K-9

Then he would have been better served by not embellishing his remarks simply to pander to his audience. Labeling people on public assistance like he did was wrong and stupid, if not an insight into his true beliefs of those that need that assistance. I wonder if he thinks his own father felt like a 'victim.' Or 'entitled.' Or that his dad was someone who couldn't "take responsibility and care" for his life. And why the need to qualify the employment status of Jimmy Carter's grandson? Romney won't do anything to 'fix' the economy because it's out of his power to do so. Wall Street and corporate profits are at near record highs as it is. What, he's gonna get tough on China? That's laughable. He holds major investments there. Nothing will be done to help the economy until businesses take some of that two trillion dollars they have on the sidelines and invest it in American workers. Tax policies and regulations are a red herring. They've never been more favorable to business as it is. My major concern with him is that he's gonna follow the neocon playbook of lowering taxes and prosecuting wars. Perhaps THE dumbest decisions in recent history and more DIRECTLY responsible for our soaring national dept than anything else. But, like Dick Cheney always said, there is nothing wrong with deficit spending. At least when him and the rest of his neocon cronies were doing the spending.

He was also a nuclear physicist. And I think that counts, too.

The office has a way of aging people. I was first struck by this while looking at photos of Lincoln and the difference between his 1st and 2nd inaugurations. It was pronounced. Outstanding post. But the new hero of the right, Ayn Rand, would be very disappointed. Sure, she was bat sh*t crazy and hated Ronald Reagan, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from making her books required reading for his staff (Paul Ryan).

After seeing this, I can only conclude that Mitt Romney has very deep-routed psychological problems stemming from the embarrassment of coming from parents who were on public assistance when they were starting out. That's the only explanation I can think of. I'd love to be this guy's shrink. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/18/mitt-romneys-fundraising-comments-would-mom-approve/

In other news, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court punted it back to the lower court judge for a further ruling. It'll be interesting to see what this means moving forward. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515218/pa-voter-id-law-returns-to-lower-court-for-review/

Insulated and completely out of touch when it comes to understanding the motivations and challenges of the average Joe. That's no surprise given his upbringing, that cute little story of how he and the Mrs. struggled to make ends meet in their little Boston apartment notwithstanding. As one of the late night comedians put it, he was living "a hand to phone to broker to mouth" existence back then. I just don't have much of a feel for his personality. He seems very guarded and uncomfortable like I said earlier. Maybe after the debates I'll have a better feel for him.

As an ex-Republican, I'd like to respond. Reagan and Bush 1 were as genuine as they come. Gentlemen both and throwbacks to another time. Bush 2 was manufactured by Rove, including the acquisition of his Texas ranch which was done solely to harken back to the days of Reagan on his ranch. Phony as they come in my book. I think Romney is genuinely who he is and he looks extremely uncomfortable portraying himself as someone he's not whenever I see him give a speech or in those insufferable photo ops at the local diner.

He's perfect for those that will surround him in office. Reagan and both Bushes had the neocons running policy. Romney will have the neo-neocons, otherwise known as the Tea Party, running his policy.

I don't think Romney has dug himself a hole so much as solidified his base from all those that have been saying he "spoke the truth" in those comments. I'd be surprised if it moved the bar one way or the other.

As to the bolded: 1.) Please feel free to post as much of your bigoted vitriol as you like. I firmly believe in shining as much light on ignorance as possible. BTW, The "Army of God" is always looking for a few good soldiers. I hear you can get a good deal on a Paul Hill or Scott Roeder FatHead if you visit their website. Army of God. Has an ironic ring to it, no? 2.) Yes, a teacher at Brevard Community College speaks for all of academia and we should remove all of our impressionable young hearts and minds from schools across the country immediately. All except Robert Jones University and Liberty University of course. It doesn't matter AT ALL what any Christian does or doesn't do in reaction to having his faith insulted. It is not germane to ANYTHING going on in the world ANYWHERE. Just because I don't shoot doctors and blow up clinics doesn't make me a nice person.

Same old accuracy issues. Not the same old pass delivery issues. He's been late on throws this season and not just because he has a long wind-up. When you triple-hitch an out pass, you're thinking way too much. I've never seen that in him before. I agree that the less we ask Fitz to win games vs. managing them, we're in far better shape. GO BILLS!!!

Good point. I've been arguing this on TSW as well. It's obvious to me that Fitz is preoccupied with mechanics. The out to SJ that got picked by Revis last week is the best example. He triple-hitched a pass that is required to be released before the receiver makes his break. Triple-hitched! This is as routine a pass play as there is and one Fitz has made successfully countless times since high school. I am willing to bet that he's never triple-hitched that pass before. There is only one explanation that I can think of: he's doing too much thinking out there. And the pass to a wide-open Chandler yesterday verifies that. The Chiefs' preoccupation with Mario Williams allowed both tackles to see far more one on one battles yesterday than the week before. Whoever is seeing the single coverage has to make the other team pay and they did yesterday. I hope it continues. I can't say enough good things about Glenn. Every time he's been beaten with speed, whether Orapko or Jared Allen in preseason, or Coples and Hali the first two games, that Condor-like wing span of his just neutralized it. And to see him get his massive frame down field to block was great. LBs and DBs especially didn't want any part of him after a while. And it's infectious. GO BILLS!!!

Was Saylor the same judge that pulled out his Pennsylvania State Surpreme Court Judge I.D. during the hearing and said that even though he could use that ID to open up every locked door in the state Supreme Court building, he wouldn't be able to use it as a voter ID?

While our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan haven't helped, I don't think this is the issue that tips things. We've been there for over 10 years. In a nutshell, these protests are about the embarrassing lack of opportunity in some of the world's richest lands. And it has been for as long as I've been interested in the region. Look at the people doing the protesting. By and large they are disaffected young men, under the age of 30. Easy targets for manipulation by fringe militant groups and religious fanatics. Just look at the unemployment rates in some of these countries. In Saudi Arabia, certainly one of the richest countries in the region, 90% of their work force is comprised of foreign nationals to begin with and the unemployment rate for men between 20-24 is over 40%. Is it any wonder it was such a fertile ground to recruit the 911 terrorists. Or how about Libya, another rich OPEC oil nation emerging from under the yoke of a dictator? Unemployment over 20% with a whopping 50% for those under the age of 20. In Egypt, where Mubarek was largely ousted due to the severe economic problems in his country, unemployment actually rose in the year and half since his ouster. I could go on and on. But to me it isn't a mystery at all. Ever since oil was first discovered in the region over a hundred years ago, monarchies, dictatorships, and puppet regimes were allowed to grow rich while their own people never got a fair stake in the profits in most of those countries. Throw in the advent of modern communications and the internet and social media and you have the perfect storm. The Arab Spring is still in its infancy. What we're witnessing is an illustration of that. We need to remember the vast, vast majority of its peoples are not part of a fringe group. If an insult to Islam was the real impetus behind all these protests, we'd see people by the millions taking to the streets worldwide vs. the thousands we are seeing now. This is about lack of economic opportunity more than anything. And it will be until those governments are stabilized democracies and they are open for investment. I submit it starts with an investment in their own people. They certainly have the resources.

Do we really believe these protests are about religion? Popular anger is sparked by many things. Sustained popular anger, as we've seen for generations in the region, is always about many things. I submit an insult to Islam is the least of the reasons.

Easy for you to say. GO SABRES!!!

I learned in school a long time ago that the Civil War was indeed about state's rights. Of course it was. But just what specific state's rights do you think the confederates were talking about? None of the ancillary reasons put forth by the leaders of the south is not related to the issue of slavery. Lincoln was looking to preserve the Union and slavery was the political carrot he offered the South. The issue of slavery was the hot issue of the day and had been for quite a while. The founders knew full well that slavery was going to be the powder keg issue moving forward as well. I don't think the Emancipation Proclamation has been deleted from school curiculums. It's one of the most important pieces of legislation in this country's history afterall. I'm not sure what level of nuance you would have elementary and middle school students dig into the subject though. We teach our kids that 1+1 equals 2. It wasn't until college that I was asked to express and prove that theory in a mathematical formula.

My point is that both Republican governors, who came into office two years after Obama and whose tenures coincide, are trumpeting the fact that their state economies have turned around and the prospects are great while at the same time Romney is telling the same people that the economy is in ruins and will get even worse if Obama is re-elected. I find that interesting.

I refuse to spend one second lamenting the loss of something we never had. But I would like to thank him for saving us from the cesspool. GO SABRES!!!

Maybe so, but in this case, the word bigot fits. Eric Allen Bell is the very essence of the word itself. Saying it gets tossed around without merit doesn't mean that it's never merited. I've never read any of the periodicals you mention. As to what else you're supposed to post, I don't know. That's not in my control. I'd just like to know what your seeming agenda is given what links you provide to embellish your arguments in this thread. Is it to let us all know we're going to burn in hell for all eternity if we don't get saved? Or is it something else? Not sure why you needed to qualify your status as a nonsupporter of Romney. I fully respect your right to support whomever you wish. Doesn't make a bit of difference to me at all.

You always seem to link to sites with pronounced fundamentalist Christian philosophies. This particular link was a big step down. Using the mindless rhetoric of a bigot isn't going to win the hearts and minds of anyone who isn't already a like minded bigot. Oh, and it's Obama's foreign policy which has brought the strife in the Middle East? That's a stretch even for the most ardent republican partisan. Unless, of course , Obama started shaping Middle East foreign policy a couple thousand years ago. My word of advice is for Romney and his campaign leaders to drop the subject entirely at the moment. The foot in Romney's mouth doesn't need any more company.

When South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal military installation of the United States, how was Lincoln supposed to respond? What were his Constitutional mandates as President of the United States and Commander in Chief?

I'll concede they had the right to do so. And the use of the term "treason" in context of how the Constitution was interpreted is a bit strong. But it was a hotly debated topic at the time. And Lincoln certainly had a Constitutional responsibility to preserve the Union and keep the CSA from expanding it's territories and laws into US held territories. Not sure why you felt the need to qualify the racial status of a pastor in Houston. Nice to know he's figured out that we're all "one human race" though. Actually, I do know why you felt the need to qualify it and it's shameful.

Great point. Amazing how much unanimity $1m and a loss of draft picks will bring. GO SABRES!!!

Speaking of battleground states, can someone explain to me how Romney can stump in Ohio and Virginia on his platform of how Obama has screwed the pooch on the economy and will surely lead us to economic ruin while at the same time the Republican governors of those states go around touting how well the economies on those states are doing?