most janet-GOPS miss is janet-MITT’s stated disdainful opine of the 47%…

GOP (W and HH) policies (1929 and 2008) have failed to provide a sense of economic freedom suggested by accepted definitions…further the failed GOP policies have nullified efforts of hard working middle class and po folks...the folks (the 47%) MITT-janet say will not vote for GOPs...

not true and definition distractions beg the question/issue: janet-MITT disdainful opine of the 47%. so now that we agree on the definitions lets discuss issue and perhaps;

GOP failed policies and why anyone would want to repeat them...as mentioned repeating the same policies hoping for different results is the definition of stupidity.

PS

Re: Romney didn't call them "freeloaders".

Agree so to put what MITT said to rest he said:

‘There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.’

This in with combination with his previous comment, 'I'm not concerned about the very poor…shows his (and GOPs) utter disdain for the biblical least among us…

And absolutely no comprehension of those who live (survive) from paychk to paychk…

re: Why did the president try to cover-up the Libya scandal? Four Americans dead...

not sure he did...lets wait for the facts

in any event, if it was a cover up, it pale by comparison to the iraq war we were lied into...where are the weapons of mass destruction...4000 (NOT 4)american live were lost...and hundreds of thousand of iraqi lives...

re: Akin was the only one who made this statement that is totally stupid...

FYI
[CLIP] In spite of the massive public outcry from the right over Akin’s comments, the official GOP platform committee drafted a provision Monday supporting a “human life amendment” that would outlaw abortion without specifying exemptions for rape or incest http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/21/718461/2012-republican-platform-to-advocate-abortion-ban-without-rape-exception/?mobile=nc

cant find ref ... but believe at least 14 GOP senators are on board with akin/mourdock...(ref a previous post)

seems akin is not the only totally stupid one...

which constitution? The one that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Don't forget the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797, signed by most of the creators of the Constitution, too, which said "the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." As for when I started defining Christian elements .... apparently after you did. And yes - it *IS* mandatory that you be paid holiday rate for Christmas, even if you or your employer is not Christian. And while you have to provide ID to get on an airplane or get a job, those are transactions between you and a private entity. You already have to show ID when you first register to vote (or if you register by mail, you have to show it the first time you vote); why, then, do you have to show a govt ID every time in following? And we *already* have to show some type of ID, such as a license or voter registration card. But the GOP wants to make it more difficult - here in SC, your license lasts 10 years; do you look like your photo ID 9 1/2 years later? Are poll workers (who do it once every two years) qualified to determine the validity of your ID? And if you're a senior, you don't ever have to renew your ID again unless you're driving - this would subject seniors to automatic disqualification if their ID is expired (even though courts and banks require to take their expired IDs).

re: IF IT WAS NOT RETURNED IT WAS AN AUTOMATIC YES.

so did you respond...if not wha's yo point...with so much distortion and GOP sound bites...not sure it worth the afford...perhaps this Q (and yo answer) will provide some direction for an informative discussion...

I wasn't blaming the incident on any particular party necessarily. I was refuting your comment that the public schools require the written permission of the parent. They did not get my written permission, but my son was put in the class without it. I will say that the Democratic Party ,due to it's political partnership with Planned Parenthood does promote mandatory sex education which doe not stress abstinence only and promotes the use of birth control as "safe sex". My son was assaulted by these programs which forced him to view grotesque actual photographs of human genitals with lesions etc. This is not how I want my son to be instructed on his sexuality. He came home from school upset and told me about it. Could I have sued them? I doubt it.

re: HOW LONG

maybe until we get the facts re weapons of mass destruction...any idea when that will be...

PS
advice from wil rogers...when in a hole stop digging...

Keep saying it, Janet, but you're not telling the truth. Shoot, CTRL+F "Greece" - it's not even mentioned in the listing. Portugal is listed to NOT be socialist, but non-marxist-leninist

Note:
"This is a combined map of all countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under any definition, at some point in their history, color-coded for the number of years that the territory in question claimed to be socialist:
65 - 69 years
50 - 65 years
40 - 50 years
30 - 40 years Green Portugal
20 - 30 years
10 - 20 years
Under 10 years
Click on image to magnify.This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism. Their only common feature is using the label "socialist" for themselves, under any interpretation. There are few, if any, definitions of socialism that could fit all the countries on this list. However, most definitions of socialism fit at least some of these countries at some points in their histories.

There are many countries that have been ruled by socialist political parties for extended periods of time without ever adopting socialism as an official ideology in their names or constitutions. Such countries are not listed here. However, see the article on the Socialist International for an up-to-date list of countries that are currently ruled by member parties of the SI (the largest present day organization of socialist political parties).

Conversely, there are some countries that maintain constitutional references to socialism

i see you cut off your copy/paste when it explains that Portugal is not marxist-leninist socialist

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP YOU SENT ON WIKEPEDIA PORTUGAL IS BLUE WHICH INDICATES SO MANY YEARS AS A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. A COUNTRY CAN BE INCLINED TOWARDS SOCIALIST IDEOLOGIES SUCH AS THE US IS NOW. IT HAS TO START SOMEWHERE.

IT DEFINITELY WAS A PROBLEM BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND ME. THEY VIOLATED MY PARENTAL RIGHTS IN PUTTING MY SON IN THE SEX ED COURSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. THEY CLAIMED THEY SENT THE PERMISSION SLIP HOME, BUT I NEVER GOT IT. SINCE IT WASN'T RETURNED WITH A NEGATIVE RESPONSE, MY SON WAS PUT INTO THE CLASS WITHOUT MY PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE. IT' WAS A GOOD WAY TO GET AROUND PARENTAL PERMISSION. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAILED IT TO ME AT MY ADDRESS, NOT SENT HOME WITH A 13-YEAR OLD ADOLESCENT. IF I AM NOT AWARE, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO OPT OUT? WAS IT LEGAL OR ETHICAL? DID IT RESPECT MY RIGHTS AS A PARENT? I GUESS IN YOUR LIBERAL RULE BOOK IT DID.

Actually, Janet, Portugal is GREEN on the map. Read the only mention of Portugal in the entire entry, and you'll see that it's noted to have its own definition of democratic socialism, which the article stipulates has nothing to do with the traditional Marxist/Leninist formats you seem so inclined to declare. And on that note of Marxist/Leninist, isn't it funny how the GOP are borrowing the same economic programs created by Karl Marx?

On the circumstance with your son - go smack the school. It violated your rights, and a law in the process, too. But don't go trying to blame any political persuasion for the fact that his school committed a wrong.

again, Janet - check your sources. In the link provided, it stipulates that the shooting was the culmination of disrest based on many factors, including forest fires, global economy (note the word "global") and unemployment in the younger generation ... not one of which have anything to do with your original claim (the blatant falsehood of which you appear to be trying to cover by misdirecting your argument). Let me refresh you of your original claim: "The riots in Greece were triggered when the government cut benefits to state workers." .... well?

Pray hard, sister, cuz if Mitt Romney gets elected and/or the Republicans take over the Senate, we're gonna need those prayers!

I am praying that people will wake up before it's too late and the storm doesn't give Obama an opportunity to play the big hero like he did in the Bin Laden raid. He had to be pulled off the golf course to sign the order. Boy, that took a lot of courage. The pen is mightier than the sword. The Hollywood movie coming out 2 days before the election starring Obama after our military intelligence has been leaking out. It's totally disgraceful. He should be impeached, but there is no way with a democratic senate.

http://www.truethevote.org/news/new-hampshire-shows-how-easy-vote-fraud-can-be

This is not the way I heard it from Att.Gen Alan Wilson. People were claiming that so many people would did not have ID's in SC and would not be able to vote if the law was enacted. They quoted some huge number over 100,000 I believe. After they cleaned up the voter lists and removed the dead voters etc, it was more like 20,000 that did not have any kind of picture ID. Anyone can get a picture ID and it's a good to have one in case you are asked to present one to cash a check or whatever. The real problem is that voter fraud happens and I don't think anybody wants that do they? If having an ID can limit that to any extent, it should be enacted. If you are not trying to commit voter fraud, it won't be a problem for you.

I don't have a problem with earned income tax credits for firemen etc, but people are receiving the "earned income" tax credit who haven't earned any income there is no logic in that. Obama then signs laws that inhibit work incentives for welfare recepients or delegates the option to the states. People should be encouraged to work if able. Many people are receiving benefits and not paying into the system. The country can not afford to have 51% of the workers supporting the 49% receiving benefits. Simple math.

'Elsewhere, in South Carolina, the Department of Motor Vehicles is reporting that it has proof that dead voters in that state are somehow still voting. The DMV reported that at least 900 deceased voters had voted in recent elections.'

the above from JF's undated link...there was NO PROOF...is NO proof...voterID laws are the real fraud on the american people...what a criminal waste of legislative time...when there are real issues (eg, job creation) to be addressed...

re: The real problem is that voter fraud happens...' [jf]

the facts mam: the type of voter fraud (individual fraud at the ballot box) voterID laws protect against is IMPOSSIBLE if election official do their jobs...

JF's undated link is typical of false, misleading, misinformation (aka bs and lies), BO-haters spew...sad so many are taken in by the kochbro-ilk...who must be laughing themselves silly at how easy it was to dupe the BO-haters.

It was actually 240,000, Janet - about 8% of registered voters in the state. Still kind of low in comparison to nation-wide. About 11% of all voters in the US don't have a current state-issued photo ID. Almost a third of those 18 to 21 don't have one, either.

re: About 11% of all voters in the US don't have a current state-issued photo ID. Almost a third of those 18 to 21 don't have one...[reg say]

and kockbro-ilkies were well aware of this...and it's more than enough to win close elections for their candidates...

voterID law supporters must know this...which leaves the only viable reason for support is the immoral, unchristian, intention to knowingly suppress one's right to vote...ie, return to days of jim crow and poll tax...

I read the entire article, actually - and not one iota of it has anything to do with your claim of "The riots in Greece were triggered when the government cut benefits to state workers."

Yes, that's the one I am speaking of too. The one that says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBTING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. The HHS Mandate violates the free exercise of Catholics and other denominations to exercise their beliefs against the use of abortion inducing drugs and sterilization . It's like forcing Jews to serve pork in their delis or another example would be the law that was recently passed in Germany against circumcision. It violates their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. You can use birth control, just don't force me to pay for it.

Well I'm not sure where you got your "facts" about Planned Parenthood, but it sounds like you're saying that you don't mind them providing contraceptive services and abortions for other people, as long as your tax dollars aren't used to fund those activities. Bravo! That is a perfectly reasonable position, and I support it wholeheartedly. As for "promoting illicit sex and making huge profits on abortion"... I can't stop laughing long enough to go on...

As Fluke herself noted in her testimony, and in provision of her private medical records, medications used for birth control have other uses, too. Just like anticonvulsants are also used as antidepressants, meds for birth control are also used for other medical conditions, such as menorrahgia (or however it's spelled).

you, as do many GOPs, have difficulty explaining their opines...eg;

yo original statement:
Akin was the only one who made this statement that is totally stupid...

a response:
In spite of the massive public outcry from the right over Akin’s comments, the official GOP platform committee drafted a provision Monday supporting a “human life amendment” that would outlaw abortion without specifying exemptions for rape or incest

thus seems akin is not the only totally stupid one...ie, GOP platform is of similar opine...anyhow;

vice providing reasons you believe akin is the only idiot...you move the goal post...change the topic...

Your "human weeds" quote was proven false long ago, and only came from one very strange so-called religious group. I'm surprised that you are using that phrase that stems from such an anti-Catholic organization.

uh, yeah, and there was another shooter on the grassy knoll...

biden wasn't laughing at the iranians efforts to gain nuclear weapons, he was laughing at romney's sophomoric chest pounding bravado tough guy response. he, like most americans, has absolutely no idea how the middle east operates and probably believes the ignorant mantra that "i learned everything i need to know about islam on 9/11". bomb them into oblivion and that will solve all out problems, right?

you're right, i'm not an expert on ppfa. but, obvoiusly, neither are you. parroting right wing propoganda about an organization certainly does not make you an expert. for instance, you keep talking about the "huge profits" they reap from promoting illicit sex and deliberately passing out weak contraception. you seem to have missed the fact that they are a non-profit organization. even i know that much.

re: "human weeds" quote was proven false long ago, and only came from one very strange so-called religious group...

not sure

googled sanger and human weeds...and was shocked and disillusioned...i was vaguely aware of sanger as the founder of planned parenthood (PP)...however;
her quoted writings bare little resemblance to today's PP practice...

it would behoove PP to disassociate itself from sanger...ironic but some of her cherry picked writings would support anti-PP advocates...

my opine: 'human weeds' was the least of her inappropriate statements...

her saving grace: perhaps the ends she hoped to attain justify the means (her statements) she used.

any enlightenment re sanger appreciated...

They may be considered "a non-profit" but they make billions so it doesn't mean much to say that. Margaret Sanger was quoted in her own newsletters making similiar statements of an eugenist nature. She founded the Birth Control League, later named Planned Parenthood, to eliminate problems of poverty and openly stated this. Instead of helping the poor, she sought to eliminate them with birth control. They have pictures of her at a KKK meeting because she particularly despised the African Americans. Her final solution is working well, too. They have more abortions than live births and although they are only 13% of the population they have 37% of the abortions. They've tried to make her out as a hero for women's rights, but she was just another architech of death following in a long line.

Janet,
The Planned Parenthood teen sites do not even remotely resemble any reasonable definition of pornography (and yes, based on your comment I did visit the site and click through all the "For Teens" links). There is nothing puerile, salacious or even remotely erotic about any of the small thumbnail photos (all of which are close-ups on people's faces), the diagrams (similar ones can be found in any biology text book that covers the human body) or the blocks of text that further explain each topic on the sites (they provide straightforward, nonjudgmental answers to questions many young people have about their physiology and sexuality). If that is what you define as porn I hope for your sake you never stray into any of the internet's darker corners.

Janet, Fluke didn't tell Congress that she took birth control; here - read her entire testimony: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/ She doesn't say that once. What she does say is that medications used as contraceptives are also used for other medical conditions, like polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis. (And like I've pointed earlier, most medications have multiple uses, like anticonvulsants used as antidepressants, etc.) Not once does she use herself as an example. As for the ties between abortion and breast cancer? NONE. Try telling your side to the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute - both say that's a madeup story, and so does the World Health Organization. The link between breast cancer and birth control meds are slight (because only one type of birth control med is linked to this); caused by effect on estrogen levels, that small risk fades and eventually gone after birth control is no longer taken. Also, birth control meds are linked to REDUCTION in ovarian cancer.

re: I didn't change the subject I was making a point that Democrats believe free birth control and abortion on demand are the key issues for women

perhaps not BUT:

your original statement: 'Akin was the only one who made this statement that is totally stupid'...how; does 'making a point that Democrats believe free birth control...etc' relates to your original akin statement..how in anyway does what DEMs believe relate to akin making totally stupid statements...

in addition to changing topic you now state your misinformed opine as what DEMs believe...i know of no DEM women (or men) who believe abortion,etc are key issues for women...(also not related)

re: They weren't saying there is no such thing as rape
.
another change...no one said GOPs said there was 'no such thing as rape.' but to get past he/she/they said distractions...GOP's platform draft say:
'the official GOP platform committee drafted a provision Monday supporting a “human life amendment” that would outlaw abortion without specifying exemptions for rape or incest.'

opine: akin/muordock's statement re rape are attempts to justify the GOP platform position...

re: they [assume GOP lawmakers] said that a Romney spokesman said he would oppose abortion for instances of rape., but actually Romney supports it in cases of rape or incest.

actually! just what does MITT say before he said what he said he said...'whatever he said...and he stands by whatever it was he said'...think this is what MITT said.

As a Catholic myself, I have to point out the falsehoods in this comment above. Democrats do *not* believe in "free birth control" - they believe that it should be included in the Rx plans of health insurance in the same cost plans of other common medications (which most insurance companies already do). They do *not* believe in "abortion on demand" - they believe that opponents to abortion are focusing on the wrong end of the spectrum, and believe in a woman's right to choose until the focus is redirected. Abortion is *not* a "major platform issue" either - Democrats believe that it's just a method of distraction employed by the GOP to keep voters from focusing on real issues affecting our country. And Planned Parenthood does NOT "refer women for (mammograms) to other health care providers" - that is a service that it provides at each and every one of its facilities.

Redirect the focus back to the problem - we keep addressing abortion as the sole problem instead of the unwanted pregnancy that brought that problem about to begin with. We have many comparative studies of sex ed - they show that students in abstinence only classes have twice-high rates of STD, almost twice-high rates of teenage pregnancy; students in in-depth sex ed classes retain virginity longer.

there you go again - you make a false claim, and after someone introduces source that disproves your false claim, you stay at the argument with a "yeah, but..." angle. You claimed she argued for it for her own benefit, that she herself wanted birth control for her own recreational purposes, and you said that she herself said so ----but she didn't do any of that. You still won't give it up? The church is not supporting the use of those same meds to treat other conditions reasons, either - if it were, this wouldn't have come up before Congress. Another thing you're overlooking - our Catholic Church supports and includes coverage of viagra in its insurance plan, even though that medication is NOT required for men to produce children.

PROVE IT. You're again chasing a false argument. Planned Parenthood DOES (and btw, that's spelled "mammogram"). In fact, it's CDC's primary provider in the National Breast & Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program - http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/about.htm And your unending "primarily does abortions" claim is completely false - only 3% of its services, and which are not at all funded by govt grants.

Oh, for pete's sake ... how silly can your arguments be? Your quoting those radical racist groups that attempt to equate the term "eugenics" with Nazi eugenics - and that's silly. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html

The same study you cite from Cancer Research defeats your argument; it was done with african-american women as sole subjects of the study, and showed subjectivity of that specific ethnicity to breast cancer. It itself and its conductor (Rosenberg) repeatedly say that no link to breast cancer and oral contraceptives were found. Your Mayo Clinic citation pertains only to parous women - and you're 44% increase cite is actually a percentile growth of a percentile (1.24% to 1.79%). As for abortion having a direct link to breast cancer ...... freakish claim. Read that organization's own argument: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf It itself acknowledges that factors of smoking, age in first child bearing and nulliparous status are directly related ... then attempts to remove abortion from any connotation with those factors. Silly, Jane. It seems like you are one who's been subject to the very blatant falsehoods that particular political groups attempt to spread under the guise of faith.

Stanley, I'm not sure if its your computer or ours, but Hurricane Sandy has impacted some comment postings and other site features. That may be the issue for you. Please be patient with us as we get back to 100 percent.

THANKS for info...but this was happeing before that terrible sandy...

BTW amazing the damage done and winds (80mph) not close to hugo's 150 mph winds...

Stanley,
Sometimes, for reasons unknown (at least unknown to me anyway) our system has a glitch and turns on a function that requires comments be approved by the editor of the Patch site where the user first registered. We don't typically use that function when we set up our articles because we like to encourage discussion among users, and having to approve every comment before it posts would be a pain with our limited staff. We also take the position that for the most part our users are responsible and mature enough to carry on conversations without us editors there to hand-hold.
When that type of glitch happens, one of us has to go into our content management system and turn the comment approval feature back to automatic before user posts will show up again on the related story immediately. If you've had problems with your posts not showing up on certain stories in the past that may have been the issue.
I think Greg is correct that the recent (past couple of days anyway) problems with comments not posting is probably tied to the Hurricane Sandy mess (our corporate HQ is in New York after all). However, if you have problems commenting again please shoot an email to one of the editors so that we can make sure we fix the issue, or can get our tech support people working on it if we can't handle it.
Thanks,
— Jonathan

ATTN PATCH

re: , if you have problems commenting again please shoot an email to one of the editors so that we can make sure we fix the issue, or can get our tech support people working on it if we can't handle it.

well in responese to: Janet Frisco 6:07 am on Wednesday, October 31, 2012
the following submitted. NOT posted:

re: Margaret Sanger

PP should disassociate itself from many of it's founder's beliefs...they can be used (as janet does) to unfairly diss PP.

it is difficult/impossible to reconcile her philosophy with the current PP goals...especially to those, like me, with a limited knowledge of sanger and PP...
an in depth study is required to reconcile...and very few will take the time for a detailed read/study...it's much easier to quote bumper stickers that confirm our beliefs (aka biases and dogmas)...

and politicians successfully pander to the bumper sticker mentality...

PP is about pro-choice education and women's health. it does not advocate sanger's philosophy of, eg, racism and eugenics.

OTOH
some of sangers statements make sense...eg, eliminate some problems of poverty (especially in developing countries) with birth control education...

opine: there'll come a day when the church and pp will have a meeting of the minds...knowledge will overcome dogma...it is called progress. then histroy will ask how could they (we) have been so stupid...

Jonathan

re: 'The "glitch" happens when you don't sign in before you post a comment. Then it will say "pending approval' instead of giving you the option to delete'

FYI

this info maybe helpful to the techs.

i dont experience above glitch. i always sign on before posting...and on occasions the submitted comments do not post even tho they list under 'what people are talking about...

other times they show neither on 'what people are saying' nor under comments...

sometimes after signing on and posting the 'pending approval' comes up and sometimes it doesnt...

after repeated most 'submits' post...but a few never post...

of course it may not be a PATCH issue...could be my silly computer playing games with me...

ps. it has been 'mo better' the last couple of days...but it comes and goes

pps. thanks PATCH for opportunity to discuss opines.

PS

ditto most of janet frisco's pro-life propaganda links...give them a little mo credit than her...

neither to i give pro-choice propaganda credit w/o some fact checking...

repeating:

opine: there'll come a day when the church and pp will have a meeting of the minds...knowledge will overcome dogma...it is called progress. then history will ask how could they (we) have been so stupid...

and perhaps a day will come that proves jefferson's opine correct:

“And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.”

think jefferson went too far...but have to recall what JFK said:

'At a gathering of Nobel laureates, President John Kennedy commented that never had a more impressive array of intellect been present at one time in the White House, except “when Jefferson dined alone'

Um, yes - there *are* prolife groups getting federal funding, and lots of it, too. As for "promote the truth," they are typically criticizes for spreading false information on the general subjects of sex, birth and abortion, too - directly the primary funder of Congress: http://www.chsourcebook.com/articles/waxman2.pdf

As for Catholicism or even faith in general, have you read me once claiming to be in favor of abortion? *NO* All that I've submitted is proof that your many claims here on this thread are FALSE (As a Catholic, I also believe lying is a sin.)

You want to address the problem of abortion? Or taxes, global economy, environment, unemployment, education or any of the many other topics you've commented on? And without any sharp criticism? THEN START TELLING THE TRUTH. You haven't. You've just copied/pasted and repeated ad nauseum the completely false arguments that silly groups (TAX PAYER FUNDED) try to get dumb people to believe, and which they only use to disguise their true intentions. ("Abortion is wrong .... so let's make laws for Voter ID!" There's even a so-called religious group claiming the protection of the environment is Satan's project.)

Sounds like more misdirection from you, Janet.

distraction are GOP SOP...that said:

re: 'viagra doesn't prevent contraception, etc...that every act of sexual union should be open to life.'

right, viagra is not a form of birth control...quite the opposite...it fosters unwanted pregnancies against God's will...ie, isnt it HER/HIS's will some men shouldn't be fathers...

OK, factious comment...but make as much sense as pro-lifers position HE/SHE is against safe sex and prevention of STD...and didn't approve of preventing 44% of maternal deaths in developing countries.

ref:
Planning and provision of birth control is called family planning. Safe sex can also help prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases [STD]...in developing countries has cut the number of maternal deaths by 44% (about 270,000 deaths averted in 2008) but could prevent 73% if the full demand for birth control were met.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control

The report was not conducted by Waxman; it was given to a committee that Waxman chaired. *Read the front page* - "Special Investigations Division" and "Prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman." And it would have said another name if another person was the chair of that committee. Also - the report doesn't say that abortion is good for a woman's health; it says that the investigation found that pro-life pregnancy clinics were providing false and misleading information.

re: There are no pregnancies against God's will

you know this how?...and what else do you know of HER/HIS will...

a statement: 'there are no acts of safe sex education against HER/HIS will (ie, God approves safe sex education)'... is as creditable as your statement re pregnancies and God's will.

IE/in sum;

opine: your statements re God's will, like many of your opines, lack credibility, logic and practicality...

opine: history will judge the true believer pro-lifer as it has judged the segregationist...it called progress...see jefferson's quote in above post.

re: 'the wisdom of nature'

does nature's wisdom trump HIS/HER will...are acts of nature HER/HIS will...eg, did God or nature will 'sandy' the hurry-cane...

re: 'Any sexual act that is not [open to life] is immoral.'

'birth control' is immoral...'actually meant to say that'...do you really mean/believe this...i'm not privy to folks' (including catholics) bedrooms, but bet a lot of them commit immoral acts and thus condemned to hell...and for sure,for sure, homosexuals are.

BTW just what is the catholic church's (any church's) position on birth control...

sigh...

Again, what you call the "Waxman Report" was not done by Waxman. It only has his name on it as the recipient, since he was chair of the committee it was issued to. Oh, and by the way? Your mention of Guttmacher Institute in a positive light - did you know that it's a division of Planned Parenthood?

these changes that you refer to don't occur until latter second trimester, though. Abortion is only legal in the first trimester, unless the woman's life is at risk. I see that you're using the very general term of "before 32 weeks," though - and that's misleading.

Just like every medical procedure or medication, a patient is legally entitled to know each and every risk. And not just by their doctors, either; take a look at any Rx ad - all possible risks must be listed. (Of course, the pharmaceutical companies don't want to do that ... and which political party gets all the donations from that industry?) THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR ABORTION OR BIRTH CONTROL. As for your comments on sex education - as I've already said on this thread, I think you should take up your own personal circumstance with the school. The law says that parental approval is required; if yours was not adequately sought .. BLAME THE SCHOOL, and not a political party, especially when that political party itself is on your side in this case. (And as for the results of that class, you have that mixed up, I must say - countless studies find that children in comprehensive sex ed, which is of medical foundation, retain virginity longer, while others in abstinence only have much higher risks of STD and teenage pregnancy. Here's one of those studies - http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/12/19/sex-ed-extends-virginity/1679.html) And you're still going on about Waxman, insinuating he did this study or he requested it; FALSE - he was the chair of the committee, so his name automatically appears on the document.