K-9

Good one. And while Indian and Chinese workers experience the wonders of trickle down, American workers suffer the indignity of trickled on.

That's true. What about the idea of not losing any more jobs? Not all policies are bad policies all the time, just like all good policies aren't good policies all the time. This has been a hot button issue to me for years. No need to go into it. But I can't fathom the idea of voting for someone who not only advocates shipping jobs overseas in order to lower labor costs by 85%, but who actually has a track record of doing just that, and who's company is ACTIVELY doing that as I type this. And all the while I am subjected to his ads saying he will get tough on China's policies and their currency manipulation when his actions have proved to be the exact opposite for years. China's policies are the very reason he has found them to be such a land of opportunity. He's living the Chinese dream. Interesting concept. Our country went through similar revolution with the advent of organized labor, etc. But instead of private company thugs hired to suppress protesting workers, it will be the Chinese military putting a stop to uprisings in China. Commies with money can be a dangerous combination.

I don't think Romney wants to go back to 1850. He's more of an 1890s guy given his love affair with the leveraged buyout and cheap foreign labor, especially in China (his real land of opportunity BTW), to increase his profits and his desire to give as many tax breaks to himself and others. He is American Robber Baron all the way. Great times back then. Great times indeed.

I would think that the town hall format will prevent him from overreacting. At least that's how I'd coach both candidates. This format should also be in Willard's wheelhouse as well.

Is there the least little bit of a chance that perhaps you aren't articulating your thought process in a way that is easily understood? How many people do you have to accuse of poor reading comprehension before that occurs to you?

Unfortunately, when someone is cornered by their own logic, they often resort to attacking the reading comprehension skills of another poster. Well done. Laughable. When I see one shred of a sensible, logical argument from you, like the ones I used to see from BuffaninATL, I'll let you know.

You DID move the goalposts. You cited the moderator as the one who injected religion into the debate. I merely mentioned that Ryan had used religion to make an earlier point about Obamacare. You then replied, "Yeah but Biden lied..." That's moving the goalposts. Go ahead and just accuse me of using a "popular retort of the left" if you have to. But stating one has moved the goalposts isn't uniquely used by anyone, right or left. Just trying to keep the discussion on track. You seem to have gone off the rails lately. Too bad. I used to enjoy our discussion.

Are you moving the goalposts here with this response? Are we now on to the subject of who lied and who didn't during the debate? Of who didn't contradict previous stances on issues more than the other guy? No thanks. I would only add that your idea that nobody would ever question Obama's religion in a debate is long on hyperbole and short on fact. He indeed had the question asked in debates during the primary season in 2008. Once by Brian Williams, icon of the evil MSM. Nobody in the history of presidential politics has had the question of their religion brought up and attempted to be used against him more than Obama. For crissakes, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, just to name two of the more powerful pulpits, have been on their crusade since 2004, when he first burst onto the national scene and started scaring people on the right. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be to capitalize on the fervent ant-Muslim movement that's overtaken this country since 911? I'll let you answer that for yourself.

Ryan himself made religion a topic for discussion earlier in the debate when he suggested Obamacare violates the 1st amendment rights of the Catholic Church. Right out of the Republican playbook. The idea you're shocked that AFTER making the point that this is the first time in history BOTH VP candidates are Catholic, the moderator would choose to ask a question about how their faith informs their stance on the biggest ongoing social issue since 1973, seems very naive. Anyway, all this gnashing of teeth by Republican pundits about rudeness towards Ryan and liberal moderators stacking questions in the deck, can only mean one thing.

Nice of him to remove the propeller from his red cap before taking the picture.

Oh, he projects all right. And once the Heisman hype kicks in and he wins it, he'll go number 1 in the draft. He's a high IQ English major who loves to read and break down film. He said that last year when I first saw him play on TV. Honestly, in the dozen or so games I've seen him play, I have YET to see him make a seemingly bad decision on the field. I say seemingly because I lack the context of his play calls, progression, etc. But you can SEE when he changes plays most of the time, how he communicates those changes to his OL and skill guys, and invariably he has them in the right play. Much like Fitz in his mental command of the game. He's playing chess while everyone else out there is playing checkers as they say. I find that quote about playing the opposing DC the perfect description of how he seems to approach the game. As to the physical aspects of his game, he has it all. Classic pocket passer with escapability when needed. But he looks to pass first as he understands that playing from the pocket gives him the most field to attack and he forces defenses to defend the entire field because he has the arm and accuracy to go anywhere on it. Did I say accuracy? This year he's at 81% with 24 TDs and 0, that's right 0 INTs. And he can take a hit, too. At 6' 3" and 215 lbs, he's plenty big enough. I'll stop now. Because unless we finish with the #1 pick I don't see much chance of getting him. GO BILLS!!!

Geno Smith, anyone? GO BILLS!!!

Sounds like a nice prescription. And I hope you're right, needless to say. I'm glad that they all chewed peyote in the desert and went on a spiritual vision quest with Chan playing the role of 'A Man Called Horse.' Wanny dressed in the garb of the ancient shamans with the muted tones of a pan flute playing as he passed the pipe around the circle of fire and gave everyone on his defense their new spiritual Indian names; with Wanny himself now known as Gomer of the Lost Peoples. But if things don't go right early, a team in their position usually ends up pressing, and all those platitudes don't mean a thing. We've seen it before with this group. Bad things snowballing out of control and before you know it, another long losing streak, just like they've had in each of their previous two seasons together. On the bright side, there is absolutely NO WAY the defense can play any worse. And I say that knowing I said the EXACT same thing after the New England debacle. GO BILLS!!!

In general, yes. As to the specific question asked by TrueBlue about the debate, it only applies to Willard Romney.

What does that mean? IMPORTANT UPDATE: I was a bit harsh on Chan's record over the last 16 games. I said he was 3-16. His record is simply not that bad. He's 4-12. GO BILLS!!!

I don't blame the Republicans for Benghazi. I don't blame the WH, either. I blame the terrorists who did it. I don't 'blame' the Republicans in the hearing nor do I 'blame' Romney on the stump. I understand why they did it. It's not a question of 'blame' in my mind. I question the HELL out of their sincerity regarding the issue and I find it beyond shameless that they lack the integrity and courage required not to exploit the tragedy for anything MORE than political gain. As to Romney's sad display, I will only say I'm glad that Glen Doherty's own mother put a stop to having her son's memory used in such a fashion. I agree. There is no point in debating. But once again, I will remind you that there is nothing misplaced about my rage (if you can even call it that) and I resent your condescending suggestion otherwise.

I'm replying as if I'm nobody but myself. You called me out. Try reading my post #2453. Your post #2455 was a DIRECT RESPONSE TO MY POST, accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, among other things. I responded with post #2460.

Admittedly, my mind was made up before the debate so I am not the person to whom you directed your question. I would like to offer my two cents if it's ok though. And it can be summed up in six words: "sound byte society" AND "style over substance." If you look good, say ignorant things with authority, and completely contradict your previous stance on the issues with conviction, you can sway some opinions out there.

Fair enough. Just so long as you're not putting yourself above the fray.

Would you have been compelled to respond had I simply let the insult pass? I don't think it's even that nuanced.

Struck a nerve I see. That's your conscience that can't reconcile what is blatantly obvious and offensive to your core human values and the party you've attached so many of your hopes and dreams to. Denial is a powerful thing. Intellectual honesty? Laughable. Especially after what I witnessed in those stump speeches yesterday. And you are in no position to judge what that is, anyway. I suggest you look at yourself first. Feigned outrage and disgust? No, I assure you it's quite honest and quite real and more powerful than my former denial ever was. As to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, I suggest you learn what the terms coverup, deception, and malfeasance actually mean. But I understand that is just not convenient for you at the moment and doesn't fit your particular brand of "intellectual honesty." Perhaps it would be easier to get Obama to lie about getting a hummer in the oval office.

Are you talking "organized" Al Queda activity among the dozens of disjointed terrorists groups that identify themselves as "Al Queda?" These groups have less than NOTHING to do with the organization headed by Bin Laden that trained for years in Afghanistan and carried out the attacks on the USS Cole and the World Trade Center. The Al Queda headed by Bin Laden is indeed dead. As to these other groups, they are disorganized but a few are in possession of weapons that can be used in terrorists attacks. And while small in number and unorganized it only take a couple with a Stinger SAM to bring down an airliner. They are dangerous. I am sickened by the overt and shameless attempt by Republicans to make political hay out of a national tragedy. From House members in a hearing to Romney's embarrassing use of the memory of Glen Doherty in his stump speeches today, it's further proof that I made the right decision when I realized these guys no longer represent MY best interests in a way that makes me proud to be represented.

Iran-Contra was what had me looking at some hard, cold facts about the Republican neo-con game plan. I won't spend time revisiting it. People can educate themselves. But I find the whole thing a bit Orwellian. And I think it's disgusting that Oliver North is held up as some sort of American hero for the role he played in it. I don't think Clinton was targeted in retaliation for Iran-Contra so much as a Democratic presidency derailed the neo-con agenda that had really taken hold under Reagan and they couldn't/wouldn't lose that momentum.

I think he's saying that Calvin wouldn't vote for either. Instead, Calvin would throw two candidates in the lake and whomever sank would get his vote. The other, burned at the stake.

I remember thinking that, too. If he can lie about an extra-marital affair he can lie about anything. But he never should have been entrapped to lie about that in the first place. It was disgusting that a private family matter became fodder for the Republican machine and actually led to an impeachment. I had to travel abroad most of the time back then and I was amazed at the universal opinion on the matter. From Asia to Europe to S America they all thought it was ridiculous. I understand the part about lying under oath. That was wrong and indefensible. But after 6 years and $75m dollars worth of Kenneth Starr's investigation, from trying to tie him to murder to embezzlement, the best that witch hunt could do was hang him on a ######. And they had to entrap him to do it. And they did it in the most lurid ways, too. Wiring Linda Tripp and taping her conversations with Monica Lewinsky? Unbelievable. And embarrassing. I had started to break from the party in the late 80s and this whole affair clinched it. What transpired after 2000 only confirmed and validated my reasoning.