Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. Your time will be wasted and it only irritates the pig.

Romney supporters are tone deaf to rational thought, otherwise they would already recognize what they are doing to themselves.

The Teaparty/Taliban/Republican party of today keeps flinging mud and blowing smoke in the hope you will not look at the old man behind the curtain, the head snake oil salesman. One of their tactics is to get people to believe that 'politician' is a dirty word. If 'all politicians are dirty' then we can't trust any of them.

Being an elected official is just like any other occupation in that there is exactly as much integrity in the job as one brings to it.

2ooo years ago, when the Teaparty/Taliban asked Jesus to shoot a woman in the head for disagreeing with the local patriarch, he respectfully declined, saying he felt it wasn't his place to come between another human and their Creator.

Today, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Todd Akin, Paul Ryan and company are certain they know "God's Will" better than Jesus.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...
The "Boston Teaparty" was an act committed by people who felt that taxation without representation was fundamentally wrong. Today, the "Teaparty"/Taliban/Republican party are making a concerted effort to disenfranchise millions of American citizens. Their efforts are being funded and orchestrated by people with vast fortunes who feel they are entitled by Divine Right to rule over lesser creatures.

A list of the evidence of these peoples' lack of integrity could go on for some length, but any of the above should be sufficient indictment.

Dealing with their smoke and mirrors is frustrating, but don't let them sell you on the idea that 'all politicians' are dirty. Don't buy into their world view. Their world is not a happy one.

i see a sick lame re-reg is back.

its just a lonely cult troll.

BB....give it a rest! P.S.....this is not the type of dialogue I support.

think it`s the old itch butt re-reg-reg-reg etc...

could be...P.S.

I'm glad I'm not the one to put the finger on um! Maybe Tyler will plug um! How embareassing!

But the fruit cake msm let mit go on and on that he is some how PRO PUBLIC EDUCATION any way , worthless ...Thanx for the update

Any comment from Pat Robertson?

there seems to be a pattern here.

convention Tampa Hurriacan

Last debate if Fla his blimp forced to land in neighborhood from high winds.

now this

LOL

Maybe Woolard will get blown away...Hadn’t he get his pirate ship out to sea?

Lame. The Obamas and Biden also canceled their NC stops this weekend...

I was just thinking the same thing.

What effect will Hurricane Sandy (and it's aftermath) have on voting, both in the presidential and northeastern state elections? Could this change the current dynamics of the projected electoral college count? Could Hurricane Sandy actually help Mitt Romney squeeze out a victory, if enough leaning-Obama northeastern states are devastated? Can President Obama call up the national guard in these northeastern states on election day, and even before, to facilitate voting, just in case their infrastructure is decimated, including voting locations? Just wondering.

Provide any evidence that expanding the vote necessitates or is otherwise correlated with increased numbers of non-US citizens casting ballots in US elections.

Oracle was not implying that the weather will call people to lose, but thanks for taking the concern to a hyperbolic strawman. Weather has been shown to deter people, especially if it's particularly bad weather. This has also been shown to cross socioeconomic borders although it will always disproportionately affect the poor as is the case with all such instances. If you're going to refute it then either a. do so in a way that is actually funny or b. do so in a way that meets the comment with intellectualism. Chastising a liberal for being stupid only proves that you are equally stupid as the liberal you're chastising (as well as hypocritical).

Maybe Mother Nature is casting her vote on this whole global-warming/green-energy policy???

Wouldn't it be better to EXTEND voting in the affected areas ;>

Right typical free loading Mitt wit wants free stuff from the government how do we know that about the Mitt wits, they are always whining about having to pay for the services government provide cheaper then their over lords the Koch brothers would charge them.

Letting anyone with a pulse collect unemployment for over a year is ridiculous

Provide any evidence that this happens

Telling me how big a soda I can drink is ridiculous

Provide any evidence that this has happened

People who go to work everyday aren't freeloaders

Define what a freeloader is then explain what that has to do with whomitmay's comment and then lastly provide evidence for the claim

Trump needs his 15 seconds of fame, he and Sarah Palin are like the Paris Hilton of politics. Trump's problem is NPD; which is just as bad as arguing with a drunk.

Your right kind of hard to keep promises when you got the party of Mitt wits blocking everything you want to get done. You know like you are finding out with the voter ID laws going down in flames. I mean really you Mitt wits thought that the tea bagged republicans you put into office could rig the vote for you and they failed because they didn't have the power they thought they had.

What's with Tommy the troll? No 12 yr olds to play vidoe games with tonight?

Obama promised to end lobbying? Well that certainly would be a tyrannical move- although I'm confused here since it seems that you're in favor of ending lobbying even though that would mean eliminating the 1st Amendment. You didn't think this comment through now did you?

The president does not control the budget, the US Congress controls the budget. Your umbrage is with the US Congress. Holding the president accountable for something he doesn't have control over is ludicrous. What's next? Blame Obama because it rained outside?

Obama did lower taxes on the middle class. In fact 1/3 of his stimulus package was spent on middle class tax cuts.

You got me on the transparency issue. Obama is more transparent than President George W. Bush, but not the most transparent in US history. I don't recall him saying that he would be the most transparent in US history, but I do remember him stating he would push to be more transparent than the previous administration. I would consider this a promise kept, but that also depends on what you defined the previous administration as.

Obama put into place less czars than President George Bush and Ronald Reagan did. For the record czar is a made up term that was coined by Reagan to refer to department heads appointed by the president. Freaking out over this kind've tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Cartoon...Since the HOR controls the budget and the President does not, using your logic, the HOR should take responsibility for the economic problem we are having. They would be the ones who passed the budget that allows for all of this out of control spending...right?

BTW...which party had controlled the HOR for about 65% of the time over the last 50 years? Which party was in control of HOR from Jan 2007 - Jan 2011 when this recession hit? Which party was in control of the HOR the last time there were balanced budgets?

just saying..

Once again we get capt re reg showing how little he knows about how government works and his stupid black/white belief systems. See capt re reg first off if a president belongs to the party of the goose steppers and gets the majority of congress of his party in then he has what is called a rubber stamp congress, like GWB had up until 07. To bad for you that the GOP has taught you to follow because a follower never will lead nor question his party' decisions as we see in your case.

Kind of like how Obama had the same Rubber stamp congress from the time he entered into office until 1/11?

the most number of Republican Senators during any point of the Bush Adminsitration was 55. The most Democrat with Obama 57. the most number of Republican HOR members was 231 with Bush. The most Democrat with Obama was 256.

Why dont you teach me some more whom....

just saying...

Kind of like how Obama had the same Rubber stamp congress from the time he entered into office until 1/11?

Obama did not have a rubber stamp congress. Obama only had a filibuster proof majority for 6 weeks of which he was able to pass 6 major pieces of legislation. After that the Republican Party engaged in an unprecedented rate of filibusters never before used by any previous congress. That meant the congress was no longer rubber stamping and was actively resisting the policies passed by Obama. That meant in order to get anything passed Democrats had to pass a 60 vote threshold. Since losing the 60 vote threshold we have only been able to pass a handful of pieces of legislation.

the most number of Republican Senators during any point of the Bush Adminsitration was 55

Non-sequitur rebuttal. Democrats did not filibuster at the same rate Republicans are filibustering now. Democrats were also willing to work across the isle while Republicans in this congress are not. Beyond this, by your own admission, you're stating the President Obama did not have a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate.

For the record the US House was never the issue. Under Pelosi's leadership- like her or not- she was able to pass more than 460 pieces of legislation in those first 2 years. The problem was the US Senate would block those bills from being considered for debate or even for coming to a vote to debate thereby preventing those pieces from going through.

You also do realize that you just admitted that Republicans were the reason the recession happened starting in 2007, yes? Good to know. I happen to agree.

No..that was a Whomism...

Actually, unlike you and most all of the lemmings on this site, I blame both sides for being at fault. However, if you or anyone else is going to be blind in your accusations, I will be happy to point out where you are wrong.

For you to make the statement that Obama did not have a Rubber stamp congress, while failing to admit that Bush did not either, is typical of how the left loves to have it one way. My point was how can Whom make a false accusation against Bush when the evidence CLEARLY shows that using the criteria he established, that Obama was just as guilty?

You whine about Republicans not working with Democrats, yet you forget to mention Obama's favorite line..."Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won." That is not a good indicator of someones willingness to work with the other side.

just saying...

For you to make the statement that Obama did not have a Rubber stamp congress, while failing to admit that Bush did not either, is typical of how the left loves to have it one way.

Nope. I addressed this. Democrats were willing to work with Bush. They did filibuster many of the policies attempted to be passed by both Republicans and the Bush Administration, but overall Democrats only filibustered on average 60 some times per year whereas this current congress does so over 100 times per year. That is the difference. Democrats were willing to work across the isle, which I already said.

YOU presented the argument that Obama got everything he wanted in the first 2 years. This is NOT true because he did NOT have a rubber stamp congress. That is the point.

My point was how can Whom make a false accusation against Bush when the evidence CLEARLY shows that using the criteria he established, that Obama was just as guilty

Because you are strawmanning the argument. You are deliberately misrepresenting what Whom actually said and instead arguing a point that no one else besides you made.

You whine about Republicans not working with Democrats, yet you forget to mention Obama's favorite line..."Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won." That is not a good indicator of someones willingness to work with the other side.

Because you are strawmanning this argument as well. Eric Cantor presented President Obama with a bill that was ludicrously in favor of Republican ideas that made zero attempt at compromising with Democrats. Obama then told him that they (congress) are going to have to work together and the context of the quote you're using is to make the point that DEMOCRATS, not Republicans, were in the majority. This means that Republicans could NOT set the ridiculous standard that if they don't get 100% of what they want then they will not vote for any bills. That is NOT an attitude that will achieve bi-partisanship. The very quote you are giving is a quote of Obama's FAVORING bi-partisanship, not being against it. And it is THAT partisanship on YOUR part that I am responding to. You disingenuously respond to people's comments while simultaneously pretending that you and you alone are the bearer of facts. You aren't. You are either committing a logical fallacy, making an argument that is completely contradictory, or flat our misrepresenting the facts. Bi-partisanship means that you do not get 100% of what you want, but instead that you give a little to get a little. It was ridiculous for Republicans to propose that they be given everything that they want and that Democrats make no demands. A person presenting a bill like that was not serious about bi-partisan dealings. Ironically enough Republicans wailing about this prove, yet again, IOKIYAR. It's the I'm-rubber-you're-glue phenomenon all over.

The US Congress sets the budgets. This means that the budgets set during the Bush Administration were set by the US Congress. The US Congress also controls the spending measures which means spending is controlled by the US Congress. Now you can blame the president of the US for exercising the bully-pull-pit in such a way as to make congress feel compelled to vote in favor of this or that piece of legislation and to that extent Bush can be held responsible or likewise Obama.

Budgets do not account for the "out of control" spending of our US government. Despite what people like to believe it is impossible for the US Congress to pass a budget that isn't "balanced"- I.E. a budget that spends more in revenues than the federal government took in for the fiscal year the year before. That's not the way that budgets work which is why the whole budget amendment crap is hilarious. Spending measures that add to the federal government are spending measures that are done outside of budgets. All a budget does is it establishes that the income of the FY before- so let's say the 2012 budget on the basis of what was earned in 2011- to be spent on X priorities. Almost all the time those priorities are to pay for the interest on the debt and programs like social security. The rest of the spending occurs for the new FY and it's within that spending that you get a deficit or add to the national debt. Both Democrats and Republicans are complicit in this, but attempting to pretend like Democrats have been the biggest contributor of debt is a complete lie. The largest 3 items contributing to our debt currently are the 2 wars- yes the Iraq war is still costing us money despite it having ended 2 years ago (just costing us less now)- and the tax cuts put into place under Bush (and then continued under Obama). Take away those things and we actually are only running about a $300 billion deficit which, assuming spending did not increase and taxes were returned to the nearly 40% rate they were under Clinton, could mean we were deficit free within less than 5 years. But you have not wanted to acknowledge the role that tax cuts or Republicans play in debt and deficit. You have only wanted to focus on Democrats despite the fact that no one ever implied Democrats haven't contributed to this problem. The major contributors of our deficit, however, were not originated in Democratic policies.

The largest 3 items contributing to our debt currently are the 2 wars

excuse me that should read the largest 3 items contributing to our deficit

Stormguy,

"can we PLEASE retire one of the biggest right woing myths?

senate democrats during President Obama's first two years only had a filibuster-proof majority for about the first 24 (twenty-four) CONGRESSIONAL WORKING DAYS.

the SIMPLE MAJORITY after that was NOT able to over-ride the 241 republican filibusters used to stall out proposed legislation".

[from the "everlasting GOP stoppers" photo].

Cartoon,

you are absolutely correct. even after the florida debacle in 2000 democrats were willing to work with bush for the good of the american people, something we are not seeing from the repubs today.

i believe one of the first things they worked on and helped to pass was, "no child left behind", giving it to bush, because as the president it was important to him. even though democrats didn't like how bush won the election, they respected the "office", and tried to move the country forward for the american people.

suzette.

i think it was a total of 47 days in the first two years.

as you had Al Franken vote fight for 6 month. then Kennedy getting sick then passing.

"i believe one of the first things they worked on and helped to pass was, "no child left behind", giving it to bush, because as the president it was important to him."

yes he got the 6 month grace period while Obama got the 6 min back room restaurant grace period.

Pilotshark,

14.15, yes.

14.16, yes.

Cartoon...

where did I say anything about Obama getting everything he wanted. You continue to make these outrageous claims and yet the facts dont back you up.

Lots of people have said that Democrats added to the deficit, you simply choose to ignore them.

Suzette...

Bush never had a super majority at ANY time of his presidency. And please note, I never said that Obama had a super majority...I simply pointed out facts regarding how many senators and congressmen each president had.

It is hard to work with a candidate who made a statement...""Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won." Compromise from both sides would be a nice thing to see...

just saying...

apparently I needed to clarify: as a husband - I will fight the GOP's plan to force my wife and I, if my wife were raped, to raise the child of a rapist

well its not his wife's child, its a bunch of eggs and sperm!! so no killing as no heart beat of life, how about the killing of his wife`s spirit by the rapist,, that's real and alive!

TomLaV, you might want to think about getting yourself some Xanax. You're gonna have a coronary. Although it is rather amusing that we can get you so riled up. LOL.

Yeah it is @!$%#zngiggles- also LOVE the name haha.

Remember allowing a person to make a choice is not the same as saying you're going to agree with the choice they make. Tom like the rest of the GOP want the government to free people from making the "wrong" choice and of course Tom feels that he is Jesus returned to Earth so he therefore knows what the right choice is and therefore can dictate that morality outwards.

Funny how even Jesus himself didn't stand on the position that he was infallible, but conservatives love to. Guess Jesus just wasn't good enough, 'eh? I mean the dude wore a dress and had long hair (both of which the Bible says should have a man put to death if he commits such a crime). He must've been gay

Me too David. I'd also fight for you and your wife's right to slowly torture and kill the rapist. If it helps her spirit......

right. I'm guessing there's at least as many men on the right as on the left who would resist Big GOP Government from forcing our wives and daughters to bear a child resulting from a rape

Right says the guy who wants free stuff from the government, be a good little boy and pay you taxes so you can keep getting free stuff from the government after all no one gets a thing for free. That was a lie created in the mind of a insane soap salesman, they are not your tax dollars those are the price citizens pay to enjoy services they couldn't afford if the Koch brothers did those services. Which is why a military meal went from $5 to $5,000 when Haliburton took over serving meals to the military.

Wrong again we are not talking about what the military eats out in the field we are talking about the mess hall. Poor little guy proves he knows nothing about the military.

Right yet you are the one who believes the military only eats mre's when they do not. Guess you believe that you are credible when reality is you are just someone spreading misinformation before a ban.

Tom still has yet to provide any evidence that what he says is true

He never has no matter how many times he re regged.

That's because tom has never said anything that is true.

Tom, where is all this smaller Gov't you righties keep talking about? OH, that's right. Except when it comes to womens health issues.

Well we know that Mitt wits serve no useful purpose they are easy to replace by uneducated illegals.

Tom. Go read the bible. It tells when life begins. Prior to that time, nobody is killing anything. But you probably believe the women are killing each month when their body flushes out.

errily similar to the predictions of Obama's impending political doom in 2008.

Nahh,, Obama was the clear winner back then, due to a woman being on the VP ticket for Pubs.

nice try

Says the guy who dropped out of elementary school to do the Koch brothers dirty work for a nickle.

Big deal you went to school and how surprising you learned nothing except how to repeat what the teacher told you, after all that is all you do repeat right wing nonsense. Really if we wanted your opinion we would ask Murdoch.

You keep pushing and pushing Obama

Name one time in which Rachel Maddow has advocated for the election of Barack Obama or for that matter against the election of Mitt Romney. Remember you have to show your work for this one.

Why tell the truth about what happened at our embassy

It's amazing how you Tom know the true truth, but none of us know the truth of the true truth of Tom's truth truth. Ya know putting the word "truth" in every sentence doesn't automatically mean what you're saying is true.

Haven't you heard? Tom knows everything about everything and everybody. NOT.

So Tom. Tell us, with links and sources, just what really happened in Lybia.

News Flash: the church is not as powerful as it used to be. Common-Sense really does rule America, sort-of.

Catholic school girl here. I love my faith, but the "organizated religion" is just getting a little weird. I believe in a woman's right to determine the issue of her reproductive healthcare should remain between a woman, her physician and her God (or no god), not a stranger, not a man, not a self-righteous "religious" organization and certainly not a government. Many progressive Catholics feel the same way. 90% of Catholics utilize birth control and we all know the church''s position on that issue. PRO-get the Heck out of my personal female healthcare and into the business of running a government!

If any church gets into the political arena, they should be required to pay taxes. If not stay out.

A big AFFIRM, Bill! I watch her and Chris do so much lying for Obama, it's funny. I don't know where they are getting their info from.Maybe, texting each other about news headlines. All I can see, with those two, is that's it's like Jerry Springer. Some people like that kind of headlines, and that's how they keep there jobs.

key quote grab from your posted article:

"Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley referred to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China."

Actually reading the words in front of you is important. "... Manley referred to adding Jeep production sites RATHER THAN shifting output from North America to China."

Do you conservatives ever read the articles before you link to them? The argument given by Rachel was that they weren't closing plants down here and the article you linked to does not refute this or prove that Rachel was lying. What it says is that sales of Jeeps are down in Europe, but rising in Asia so Fiat is thinking it will open more factories to China and gradually focus on expanding in that market.

If you're going to try to prove a point at the very least try to be factual about it.

Gee, the last time I looked, Fiat was an Italian company??? Sorry, I won't buy one. My X-19 was a mechanical nightmare....

No it is worst than that, it is our own kids !!

I once wrote a program that printed out a flower. Almost the same , really.

That one won't be laughing when the big black SUVs show up! LOL!

Self portrait?

Ahhh....home sweet home...

xxx...for you. Let's Rock!

Dreams I'll never see....Live M.H.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B53j-lKZdhE

BOC Don't Fear the Reaper

http://youtu.be/Tpy_pYXSpPA

Allman Brothers....Blue Sky...Live...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1jpQu6qR1E&feature=related

Foghat Slow Ride 1978

http://youtu.be/aCr2APDza_I

Since Romney needs help at musical self-expression...

John Mayer; 'Who Did You Think I Was' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfLkO3uwBlQ

xxx...I saw Foghat in a small bar in Worthington, WV back in the early 90's....it was a cold snowy night...and they arrived about 2 hours late....but they put on a great show....

Well ....I need to go to sleep....

Goodnight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs&feature=related