But looking like hags and making stupid statements is OK for Democrat women like Pelosi or Falk? Political bias seems to lead these sexist evaluations.

Hmmmm. From where I sit, the intellectuals have driven the country into the ground. So I doubt Palin, et.al give a darn about sucking up to their ilk. It's a healthy outlook.

Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, Klop, Pelosi and Falk still come across as idiots, regardless of what they are wearing, Bren. The clothes don't make the women. The ideas and actions do. How revealing you say an intellectual's opinion is based on what you wear. As if lefty women "intellectuals" actually would be worth looking at. Bow-wow!

@Bren...I get it. The public has become so enamored with image that the message gets lost. It's funny how true intellectuals are put off by the pandering of image over substance. Just look at the pounding that FLOTUS has taken from the knuckle draggers for her image.

@bren. You freakin SNOB. You pathetic stinking SNOB. I can smell your liberal stench through my computer. You don't have a clue what sophistication is. Typical liberal hate and intolerance. You are the most hateful people that ever walked the earth.

It's about professionalism. Pelosi, Falk, Rice, Clinton, et al dress with respect for the high offices they hold, no different than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wearing business attire. Even without ties and sleeves rolled up, there's no doubt that they can be back in business mode within seconds should the need arise. I do question the marketing strategy behind "soccer mom."

Mr. Ruble, the responses from Hershal, Gear, and Tim (so far) exemplify the success of the objectifying, misogynistic, image-over-substance meme perpetrated by the far right. Sadly the disparity between conservative male and female professional presentation is missed.

@Lyle: As a would-be intellectual yourself, you should have been really put off by that big smile and hopey-changy garbage the rest of us knuckle-draggers saw through. Still haven't heard that outrage from you, so you've made your own point as to how low the credibility of the intellectual set has sunk.

As for the sitting first lady, we don't care what she looks like. It is the content of the character, not the color or looks of her skin. Basically, she is the chief nanny of the free world... a dubious achievment at best, and one most freedom-loving Americans are repulsed by. You see, we suffer the malady of thinking we know foods are best for our children, and when and how much they should eat. We throw away more food than ever now, thanks to the Mrs. directing the federal agencies to force yet another agenda down the throats of school districts and their young charges. No, they won't eat their peas or humus sandwiches. They will just spit them out into their empty milk cartons.

"...we don't care what she looks like..." That's why there was a robust discussion about the First Lady's derriere on another comment thread. Let's be honest and accept the direct evidence on this comment thread and others, there is focus on aesthetics from a segment of the far right.

@Bren, you're disgusting and arrogant. @Lyle, I hope your comment wasn't meant to support her diatribe.

Clothes don't make the man/woman.

I've never see any of these conservative women that you mention dress like the POTUS wife in the photo link. http://thegrio.com/2012/06/05/gop-candidate-facebook-post-mocks-michelle-obama/

Lyle and bren- I would not count you amongst true intellectuals.

Bren, "It's about professionalism"

Take a look at the First Lady above.

Whats with the Belt?

Looks real professional. I wonder what you would look like with the Belt look?

Mau - Your comments often have opposing messages within the same comment. You state clothes do not make the man/woman, and lambaste commenters that say clothes and style do make a difference to many people, then you provide a link criticizing an outfit worn by the First Lady.

@Dirk, I only provided an example to contradict Bren's comments that only conservative women have bad taste in clothing. I can also contradict her statement that conservative men have this down. Chris Christie could certainly use some fashion advice.

Bren - C'mon, I about spit up my purple cush. several days ago you were making bumper sticker slogans and now you want to be taken seriously? Professionalism? You would not know it.

mau, Dirk has exposed what appears to be some confusion on your part. Why don't you take a break, re-read my comment to understand what I actually wrote, figure out what you're actually trying to convey and try again in a bit.

Ima, is it possible you can't differentiate between styles of writing?

What, exactly, does the presidents middle name have to do with anything?

Do you call the GOP candidate Willard Mitt?

So the entire discourse about defunding health services for women, taking control of women's reproduction away and potentially banning hormonal birth control, all goes away because of a forum?

What's the catchphrase from Staples again? "That was easy!"

Bren- If you want birth control, buy it yourself. Its not the federal government's responsibility to make sure Ms. Fluke can go screw. You want an abbortion, go get one; but not on our dime. Out tax dollars are not your contraceptive. Plain and simple...

Free Thought - that is what he called himself.

Brian Dey, why on earth would the government start paying private health insurance premiums? Many insurance companies already included birth control coverage in multiple states, as legislated with bi-partisan support at the state level. You don't pay for that, why would you start?

Oh, so your earlier comment referring to our president as "Barack Hussein" was an example of how democrats see someone's race as their first defining characteristic?
Or are you providing an example of how not to do this? ; )

Or is it Barry Soetoro? Or is it Barak Hussein Obama? Which is it bren? And what does Hussein have to do with race?

Brian Dey, I'll wait for Dr. Funkhauser to explain his words, thanks.

you are a racist Dirk.

@dirk A little dirck....are you married to brenny. You hate filled idiot.

It is always amazing to me how a progressive can make an observance and be accused of the very thing he/she is observing. The GOP is struggling with minority support - including women - this election. So much so Mr. Romney is stumping and putting out adds overtly racist (about welfare) - which charges have been de bunked.

This does not make me racist or bigoted. This makes me observant. How do minority groups poll for the Republican candidates? Very very low is the answer.

Dirk: I don't know why anyone would watch the Conventions. They are just a pep rally. I would think it would be more enjoyable to go to the local high school and watch thier pep rally.
Conventions are free advertising, nothing like watching a 3 hour TV commercial.

It's important to show diversity, I've seen that done across the spectrum. It's especially useful for the GOP at this time considering their current segmented polling stats.

Freethought Troy, I believe it's because marketing strategy/tactics aren't in the skill set of everyone here, that's why they are receptive to the targeted promotional efforts.

Dr. Saul Funkhouser - You have been watchingtway too much HBO where you got your character name, a dentist. You must not be that bright, as pretending to be a doctor can land you in prison.
How am I a racist? An accusation without any evidence shows lack a general lack of skill regarding a debate or forum.

Tim - You are an ordinary Tea Party minion. Leave it to the bigger boys with better skills.

Who cares. So it's wrong and shameful for whites to support a Republican candidate. Why is Obama always surrounded by whites in the background when he speaks, when the event is specifically a black event like a NAACP rally.

Mau - that sounds really bad. I don't think you meant to say what you did. What you said was it's ok for Republicans to be racist because implying the President is just as racist. White people can support the NAACP. I happen to be white and support the NAACP. Republicans are as welcome to support a black candidate, a white candidate, male, female and any and all candidates one can think of.

@FreeThought, my comment sounds bad but none of those accusing the Republicans of being racist are? Day after day I read and hear liberals crying about how the Republicans are racist and have to do something about it. And that is total and complete BS.

So I'm a female, eh Tim? Science indicates that "conservatives" have a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala activates during periods of stress/anxiety/fear. Physical brain size is less important than cognitive
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds/comments)

Keep posting Tim! And thanks for the fashion and cosmetic treatment tips! Are you Tim Gunn?

Tim - Thanks for your sex comments re women. You are making lots of points, but not for the Republicans.

Yes - out of around 4,000 votes 129 was present. 3% of total votes.

4,000 votes was the point. 3% of total votes was the point.
Vocusing on 129 missed the point.

Bren, your experience on Patch indicates you know very little and have less credibility. Stop with your boorish and smug academics. All fraud.

Thank you for putting me in my place, Ima Hippee. I am ashamed.

; )

Hmmm, it's an interesting theory, but it leaves me with no explanation for my long endowment. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that my generous equipment is one of the reasons I'm such a good liberal - after all, there's a certain confidence that comes from having heavy cojones, which means that I don't have to act aggressive, mistreat women, or carry a phallic pistol around.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/gun-men-weapon-taller-holding-bigger_n_1423190.html

It's science folks - per the link above, holding a gun makes men look bigger and tougher, especially in the mirror, and especially prior to or following an act of self-stimulation. That's the real reason why conservatives are so fond of them.

And that makes her a lessor woman your liberal mind Randy? You libs are all alike.

No, it makes her someone without the qualifications to be saying that the GOP platform on women's issues is just fine and dandy. She hasn't the life experience to address it.

We libs are not attacking mother hood. We never did. We are attacking the Conservative bias toward lower class women and the Romneys disconnect to the struggles of lower to middle class women. Ann Romney never once had to raise her boys after working 8-10 hours that day. Chances are, she also had help (with four boys, I honestly don't blame her - I only have two girls and would hire help if I could afford it).

Full time moms are not less women. Full time moms are angels. The issue isn't full time moms. The issue is how few full time moms are left (the number is shrinking). The issue is the challenges of most moms in this country and the refusal of any Conservative to take those challenges seriously.

Another case of thier perpetual victimhood standing in the way of an honest and mature discussion.

Let me further ask you, Tim, what's your position on stay at home men? Does it make them 'lesser'?

I've been both stay at home housekeeper/childcaregiver and breadwinner. They're both hard.

Well if that's the way it's going to be then I guess you're without qualifications to comment on women's issues because you haven't got a vagina, Randy....

Seriously....do you think it's at all possible to understand something without experiencing it? Think Ann Romney might have some friends, some relatives, be aware of women who've worked for a living?

Stupid argument. Try something else.

But you support a failed president that has never run anything including a business, worked much in the private sector, is not white, Hispanic, Asian, Indian etc. showed up in the Senate to vote present. But yet this is all OK in your mind and qualified to be a president. Obama had zero experience in the things that he would be responsible for yet because Ann is a republican and a women the gloves are off. One is the president, the other is a wife of someone running for president.

Ann Romney has accomplished more, run more, has more experience in the real word than you dear savior Obama She has volunteered for no pay most of her adult life. And by the way, is not running for president.

"Well if that's the way it's going to be then I guess you're without qualifications to comment on women's issues because you haven't got a vagina, Randy...."

I've been intimately acquainted with one all my adult life, McBride. Decent contraception doesn't just affect women -- it affects family life -- and that's just one of the GOP issues that affect families, not just women.

It's a valid argument, actually. Their are plenty of organizations who represent those with vaginas who vehemently disagree with Mrs. Romney and her husband's position on women's issues. I believe the Democrat who has been ripped apart (again) here has a vagina also.

I for one have friends, relatives and am aware of single moms. They would love to be stay at home, but they can not be. Thier husbands left them and give them no support. They are 100% on thier own. They want control over thier own bodies and would like a say in thier reproductive rights and healthcare. They don't want a panel of men to decide the morality of birth control for them... most of whom ,theoretically, shouldn't have use or need of birth control because they are supposed to be celebate.

@Steve -- Given my druthers, I'd have supported Hilary. I'll still support President Obama over the two alternatives.

Then just admit it's a boneheaded argument, Randy. If you don't like the stand, argue against the stand, rather than attempting to marginalize her support of it by claiming she has no right to comment because she hasn't worked for a living.

She's no less qualified to comment on the issue than you are. Or, if you want to stick with your argument, she's more qualified to do so because she's a woman.

Hypocritical isn't it looking over your original statement. How can one support Obama, he has zero life experience in the fast majority of his daily tasks and responsibilities.

McBride, she had every right to comment even if the remark was the equivalent of 'let them eat cake' (which was made in all innocent seriousness). It just fell flat because of her limited viewpoint.

Steve, I have no obligation to defend my views to someone who dismisses me as 'filth'.

Not really. You just don't like the platform yourself. You're not a woman, so the only way you feel comfortable criticizing her stance (since she is one) is to suggest she's not the right kind of woman. Again, if a certain set of life experiences is required to hold a valid viewpoint on an issue, there are plenty you've commented on here where it could be argued you don't hold one.

Steve - according to http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9490/ Then-Senator Obama voted 279 times vs. 68 times did not vote. Where are you getting your information that he spent his time voting present? I guess I just want to be clear.

Let's not forget the President grew up in a single mother home in a lower class. If we are talking about life experiences and making descisions, I wouldn't go toe to toe with a man who worked from that class to President of the United States vs. a man who was born into wealth and never had to scrape by, or been descriminated against, a day in his life.

This is a perfect example of liberal filth, no more explanation is needed you did perfectly.

Troy - Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The Illinois state Legislature allows members to vote "present" rather than "yes" or "no."

Yes, everything was handed to Romney, he just sat on the couch and the resume was written for him. What an idiotic statement and the reason "We Built It" is the calling card of this campaign.

Fact Check.org: Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate.

Calling my opinions (and me by default) doesn't change these facts.
This was debunked in 2008 during the primary by the way.

Thank you for confirming my post as fact, it is appreciated you went out of your way for Steve® with your google machine.

Taking one wrong word (replace "day" with "job"), and using it as an excuse to drag in the stay-at-home mom meme was no different than playing laser tag with a cat. I'm sure there are strategists on both sides reading every Tweet and comment and looking for this type of crapola. Would that they invest the same amount of energy and cost in creating jobs and feeding hungry kids.

The sad whimsy in the entire frenzy is that Ann "You People" Romney's stay-at-home motherhood experience is/was a shade different than most others', as Randy1949 describes above.

@Bren -- No one has answered my question yet about why it's legitimate work when Ann Romney does it, but it isn't when a single mother of five boys needs government assistance. The single mother needs to go out and find a paying job.

Randy1949, I doubt you will receive an answer as there is no rationale.

Randy you are a sexist ***, but only to conservative women. I'm been a stay-at-home mom since 1986. In that time I have put in many unpaid volunteer hours in the community.

@mau -- I won't respond in kind. I respect stay at home mothers (and fathers) and feel the work they do is valuable. Maybe you can tell me why taking care of your own children and house doesn't qualify for the welfare work requirement?

@Randy, I'm guessing because if it were ever to be that way, why would anyone want to go to work. I would have had the best of both worlds, my husband supporting me and the government supporting me. I could be wearing the latest styles, getting my hair and nails done every week, going to the casinos, driving a new car. Instead I drive 20 year old vehicles, work in the yard and garden, haul wood, do some temp jobs here and there, and scrimp and save for the future.

Randy- Does being poor make someone more superior? God, you people on the left are just way to out there.

Here is your answer Randy, because she did it without getting a government hand-out.

Goodness, you people on the Right come to some daft conclusions about what you think I said.

Either it's work or it isn't, Brian. And if I were a betting person, which I'm not, because i don't have Mitt's bucks to throw around, I bet Ann Romney had nannies and household staff to help with those five boys.

@Randy,

Do you have Obama's bucks to throw around?

► I bet Ann Romney had nannies and household staff to help with those five boys.◄

How does your foot taste? At the very least do a little research before you blast off any more sexist comments.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/other-war-moms-no-nanny-no-maid-romney-home/51142/

Randy1949
7 minutes ago
Randy is certainly an idiot.

And this clone account is certainly a troll.

The issue is that the remark was taken completely out of context. It was never a slam against stay-at-home moms and the right-wing strategists well knew it. It's a red herring, like pointing a laser toy and watching the cat run after it. They know the low information base will run after anything they throw out, no matter how fact-free and ludicrous.

Who is John Galt?

A fictitious character from Atlas Shrugged, a utopian, me-centric screed written by Paul Ryan's atheist, adulteress, passport bride, pro-choice hero, Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and other Rand screeds are required reading for Ryan's staff.

Does that answer your question, and why do you ask?

Dirk, you could toss Ron Johnson into that mix as well. He received an executive position at his new brother-in-law's company PACUR when he married BEMIS heiress Jane Curler (belated wedding gift). How fortunate to have been handed this job in a spin-off plastics company created specifically to support BEMIS. It provided a great deal of in-the-trenches, work-from-the-bottom, business-building experience that will be so helpful in garnering staff respect and bi-partisan cooperation/support in Congress. Wait, a few months back it was reported that DC GOP staffers were trying to help Johnson's staff find other placements as Johnson was rumored to be on the verge of firing his entire staff. And Ron "Our Last Shred of Freedom" Johnson hasn't precisely established himself as a team player in Congress. Imagine.

Speaking as an atheist, I find it very very odd such a religious conservative like Paul Ryan and the rest of the TeaVangelicals (heard that from a Conservative Republican on Morning Joe this morning - before I get lit up by the Consevatives here) consider Atlas Shrugged such an important work. Ayn Rand was a raging Athiest.

Wonder how many more fun facts there are rolling about there.

FTT - speaking personally, because I'm capable of disagreeing with some portions of a person's beliefs and agreeing with others. Why are liberals so flabbergasted with the idea of conservatives who do that?

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
― John Rogers

John Galt is the hero of the book without the orcs.

Just like in the book (written in the 50's), people like Dirk want everyone to work towards the lowest common denominator. Wealth and success are bad. Successful people can't "empathize" with mere housewives. What a bunch of poop! The left's entire class envy thing is getting real old, since they only apply it when it works for their needs at the time.

Bren, Your "Does that answer your question, and why do you ask?" would indicate that you never read the book, so like everything else, your angry uneducated opinion is of no value.
It's a book Bren, get over it.

Bren - I did notice that many of the wifes, parents, and in-laws of Republican politicians were holding up those "We Built That" signs.
It is not how far you succeed in life, it is how far you came. Romney is just now exceeding his father's political progress. His father was also a Governor and Republican Presidential Primary candidate.

Contrast that with Obama and Biden.
Con .

Poor Dirk, not able to provide for your family? Is this where all of the hatred you have comes from, you inept ability to man up?

This new 'Randy1949' is a clone account and not me. I don't suppose there's anything i can do about it, but please check the profile if 'Randy1949' is writing anything that seems out of character for me.

Randy, try writing your local editor. By rights they should terminate the other one. That constitutes harassment

Bren- have you had to meet a payroll? nobody hands you that. Have you ever had to market a product? Make sure machinery is running? Until you do, you don't know squat. And the majority of us who voted for Senator Johnson, didn't vote him in to get along with others. But just go on that class warfare them like Obama. It lost here twice and lost alot in Congress their jobs in 2010. It will lose again.

Thanks, Bob, I will. I don't normally run whining to 'teacher', but this is low.

Dirk, so...you missed out on life and you resent anyone who has money? Still dealing with that unresolved aspect of life? Um, at least you are smarter than Joe Biden?

Greg, of course I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead during my own hideously dark "ism" phase beginning at about age 12. I dismissed Rand as a pretentious, ham-handed poseuse (had 5 years of French in by age 12-I thought poseuse described Rand well and have no reason to change my mind since).

Dirk, why I am not surprised that the low information foot soldiers were holding "We Built That" signs. I'm sure a statistical zero actual watched a contextual video of that speech. Would Romney have been able to pull himself up by his bootstraps like Clinton, Obama, and the like if he hadn't been born into privilege? Hm.

Brian Dey, meet payroll? Yes. Product marketing? Yes. Fix broken machinery? Yes. But I didn't build the U.S. highway system, that was a combined effort of taxpayers, engineers, and workers. I surmise the majority of people who voted for Ron Johnson did so because he was a Republican and know virtually nothing about him. Why would you vote for someone who is a successful advocate and can inspire bipartisan support? Of what help would that be to anyone?

And enough with the "class warfare." Rovian projection (patent pending?) has been tagged and bagged. That sort of nonsense only works with the low information voter these days.

@Tim...I felt fine after Walker won the recall, why do you ask? You are sadly mistaken if you think that I am that invested in a two bit opportunist like Walker. BTW, I do support LGBT causes and if someone decides that they want to cross dress, it's none of my concern. You certainly get excited about insignificant things.

Tim, I was disappointed that ALEC won the recall election but pleased that the one-party control in state government was paused. Balance=compromise=progress.

But the writing calibre and concepts are simplistic enough for the average middle schooler, if that helps! ; )

Bren - Ayn Rand's simplistic concepts and writing caliber attest to her knowing her reading audience quite well. I wonder if Ryan got a merit badge for reading her rape-filled novels.

Dirk and Nick...two no talent ass hats, losers in the game of life

@hugo - judging by your comment, you are the loser, unable to put a decent comment together. I know. I know,...you wish you had stayed in school past the 3rd grade, but you had to get married.

Neither will screwing over poor people and cutting taxes even further. The plan would be a balance approach. Cut spending but allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. They should never have happened in the first place. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/238602/chart-debt-without-bush-tax-cuts/

And I can predict your answer.

Can you predict MY answer Randy?

I knew you wanted to raise my taxes. It starts with the "rich", but now I'm thrown under the bus as well. Anything to grab a buck from hard working Americans to give to those who don't even try.

I won't give some BS line about the poor wanting to be poor, but what have "the poor" done to improve their lives? Those of us that hold jobs work to get what we have. Why can't they?

Cutting the Bush-Era tax cuts on just the rich? Or cutting the Bush-Era tax cuts for everyone? Because if you reverse all the tax cuts, bothe the CBO and the Federal Reserve have stated clearly that it would send us back into recession. If not, then you are talking about just taxing the rich and the CBO has already stated that the revenue would not put a dent in the debt.

I can tell you that ending those tax cuts will cost the poor alot more because watch inflation rise by raising prices to cover those extra taxes, or watch unemployment rise for the same reasons.

And what are you willing to cut from? I hear this "balanced approach" all the time from the left, yet I hear no plan on what would be cut. Where are the specifics?

See, that is the difference between Obama and Romney. Obama has campaign rhetoric, but no plan other than tax the rich. He has not laid out any specifics on spending cuts which leads me to believe he has none. Romney/Ryan have been very specific. The details are amazing and blunt.

The truth is, and this is the part you don't want to believe, is that unless you do something, which will mean sacrifice on everybody's part, not just the rich, we may lose the very things you want saved.

The left has gone so far from it's hayday of John F. Kennedy. Your new motto is more like; "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what's in it for me.

Yeah, predictable. Can't let taxes go back to the pre-Bush levels because it would cause a return to the recession. Rinse, lather, repeat. Funny how the Right only got the 'deficits are bad' religion once a Democrat came into office.

Alinsky, I meant all the taxes, and that includes my federal income tax returning to 15%. I pay taxes too, you know. And at least the extra money I'm paying would go toward reducing our deficit and debt rather than some illusory tax break for the 'job creators' that never worked before.

Cuts? Let's go ahead and let the sequestration happen. Cuts across the board, including defense. No sticking it to Gramma, the working poor, and the unemployed while Halliburton gets to pocket millions.

"The left has gone so far from it's hayday of John F. Kennedy. Your new motto is more like; "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what's in it for me."

Nope. I am willing to pay more taxes. I just don't want to eat catfood while Mitt Romney gets a further tax break.

Brian, I won't pretend to know all the details of the federal budget. The solution is to control the influence of special interests. Decisions get made that boost small groups and do nothing for the rest of the country except reduce revenue. The only method of controlling special interests is to elect legislators who know when to draw the line between ambition and selling one's country down the river. That's something we the voters can work on but it will take time.

Next, a revenue review. Are we maximizing our revenue streams? Are we discounting in areas where benefits haven't materialized from a social/financial standpoint? If the answer is yes, look hard at those areas. The Bush era tax cuts did nothing to help the economy as we know, especially in the top tier. Let's look at that. We're cutting back on action in Afghanistan and Iraq; we're still paying contractors in Iraq and we still have military and contractors in Afghanistan. The cost of one contractor is exponentially higher than deploying similarly-trained military personnel. We understand why we have contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan not so much. Let's look at renegotiating/ending mercenary contractors and replacing with military ($40-$50,000k v. $800,000/$900,000k). There are many sensible ways to attack the problem without hurting people. With a scalpel, not a nuclear bomb.

Randy, do you really believe that Barack Hussein Obama would take your 15% and NOT spend it on more entitlements for votes?

The Anti-Alinsky: I have said it before, I will say it again. Why do you insist on using the President's middle name? Do you call the Republican Candidate Willard Mitt Romney?

You do realize the constant use of his middle name in discussions make you sound racist and bigoted, right?

Because it is - and you do.

Now - I want to be clear. I am not calling you racist. It is my goal to point out saying things like you do is racist and I honestly don't think you want to sound that way.

@Anti-Alinsky -- Votes are bought in various ways. People need entitlements because some of them have been put out of work and really need some help. Mitt is buying the votes of people who will get their taxes lowered at the expense of yours. The Romney tax cuts will raise the overall tax rate for the middle and working classes. I guess you don't belong to that group, eh?

@Randy1949 -

Can you cite a primary source, not a biased third party analysis, showing where Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle and working classes please?

Thanks!

Regarding Obama raising taxes on the middle and working classes, we have a primary source - it's called the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare, wherein the so-called penalties are redefined by the Court as being taxes.

No, JRH, I can't, because any source I cite will be, by your estimation, biased.

I have no problem with a tax increase to fund a useful program like the ACA. I have a problem with a tax increase that allows millionaires to keep more of their earned income.

Tax Policy Center (TPC) they released a study that showed that the mostly unspecified parts of Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals would amount to a giant tax increase on low- and middle-income households. Donald Marron, TPC’s director, as his deputy at the CBO and George W. Bush appointed him to the Council of Economic Advisers. Donald is also off-the-charts smart and scrupulously honest, characteristics he shares with the study’s authors and the other TPC scholars.

That is a copy/paste from Forbes magazine - not one accused of Liberal bias. Liberal bias: a bogus accusation to begin with.

@Randy1949 -

A primary source cannot be biased - it represents the cold hard objective facts.

Apparently what you are saying is that a primary source for such information does not exist, and in that case, the conclusions you espouse here can therefore not be true.

According to the primary source of the tax policy proposed by Mitt Romney on his campaign website, he wants to lower the marginal rates paid by all income taxpayers and completely eliminate the cap gains/dividends/interest tax on anyone earning less than 250k/yr in adjusted income.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

This is appears to contradict the assertions that you've made about Romney's position on taxes.

So how do account for this, referencing only primary sources?

In regards to Obama, there are tax increases contained with the ACA, a primary source document. The S. Court decision, also a primary source document, has re-defined the word 'penalty,' as such word is used throughout the ACA, and instead qualified those penalties as being taxes.

As the rich are already insured and the poor are already covered by government safety net and social programs, these new taxes and tax increases would logically tend to most impact the middle and working classes.

This is all irrefutable FACT. Unless you can cite to a primary source, I have no choice but to call your assertions little more than a bold faced LIE and you a LIAR for perpetuating them!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

@FreeThought Troy -

Both the TPC and Forbes analysis makes a lot of assumptions that are not included anywhere in Romney's official tax position, correct? They also fail to take into account the other aspects of his platform which would significantly cut federal government spending, and instead set the baseline at current spending and revenue levels.

Any analysis that needs to make assumptions and fails to account for the entirety of a plan cannot be labeled as being fair or unbiased, can it?

Come on - please do us all a favor, grow a brain, and learn to analyze and think for yourself instead of constantly allowing others to do the thinking for you. Or at least change your screen name, as free-thought you are not if you voluntarily buy into that propaganda!

Try again!

@JRH -- Before calling me a liar, I think you should look into the effect that losing 'tax loopholes' will have on people of middle income. Does your primary source (Mitt's website, no less) say anything about this? Not telling the whole truth is a form of lying as well.

If the AHA were to be repealed and Paul Ryan's cut to Medicaid allowed to take place, the rich would still be insured, the poorest of the poor would be covered by the safety net, and quite a few working poor and lower middle class citizens would be unable to find and afford coverage. Their bankruptcies and bad debts cost everyone else in the form of increased hospital fees and insurance premiums. Are you okay with that?

James: You wanted a primary source. I gave you a primary source. Now you want me to dis regard the objective primary source and "use my brain" only trusting a candidate's website. Considering both candidates are being taken to task today for thier speeches which, best case senario, are exagerations of the truth.

You can't have it both ways. Either I am informed and use unbiased primary sources or I use my brain using completely biased general sources.

Ok - I will use my brain. The Bush Tax cuts were a failure. They took a country's surpluss and turned it into a deficet. Continuing - and making permanent - an obviously failed policy will not increase revenue in any way shape or form.

Trickle down economy didn't work in the '20s, didn't work in the 80s, didn't work in the 00s. It won't work now. No matter how many times it is tried - IT DOES NOT WORK.

We are asked for shared sacrifice in troubled times. This means everyone shares.

Everyone.

@Randy1949 -

I only cited primary sources and made no assumptions in drawing my conclusion about Obama's tax increases on the middle and working classes.

Admittedly, Mitt Romney's plan doesn't define that which constitutes a 'tax loophole,' and would be eliminated under his plan. However, we do have some primary source guidance from interviews conducted with Romney:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577346611860756628.html

According the interview, Romney wants to "eliminate or limit for high-earners" certain deductions. I see no mention of eliminating deductions available to the middle or working classes being mentioned, do you?

Therefore, I must ask on what basis do you assert that "not telling the whole truth is a form of lying as well?"

Obama promised no mandate in his healthcare bill, remember? He also said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle or working classes, remember? I've already shown, via primary sources, how he LIED.

Concerning Ryan's plans for healthcare, all you have is assumptions - there are no objective facts.

Sorry, but LIAR you are until you start using some primary sources to support assumption free conclusions.

Honestly, how can you claim that assumption based assertions supported by third party analysis represent a fair, unbiased, and honest position of a candidate's positions? You're little more than a kool-aide drinker if you honestly believe that!

Start thinking for yourself!!!

@JRH -- Stop with the ad hominems. You're usually better than that. Troy gave you a primary source. You declined it. It's impossible to have a discussion with a person who insists on using his own definitions for things.

Mitt Romney has not been specific about which 'loopholes' he plans to eliminate, nor does he tell us what he thinks is a 'high-earner'. Until he does, none of us can make assumptions.

@FreeThought Troy -

Where was your primary source?

The only thing you linked to was a third party analysis - that is not a primary source.

Perhaps we need to start a little simpler with you - try researching the term 'primary source,' as you apparently have no idea what that means!

The least trustworthy people are those who claim to be non-biased or non-partisan!

Wake up and THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Always go to the primary source!

Did you read all 900+ pages of the ACA? Hoffa has. If you have not, then how can you claim to know what's really in the ACA? You're relying upon third party analysis and perspective, the motives of which are either known or unknown. That's why if you really want to know, unfiltered, you have to go the source, read it and analyze it for yourself.

Stop entrusting others to do your thinking for you and start thinking for yourself - its one of the only true freedoms that we possess in our lives and you're deferring it to others!!

And who's not sharing in the sacrifice exactly?

@Randy1949 -

You too??? Come on - I expected better from you. The TPC is a third party analysis - it is not a primary source.

"Until he does, none of us can make assumptions."

But that's exactly what the TPC does, makes assumptions, correct? So how can the TPC be considered a primary source? The only thing that the TPC analysis is a primary source for is of their own opinion, which is premised on assumptions that you just said no one can realistically make with any kind of guaranteed accuracy/certainty.

Maybe you and Troy are most concerned with third party opinions premised upon assumptions, and if that's where your interest lies, then good for you guys. But you do know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

Hoffa is concerned with the hard objective facts, or reality - not other people's opinions, because he likes to think for himself as opposed to allowing those third party people to do the thinking for him.

Hoffa is opposed to the lemming mentality and I thought you were as well. Maybe Hoffa was wrong about Randy1949 and his ability to think independently...?

WAKE UP!!!

THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!

Hoffa: referring to yourself in the third person, really?
Here is a little education. Primary sources in your definition are not reliable. As Romney and Ryan are getting lit up today by thier gross exagerations today, I trust their tax plan as far as I can throw them. A reputable economist shot holes in the Romney Tax plan. The richest Americans pay the least amount of taxes and that is about to become permenant (if Romney is elected). Who is going to pick up the deficit? The Middle Class. Social Security will be privatized. Medicare will be privatized. All the added costs will be thrown to the middle class - us.

The "tax increases" from the ACA are for those who chose to not insure themselves. If they have insurance through thier employers - no increase. If they are on Medicare or Medicade - no increase. If they can not afford insurance, there will be aid available to help them. The Supreme Court ruled on the Individual Mandate (A Republican Idea let's not forget) can be inforced due to the taxing powers of the government. That in no way shape or form increases the taxes on the middle class. In Hoffa's words, "Think for yourself and read the primary source."

Turn off Fox News and read the ACA. If Obama Care is Socialism, when can we expect you to return the SSI and Medicare you are scheduled to collect?

@FreeThought Troy -

Economists aren't capable of bias, opinion, or harboring motives? WOW! Thanks for opening Hoffa's eyes! (BTW - that was sarcastic.)

"Primary sources in your definition are not reliable."

Primary sources are the only reliable sources. They are the only sources that are free from third party perspectives or bias.

In Hoffa's conclusion about Obama's tax plans, did he cite to any non-primary sources? NO. In your conclusion about Romney's tax plan, did you cite to any non-primary sources? YES.

And yet Hoffa is the one who is using unreliable fact???

WOW! Our education system really failed poor old Troy!

Again, Hoffa did read all of the ACA for himself, but apparently, and again, all you're doing is relying upon third party analysis for the basis of your conclusions about it, allowing others to do the thinking for you. It's not as cut and dry as you've outlined. Try reading the document for yourself and citing to the individual section numbers that support your conclusions.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

Hoffa doesn't trust any third party sources - liberal or conservative. He only trusts the hard objective primary sourced facts.

Try ignoring all third party analysis and looking at the primary source first and foremost - you'd be surprised how much of what you think you know as fact is actually wrong.

But don't take my word for it - read the ACA, and come back with the section numbers!

A heralded Economist can be biased so I shouldn't trust him as a source. The candidate WHO REALLY IS BIASED I should trust because he is a primary source. Mine is not the education who has failed. Maybe a journalism class or two discussing sources and thier uses would help.

@FreeThought Troy -

As expected, you refuse to think for yourself by failing to read the ACA for yourself and citing the section numbers that support your outlined conclusion of how the taxes in it work. I even gave you the link to the primary document! Honestly, how lazy of a citizen can you be?

How can a candidate for the position at issue be biased exactly? They either have a plan that they've shared or they don't - it's pretty simple to understand, or at least it should be. And you either agree with their position or you don't.

However, you're not even looking at Romney's position at face value - instead, you're looking at what a third party analysis has asserted Romney's position is, despite such analysis not taking into account his plan in its entirety, using erroneous baselines, and making a multitude of assumptions.

And you call that fair and unbiased just because you regard the economist as being "heralded?"

Hoffa feels really sorry for you, as our educational system has really let you down badly!!!

But by all means - go back to your third party analysis, as apparently other people's opinions are all you trust because you simply don't know how to think for yourself.

It's quite sad actually!

"How can a candidate for the position at issue be biased exactly? "

Candidates Lie. They want to be elected... so they lie. Have you ever accused the President of lying? I bet you have.

Not only did I accuse Mr. Romny of lying, a reputable economist - who worked for a Republican Administration - backed up my claim.

Your circular logic and condecening accusations to my education and research methods will not change these facts.

They are facts. Face them and move on. Romney/Ryan will only make our problems worse.

No better - only worse.

@FreeThought Troy -

Honestly, has the word 'fact' been re-defined to mean other people's opinions, and no one told Hoffa?

"Candidates Lie. They want to be elected... so they lie. Have you ever accused the President of lying? I bet you have."

Of course they do - Hoffa never said that they didn't. But how can you fairly assess whether or not they're lying about a policy position until the opportunity presents itself?

Hoffa only ever called Obama a liar when he definitively lied.

Obama promised no mandate in his healthcare bill, remember? That was a LIE. Obama promised no tax increases on the middle and working classes, remember? That was a LIE. Obama promised transparency, remember? That was a LIE. Obama promised to close Gitmo, remember? That was a LIE. Obama promised to close the WH to lobbyists and crony capitalism, remember? That was a LIE. Obama said that he would end the wars on day 1, remember? That was a LIE.

Notice how all the lies Hoffa accuses Obama of don't rely on assumptions, speculation, conjecture, etc? They are all grounded in real objective FACT.

You call Romney's tax plan a lie premised on speculation, conjecture, assumptions, etc and call it fact - that's a joke, right?

My logic is not circular - it's logic.

You're the one who operating on the basis of other's opinions, speculation, conjecture, assumptions, etc - not Hoffa.

If you don't even see that, then the problem goes beyond the failing of our public school system!

Ace. We do not ask such questions. Facts like these ruin libtards utopian vision that the Dems are the party of women and minorities.

Why do they have more Hispanic elected officials than dems? Because they are racist and homophobes and need to make it LOOK like they are not. But don't let them fool you. A Koch brother is pulling the strings behind the curtain while counting the people he made poor by getting filthy rich.

Because Dems like Keith Schmitz are afraid of strong women, has to do with their sexual inadequacies.

Yet it is Republicans who can not trust a woman and her doctor to make thier own choices about thier healthcare, or modify the rules so a child of Latin decent who was born in this country can become a citizen.

Am I missing something?

Because honestly, this whole line of thought is baffleing

oak creek resident -

Seriously, you should do some thinking about your sexual orientation. See the following article about how "homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

This is a good explanation of why you accuse so many people of being "limp wristed." Seriously, for your own sake, you should come to terms with the fact that you're sexually attracted to men. Stop living a lie, get out there and get yourself a strong, good-looking guy to keep you warm at night. The fact that your mouth is watering just thinking about it should tell you something...

@FreeThought Troy -

"Yet it is Republicans who can not trust a woman and her doctor to make thier own choices about thier healthcare, or modify the rules so a child of Latin decent who was born in this country can become a citizen."

What choices about women's healthcare are you talking about that Republicans want to co-opt away from a woman and her doctor?

And you say that Republicans need to modify the rules about illegal immigration - so apparently you have no problem with the fact that those people broke the law in the first place.

Apparently, you have no respect for rule of law when you personally disagree with the law.

Yeah, you're a liberal all right!

A woman with a medical condition needs a perscription for birth control. If Repulicans had thier way, Insurance Companies would no longer cover it
Primary Source: Blunt Rubio Amendment
Primary Source: Every Personhood Amendment brought forth by a Republican Legistature.

A child who was born in and has lived in this country, but whose parents are undocomented. Gets deported.
Primary Source: Failure to pass the Dream Act (Another Republican idea.. correct me if I am wrong). That really does need to pass by the way.

@FreeThought Troy -

"If Repulicans had thier way, Insurance Companies would no longer cover it."

Re-read the legislation you've cited - it doesn't ban insurance companies from covering birth control, does it? It merely says that insurance companies can choose whether or not they want to cover birth control and set their premium rates accordingly.

That's called being able to exercise personal autonomous freedom.

And birth control can be purchased without insurance. Last I checked, legal tender, or cash, still had to accepted for all retail transactions, right? Or do you know something that Hoffa doesn't?

And how does any of this relate to co-opting the medical decisions of a woman and her doctor?

Come on - this is just stupid and you know it!

"A child who was born in and has lived in this country, but whose parents are undocomented. Gets deported."

Umm... yeah, because we abide by the rule of law in this country and those are the laws that are presently on the books. Did the illegal aliens not break those laws in entering this country illegally? Do we not have a legal avenue of immigration? Is it not the parent's of the illegals fault for engaging in illegal activity in the first place? Why should it be society's responsibility and burden to accommodate illegal acts? If we aren't going to follow our laws, then why the need for government?

Again - this is just stupid and you know it.