Hi. I'm Ian Reid.
And honestly I can see what your saying, but I can assure you that while we joke around about the apparent mud bath Romney and Obama took before the debate so the stage lights wouldn't make them look pale, we do have serious opinions about the debate. For instance, if your going to say that Obama told too many lies, you should take a look in that long-forgotten political mirror and notice that in the second debate, Romney said that Obama had neglected to do anything he promised to do while in office. For some reason he said Obama hadn't reformed health care or stimulated the economy. Soon thereafter, he mentioned obamacare. I found this to be wonderfully ironic. And really, if your accusing a politician of lying, amidst the maelstrom of super-PAC infused political discourse, then don't change the channel best time a campaign ad comes on. I'm sure you'll find a few lies there.
And as far as snooki is concerned, she is an incredibly annoying part of pop culture today, one of the cake-tanned wonders of jersey shore. Thank you for not knowing that, it gives me some hope for American culture.
Sorry if this is a bit grumpy, I didn't sleep that much and I'm 17.

@Ian Reid -

Concerning health care reform, if you recall back to the 2007/8 debates, Obama promised that his health care reform bill wouldn't have an individual mandate in it. He also promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. As you must know, there is indeed a mandate in Obamacare, and the mandate, as well as 80% of the other taxes contained within Obamacare, will directly impact the middle class when/if implemented. Thus, Obama LIED twice about healthcare - Romney was correct.

As far as stimulating the economy is concerned, Obama promised that his stimulus would create 5 million shovel ready jobs and that it would bring unemployment down to 5.4%. After spending nearly $1T, and adding $6T in new debt over the last 4 years, or $38,605 per individual federal income tax taxpayer, Obama laughed off that "shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we expected," and we've had 43 continuous months of unemployment above 8%. Not to mention that back in 2010, right before Obama's self declared summer of recovery, Obama had the BLS change the way in which it computes the unemployment number. In reality, workforce participation is lower than it has ever been in this country since the Great Depression, and real unemployment is estimated to be between 12.5-16%. Again, Romney was dead-on accurate in his assessment.

You need to do some better homework!

Hoffa doesn't watch political ads for substance and is probably better off not knowing Snooki.

Cheers!

@ Hoffa -
My hat is off to you for your response to Ian Reid; you made your comments in a reasoned and rational manner. As a Patch reader, I prefer that approach bombastic responses all too often tendered by both sides.
Best wishes,
JQP

correction...
As a Patch reader, I prefer that approach "over the" bombastic responses all too often tendered by both sides

Really a fair counter. As with most in the political spectrum, there are elements of truth to each side of these issues. The difference lies in how we interpret them. Obamacare may raise taxes, but lowers health insurance costs if you end your private insurance (in theory, I can't predict the future) and this can be offset by the 18 tax cuts imposed by Obama in the past few years.
And I find it hard to imagine that there can be no correlation between the comprehensive unemployment rate and what the industry reports. And are you focusing on those out of the workforce for the last 80 years, or just the last 4? Because that has an enormous impact on your data.
Trust me, you don't want to know snooki.
It's been a pleasure to find some civil discourse.

Ian Reid wrote "Romney said that Obama had neglected to do anything he promised ...Obama hadn't reformed health care ... Soon thereafter, he mentioned obamacare."

True Ian, the term reform simply means to change significantly. Typically though, modern usage implies a change for the better. Obamacare is far from a change for the better. It has already cost me over $3,000 in new premiums and 2014 looks even worse. Add death panels and raiding Medicare and we are going to be in big trouble.

@Ian Reid -

While the effects of the implementation of Obamacare on insurance premium costs remains to be seen, since the bill was signed into law premium rates have increased an average of $2,500 over the last 3+ years - not even the President disputes this fact.

Your claim at this point in time, that Obamacare will significantly lower costs and effectively offset the Obamacare taxes, is simply wishful thinking - part of the 'hope' that Obama campaigned on back in 2008. The premium return mandated by Obamacare for alleged insurance provider 'overcharges' that we've seen thus far has been fairly insubstantial, amounting to an average of about $10/year if anything was actually returned to most policy holders - hardly enough to even begin to cover the costs of the Obamacare taxes that are quickly approaching.

Quite frankly, Hoffa will only believe it when he sees it.

Personally, Hoffa feels that the middle man, in this case the health insurance companies, should be done away with all together for usual and customary care (U&C). Everyone should be individually and personally responsible for their own U&C health care expenses - paying cash out of pocket as they incur such expenses directly to their health care providers.

This is how most of the health care expenses of the typical American family were handled prior to the rising popularity of employer provided health insurance benefits, and the costs were very affordable! Insurance should be reserved solely for contingent and uncertain circumstances, as it was originally designed to do - catastrophic care coverage only. Not only would this significantly reduce the costs of health care, but it would also significantly reduce the costs of catastrophic care coverage - a win-win scenario for all!

The only original tax cuts offered by Obama to date are the reduction in FICA tax collection, and yet, Obama hasn't announced any future reduction of SS benefits due to the decrease of the amount being paid into the system by people - the math just doesn't add up here and Obama hasn't stated how he's going to address the situation. Presumably, Obama will just kick the problem to whoever precedes him should he be re-elected to a second term.

Think about SS for a minute - essentially it's the government saying that it doesn't trust you to be an adult and manage your own money responsibly, so instead the government treats you like a child and withholds a certain amount of your earnings, deciding when and how much at a time you'll get back.

Meanwhile, the so-called investment interest that the SS Trust Fund supposedly earns is actually revenue derived from even more taxes, as the Trust Fund is limited by law to investing in US Treasury bills, which are eventually paid off with revenue derived from the collection of the federal income tax! That does not follow the original intent of the program, nor is such sustainable unless you're constantly and exponentially increasing taxes and/or the work force paying into the system - we're headed to disaster on this!

Treat people like adults - they'll either sink or swim, but at least it will be their choice!

And small businesses have actually seen an increase in their taxes under Obama already, as unemployment insurance funds have been depleted across the nation, and states are increasing the employer contribution in an attempting to either replenish those funds or pay back their fund loans from the federal government. As an actual small business owner, Hoffa can personally vouch for the fact that his business taxes have gone up under Obama's administration.

As far as unemployment is concerned, Hoffa is talking about the Labor Force Participation Rate, as measured by the BLS (Obama's tampering with the way the unemployment number is calculated back in 2010 did not effect how this number is calculated).

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/

As you can see for yourself, under Bush, the rate fluctuated between 66%-67% during most of his term. 65% or above is considered a stable and healthy economy. Under Obama, it has fallen to near 63%, despite his administration's claim that unemployment has since improved - that claim makes no sense at all and is contrary to the data provided by the LFPR, clearly displaying Obama's manipulation of the unemployment number. Another fact contradicting Obama's claims that thing are getting better is the indisputable fact that applications for food stamps, unemployment benefits, welfare, and other means tested assistance programs (such as SSI) continue to increase, in aggregate, month after month, as opposed to showing any significant and substantial shift to improvement. Perhaps you've head the term "the new normal" thrown around by others - well, that simply describes Obama's attempt to get us to accept the current situation by purposefully hiding and manipulating the truth for his own political and ideological gains.

Frankly, Hoffa isn't being fooled, and neither should you.

Hoffa isn't trying to dictate how you should think - he only asks that you actually think for yourself. Trust nothing but primary source data (ignoring secondary sources or third party analysis - especially the so-called 'fact checkers'), perform your own analysis, do your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions.

Take care!

Fred- thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you....
Better luck next time.

@Fred -

Once again, that's a matter of subjective interpretation as opposed to hard objective fact.

Try again!

The only thing Obama wants to airbrush is the Libya debacle!

What is is about "guarantee" that you do not understand. That is not a loan. And, if the Auto Industry could not find any private loans which they could not, then there was no loan to "guarantee." The Auto Industry would be gone today if President Obama had not chose to save it by giving the Auto Industry loans to restructure.

You are completely wrong, and you might have the grace to admit it.

@mary edwards -

Romney was referring to a Chapter 11 restructuring. And in fact, both GM and Chrysler ended up filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy prior to the Obama bailout of the companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Chapter_11_reorganization

There was plenty of private capital that was interested at the time, including Kirk Kerkorian, Fiat, Magna International, Tata, Cherry, etc. But they all would have broke the UAW had any of those deals been approved by the bankruptcy court.

The only reason Obama stepped in was to save his crony campaign donors in the UAW. His tossing of the dealership owners and non-unionized employees under the bus in the bailout deal are proof positive of this, for those who care to admit and see the truth and reality of the situation.

@Fred -

A matter of subjective interpretation - Romney explained that during the debate, if you were actually watching.

Try again!

Damn, I thought I saw Obama apologizing for that video just last month. How soon people forget!

Fred: Not today, thanks for playing.

We will find out on Jan. 21st, 2013!
This will be while Obama boards a flight back to Kenya.

@Fred -

The only difference is that Hoffa's side has hard objective fact supporting it, while all you have are matters of subjective interpretation.

And Hoffa is positive that Romney would be a fantastic head of state in his representation of our interests to the rest of the world. Why you believe otherwise escapes Hoffa and you've offered no logical or rational argument to support such a supposition.

You really need to start trying harder!

@mhazzard -

Obama won on the number of lies told in 90 minutes last night!

Another "canned ham" republican response from hoffa...

@Flora -

As on Obama supporter, Hoffa was wondering if you could explain the math of Obama's tax plan and how it would balance the budget, as it just doesn't add up when Hoffa does the math?

@Hoffa....
Flora doesn't know what math is. She still uses her fingers to count to five and uses her other hand to make sure she got it correctly.

Placeholder for Hoffa about the size of your sucmbaggary

$50 bucks says Keith's still a welcher.

Obama is on top of things? That smoke smelled around the world is our embassy in ashes.

On top of things? Just look at Lybia. Ramming through health care while the economy and jobs crumble. Have another glass of kook-aid.

"on top of things"? Tell that to the dead ambassador and other americans, after they requested more security.

Drunk and stupid, keep it up loser.

Not only is Keith a welcher and scumbag, he is an idiot.
Obama looked like an angry little boy, Romney made some factual comments that will hurt Oblamama, The apology tour and neglecting to stop and visit our greatest ally in the area- Isreael. That speaks volumes of this President, and the people noticed.
Undecided voters will go 80-20 for Romney.
All Oblamama had to say was: Techers bla bla bla, Women bla bla bla.
Teachers and women are not that stupid- they saw this as a poor attempt to win them over. I would be shocked if it doesn't cost him votes from those who planned to vote for the idiot.

@low life POS scum bag Schmitzy -

Just don't go crying to your momma when Obama gets spanked in the election and Hoffa's Detroit collection guys show up at your home with tire irons and ball-peen hammers!

Sorry Steve, shawn, oak creek, Gear, your lack of international expertise is affecting your views. I've personally experienced some of the volatility in North Africa (pre-Obama administration). Arrogance is not the answer when angry people are trying to overturn one's car for example. In one situation we were in the lead when the vehicles were rushed by an agitated mob (several thousand gathered in the town center angry about a U.S. policy). Our driver panicked, braked, and the car was immediately swarmed-front, rear, sides, and top. Through a side window filled with screaming spitting faces I watched the foreign diplomat's car behind us inch through the crowd alongside us and the sight of that country's insignia/flags disconcerted the mob long enough for the driver of that car to move in front of ours. I had to raise my voice repeatedly to make our terrified driver step on the gas-there were men lying across the windshield and no forward visibility. Once in motion, the ones rocking the car fell back and the protesters on the roof, hood, and trunk eventually dropped off the car where they had been trying to smash the windows and pry open the doors. That was not fun.

Even in an initially quiet situation (such as ours), circumstances can turn ugly in moments. Guns and threats on our part would have been incendiary. The agitators were hoping for an excuse. Calm, clear thinking and partnership with other nations is key. Respect.

Bren that is the reaction I would expect from you, but animals do not know how to deal with diplomacy. The only reason you survived is they were distracted by somthing shiny. I would have rolled a few grenades out the window and made a clean get away too.

@Bren -

So this time, the life experience story happened directly to you as opposed to a friend or family relative like your uncle's cousin's third roommate in college.

Good to know!

I saw that movie too, Bren.

Jesus. As if.

It nearly doesn't matter what the USA does on the world stage, as its almost always going to be our mistake. It's just like McDonald's is to blame for everyone being fat and Walmart is to blame for everyone buying a house-full of cheap Chinese junk;the big guy is the fall guy.

Craig, that diplomat's quick thinking is entirely why I'm here to tell the story. These men and women put their lives on the line every day they spend in these volatile areas. Your grenade idea might have taken out the diplomat and staff. Then you would have an international incident involving three countries.

Mr. Hoffa, yes, this a story of mine.

Jay, I believe the U.S. must protect its people and security interests abroad. We also do much good in the world. I believe that infuriates terrorists, and hence the strike against the ambassador and staff. The important takeaway was that ordinary citizens desperately tried to help the victims.

Bren: That is a hell of a story, and you are lucky to be around to tell it.
Are you sure that diplomat was acting selflessly? Another possibility is he was saving his own ass. Do you care to share what you were doing in N. Africa to begin with?

Yes, I'd love to hear more of Bren's story about their trip to North Africa as well.

Obviously Bren was posting on the African Patch and then the crowd discovered her identity.

Powerful imagination.

Research about the expanding ALEC and Koch operations in N. Africa?

Craig, it was a risk. The side windows opened and attempts were being made to shout/pantomime instructions to our driver through the chaos. But it wasn't working and the interference was being noticed, with hostility.

I have mentioned before that I lived overseas for several years, and this trip was a component of that experience.

That controversial embassy-issued message was an attempt to forestall opportunity. When chaos is all around or about to erupt, the ones who still have their wits are the ones who become responsible for all of the lives.

@Bob McBride -
I hope you feel awfully superior with the snarky comment to some high school kids.

Bite me, John Q.

Frankly, I don't see the point in even bothering with the opinions of folks who can't vote. I think the author just included it because she personally got a kick out of the Snooki comparison.

Shouldn't they have been at home doing their homework, anyways? It was a school night. If you were really concerned about school kids, you'd have noticed that yourself.

Look, if your going to slander me like that under the assumption that a few jokes I made about the amount of makeup worn by the candidates sums up my political knowledge, then clearly sir, you do not understand satire.

As for the "obongo" comment, shortly followed by an accusation of liberal ignorance, I am astounded by the racism being displayed. At least as a liberal pantywaist, I can look in the mirror and like what I see.

You should have stayed home and studied up on slander, in addition to spending a few minutes familiarizing yourself with how to accurately direct a response to a comment you find offensive.

As for "satire", around here that's known as the all-purpose excuse for "I said something stupid and I can't take it back at this point."

Bob,
You don't have to care about their opinions but you don't need to dump on them either. I think it's great that these kids used their free time to attend the debate viewing party and am happy to see these young people learn about politics. Much better than having them play video games...
And really, "Bite me"? I'll let your own words describe the thought put into that comment.

@Ian Reid -- I can see you're new to the usual level of political discourse on The Patch, where personal attacks and cute racist nicknames for the President are a daily occurrence. My advice to you is to ignore them.

John Q.

It's not my responsibility to coddle some other schlump's kids. They can't vote, I don't care what they think, it doesn't matter and the author obviously included the comments because she got a personal kick out of them. That's the level of seriousness imparted by this article and I'm responding in kind.

Again, that these kids weren't at home doing homework on a school night and that, at least one of them, isn't in school or is goofing off at school now posting here is more troublesome to me than any possible hurt feeling they might suffer as a result of the author subjecting their comments to ridicule. That's because I'm a caring kind of guy.

And yes, John Q., bite me.

Ian Reid seems like a good kid - he just needs to do this homework a little better. Hoffa tried to set him straight on some of the misconceptions that he has about Obama above.

Still trying to figure out what a 'Snooki' is and why it appears to be so popular.

The 'Snooki' is the adult form of the 'Honey Boo-boo'. Both are mutant forms of Twenty-first century American fauna.

Bob –
Your response is ridiculous. You should care that kids are interested in politics because they are only a few years away from voting – in this case he appears to be left leaning so you are unloading on the guy. I’m quite certain that if they expressed an opinion that you approved of, you would be touting them as the second coming of Reince Priebus. Get over the homework argument, it just doesn’t work – kids have free time and I applaud that they use it in a civic manner. I will agree with you that they probably shouldn’t be posting during the day unless they have a free period or late lunch. And by the way, it’s not the author subjecting their comments to ridicule; it’s you ridiculing these kids because you “don’t care what they think”. Also, instead of ripping on these kids comments, why don’t you contact the author and let her know that you are not happy with the content of the article.
Have a nice day,
JQP

Here you go, Hoffa. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEcLn0aHpKM

"JQP"

Within the context of an article purporting to give a cross section of opinions regarding a debate (and I think by now it's become pretty clear that no one from the right bothered to show up - unless you believe Obama was so brilliant he converted/shamed all the righties in attendance) the opinions of those who can't/won't vote are immaterial and, frankly, the author should know that. Nor is the opinion of some fake name regarding comments made by others of much interest or concern.

Again, it's not my responsibility to coddle someone else's kids. If they want to come on here and converse with others, I'm not going to treat them any different than anyone else. I'm not going to pat them on the head and give them an "A" for effort. To do so would be even more condescending and disrespectful than calling them on a misinterpretation of the word "slander" and suggesting that they position responses to comments they find offensive in the thread that actually contains the offensive comment.

At least Ian's using his real name. That alone puts him a couple of notches above you in terms of being taken seriously.

Hopefully that's all clear for you now. If not, again, bite me.

@Randy1949 -

What in the hell is a 'Honey Boo-boo' - is that what kids are calling it now when they scrape up their knee or elbow?

@Bob
Using your logic, we should also discard the validity of comments from...
Hoffa, AWD, Nuitari, Randy1949, H.E. Pennypacker, and anyone else who doesn't use their real name here on Patch. Congrats to you for your use of the term "Bite me" in all of your posts, it was like being back in the eighties.
By the way, I wasn't commenting about the content of the article but rather your treatment of some kids who were quoted in the article. No one has asked you to coddle anyone or pat them on the head, I'll leave the condesention to you. Again, you were just dumping on someone becuase their opinion differs from yours.
-JQP

@Bob McBride -

Hoffa's not sure what he just watched, but for some reason or another, he feels stupider for having watched it!

It's no wonder Hoffa started ignoring MTV when they stopped showing music videos.

John Q. Public
4:05 pm on Tuesday, October 23, 2012
@Bob
Using your logic, we should also discard the validity of comments from...
Hoffa, AWD, Nuitari, Randy1949, H.E. Pennypacker, and anyone else who doesn't use their real name here on Patch.

**********

Yes, feel free to do so. Of course, in your case it would make no sense, but if you want to, personally, discard the comments of those folks because they're anonymous, have at it. It wouldn't be anymore contradictory or ridiculous than anything else you've put out here today.

I'm glad you're enjoying "bite me". I have other phrases I could use but Patch's TOS would probably prohibit them. Which is a shame, because they'd fit the situation much better.

Yes, JRH, unfortunately you can't unsee that.

I believe they also have a show about underage teens who have babies. All this good stuff from the network that promotes "Rock the Vote", btw.

@JRH -- Honey Boo-boo is a spinoff from the cable reality show, Toddlers in Tiaras. I've never actually watched either show other than scattered clips. Believe me, that was enough.

Hoffa must not get out much. LOL

Or maybe he actually gets out more than we think, Randy. At least we know he's not spending much time on the channels that go beyond the old VHF limits.

Well bob, if I should stay home and study, or use my class (study hall) more efficiently, then perhaps rather than participating in some barely-civil discourse with a high schooler you should get back to work.
And if satire is wanting to take something stupid you said back, then you are the next mark twain.
If the article in question is so lacking in seriousness, why get so defensive over something that someone who you "don't see the point in bothering with the opinions of". If you ask me, you're afraid of getting beat in a political debate to someone who hasn't graduated from high school yet.
Look bob, I don't mean to insult or demean your comments. They are a wee bit offensive. They have every right to be. And I don't think you should have any restraint because of my age, but don't discriminate against me because of my age when politicians you support complain about the legacy the government leaves for my generation.
But it's really great to know that those who can vote are in part a few people who enjoy hating on teenagers because they voice their opinions.
I hope you have a wonderful day.
I hope you have a nice day.

And unless I'm over thinking this, I believe John Q. Public is a play on the pen name used on the federalist papers, Publius.
A number of which, by the way, argued for a stronger federal government. Alexander Hamilton, you guys. Smart dude.

Who's getting defensive?

You're not old enough to vote. Your take on the debate, frankly, is immaterial. You yourself stated that the comments weren't meant to be taken seriously and when I didn't, you got your undies in a bundle.

I can debate just fine. You, apparently, can dish out BS but can't take any back in your own direction. Come back when you grow a pair.

As far as the other guy goes, I've wasted more than enough of my time on a fake name for the day. If he's got anything else to say to me he can take the mask off and do so. Anybody can be a hot shot when they've got nothing on the line.

Go finish your homework and stop skipping classes.

Hey look, a pair!
Ever notice how according to the debates, Romney and Ryan don't agree on taxes? Romney said he would keep taxes on the upper class the same in the second debate, and Ryan said he would lower taxes for everyone in the VP debate.
Sesame street and downton abbey account for less than 1% of the national budget. There goes the debt? Didn't think so.
Tell me how romneys business expirienxe helps when one major aspect of his job included putting companies into bankruptcy. And the last time I checked, obama had some expirience running... Um... America. Maybe not the best job. But the last time I checked, the economy has improved since the 2008 downturn.
Oh don't even get me started on the Ryan budget. 10% of education. Might help you, since there won't be a high school for me to go to.
What would you have said if Romney had killed osama bin laden? (apparently a lot of people think that he did. Now that's uninformed)
Slander: a malicious, false, or defamatory statement or report.
Satire: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly etc.
I was using Horatian satire, as opposed to juvenalien, which sums up most of what has occurred here.
You know who don't reveal names? A lot of those who give to super pacs.
Don't be alarmed if I don't respond until tomorrow. It's probably past my bedtime or something like that.

Really didn't know I was enlisting for WWIII here. Where's my horse?

G'night, Ian.

@Ian Reid -

Actually, defamation in written form is known as libel.

Slander is defamation that is dispersed verbally.

Now you know - and knowledge is power!

You work with what you have. Were there complimentary snacks and drinks offered? That might explain the overwhelmingly lefty viewpoint expressed by those interviewed for the article.

I don't know what the hell Obongo and the rest of the panty waist liberals are yapping about, I remember training with bayonets regularly in the Marines. More ignorance from liberals, yawn.

Meh, Sarah thinks hunting should be outlawed. You get what you get around here

@Bob is right. If there were Romney supporters at the debate last night, they didn't pipe up. That's why I made sure to include a comment from the Republican Party.

And for the record, Steve, I don't think hunting should be outlawed...

And if you are interested, the Huffington Post was at the Republican PArty of Waukesha County headquarters last night. Here's the recap of what happened there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/debate_n_2004056.html

It's great that you included the comments about the skin color in your report Sara. Real substantive.

@H.E. Pennypacker....You were in the Marine Corps? Actual bayonets or a K-bar on the end of an M16? Did you ever have an opportunity to use your bayonet for real? To be honest, if you were in the corps it was probably as a grunt all brawn and no brains. By the way, just to validate your claim; where did you do boot and from when to when?

So here we have Lyle attacking a vet for his service: "it was probably as a grunt all brawn and no brains".
Nice, Lyle, nice. Why would you doubt or belittle someone's service to his country ?!?

Of course we all know Lyle single handily won the Vietnam war ( or was it WWII, hard to keep track when dealing with Mr Ruble). Our very own Wizard of Oz for the left is a charlatan ("a person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud").

Those are U.S. k-bar bayonets and all soldiers go through basic CQC training with those knives. The elite specialist go through even more training as the K-Bar is the best way to silently kill at close range.
And as for Obama what does the bastard son of a communist athiest,and a anti-colonialist communist,who grand parents were also communist, whose mentors were all anti-American communist,who actively sought out liberal and communist activist to saddle up with through out his entire life KNOW ABOUT THE MILITARY OR WHAT IT EVEN MEANS TO BE AMERICAN

Wow Lyle, shame on you.

Todd: Thanks for the link. I am betting Romney is winning over the women vote also. Obama pissed off a lot of decent women with his smart ass comments last night.
Time for B. Hussein to start packing for Kenya.

"But the stat of the night comes from the PPP poll: While independents by a 55–40 percent margin felt Obama won the debate, they became more likely to vote for Romney (47 more likely — 35 less likely) than Obama (32 more likely — 48 less likely)."

Obama is not likeable, he is creepy looking with his death stare. People do not like him, he is certain to lose.

Yes, as we know, Obama was the subject of "men who stare at goats" with his death stare.
Just kidding man.

@Troy: My lasting impression after 3 debates is the President bashing the Governor, and having no vision for the future. He has a vision, of course, but can't share it with us because of our natural recoil against Socialism.

The President bashed the Gov. because he has had every vision of the future.

I don't know how more clear Obama could be - trasition out of the longest war in our history-reinvest in education & clean energy, rebuild our infrastructure & balance our budget in a responsible way. That's pretty clear to me.

Obama is as socialist as you or me. It is getting pretty tired the TeaParty/Fox News rights continue to accuse him of something that is flat out untrue just to monger fear.

Yeah, that clean energy is really working out isn't it. More tiresome is o-blabbo repeating infrastructure rebuild. Isn't that what the stimulus was all about? The shovel ready jobs? Remember? Balancing the budget is a great joke Troy. The dems didn't even submit one in 3 years. And when o-babble finally got around to presenting one it was voted down by both parties. Free thought? You're just repeating talking points.

A conservative criticizing a repeat of talking points. That is pretty hypocritical.

Even though I am not repeating talking points. I am repeating the Presidents platform -in response to a Conservative Talking point, actually.

Guys, don't bother arguing with Freethough BOY. When he is confronted with actual facts that prove he is wrong, he'll just throw a tantrum and behave like a child.

Something along the lines of "oh gee I guess I am the dumbest person in the world", or similar. Might as well argue with a middle school girl.

Yes. oak creek.

Because your personal insults are so much more persuasive and mature.

"Something along the lines of "oh gee I guess I am the dumbest person in the world", or similar. Might as well argue with a middle school girl."

... and that puts words in my mouth that is nothing close to what I have actually ever said.

A TeaParty Conservative distorting facts - yeah. Not that surprising actually.

That's y'alls bread & butter.

FreeLoadingTroy: Do you really think the past 4 years has been filled with hope and change?
Maybe it has been for food stamp scammers, but the people who want to work will elect a President who knows HOW to work.

Depite an obstructionist minority party, whose primary objective is to make Obama a one term president, President Obama actually did accomplish some good things. Yes, there is more work to do.

But I trust a man who brings people together compared to giving up on them and shipping opportunity to other contries. Nice work if you can get it, but not good for the country

FreeLoadinTroy: He promised to end the Iraq war in his first 100 days, but took 3 years. ( D- at best)
He promised to cut the deficit in half, instead he doubled it. (F- is kind)
He caused businesses to take a wait and see approach with hiring. Many companies are waiting to see if ObaongoCare is repealed before they hire more people. Economy (F)
Gas prices double to triple what they were when he took office. (F)
Almost 50 million Americans on food stamps a 50% increase (F)
Helping overthrow the regime in Libya, a regime that was afraid of the US because Bill Clinton put a missle in their leader's living room and killed his kid. The new regime is run by the Muslim Brotherhood, shocked I am sure. (F-)
Obama has managed to improve one thing....
his golf score. (incomplete)

He still swings his golf club like a girl.

FreeLoaders know who will butter their bread, they will vote for Obama regardless. When does that debit card get renewed FreeLoaders?

Yes, Craig. Freeloaders like seniors who have paid income taxes up until retirement, active military and veterans who defended this country (didn't a conservative here insult someone claiming to be a vet?) or those too poor to pay income tax on top of payroll, SSI and Medicare (that was a Reagan idea if memory serves).

Playing with my name as I am a Freethinker is totally rational, too.

No. It really isn't

@FreeThought Troy -

Please provide your source that Romney is planning on using Clinton administration advisers in his administration.

Troy: Those are YOUR words, not mine. I have stated openly numerous times that Soicial Security is a TRUST fund, and by that nature is a guaranteed fund for retirees and those disabled from work.
The reload of your debit card on this day each month is a different story.
The reload for the free load.
Go to Wal Mart today, and I bet 99% are Obama backers. Buying their steaks and Lobster tails on the government tab and 4 cases of Mount Dew. While the rest of US are busting ass to put Hamburger Helper on the table.
I guess you must be posting with your ObamaPhone while waiting in line?

FTT, You don't know of any freeloaders in this country? The people that don't work because entitlements pay better and work is work?

FYI: I posted a pic of a reciept found in a grocery store parking lot for those who think food stamps are not buying Porterhouse Steaks and Lobster for dinner!

Tonight's debate will also air live on C-Span at 8PM

It is also airing live tonight on C-Span at 8PM.

@Michael -

If the circumstances were different, Hoffa would consider voting third party, however, this election is too important to screw up.

@Hoffa The two major candidates have been so pre-packaged and paid for that none of us really know what the next 4 years will bring with either of them. The debates only proved my point. They both want to be as vague as possible. They both have their marketing people I am sure. Just like for any product.

The independent parties debate was simply excellent. All four candidates were very clear with their answers and policy positions. What a great change from the normal!

Obama is a panty waist who allowed 4 Americans to be killed in Bengazi.

Just like Bush who was a lazy buffon who allowed 4,000 Americans to be killed in New York (or own shores)?

We are investigating and will bring the killers to justice, unlike his opponent who doesn't believe in moving heaven and earth to pursue one man & seek justice

Troy-moving heaven and earth? He had to be persuaded to go get Osama. I suppose you believed him when he said he would lower the sea level too.

LOL!! That's why the black flag al-Qaeda was flying over the American compound in Benghazi while our Ambassador was being drug through the streets. Meanwhile, Obama did his obligatory lie in the Rose Garden before jetting off to Vegas. Even for the OBL assassination the Navy Seals setup, they had to call in our 'president' off of the golf course to do his job.

What a clown.

"He had to be persuaded to go get Osama."

???

That was his first directive to the Joint Chiefs. I don't know where you get your information from...

@Dave

Obama behaved just like Biden did, smirking and rude. I am sure it did wonders with the poll #s, which I am guessing won't budge or may show a slight Romney bump.

Obama did NOT behave like a president, or a statesman.

Tony, I find your comment re: "Just like Bush who was a lazy buffon who allowed 4,000 Americans to be killed in New York or own shores" incredibly tasteless .

Bush "allowed 9/11" ? Bull ! next you'll be saying Bush staged 9/11. In contrast, Obama did not reinforce the consulate, despite two previous attacks in the months preceding. State and the White House refused the ambassador's requests for more protection ( before lefties argue State was late in informing Obama, didn't the pres state that he takes full responsibility. ....kinda a " the buck stops here " statement and good for him for accepting the Commander in Chief responsibility). The administration watched the attack live from a drone camera and had a marine unit that could have immediately been dispatched to the consulate but failed to do so. Tiny ( oops, Tony), to quote you in your own words , "I don't know where you get your information from..."

Bewildered.

Despite numerous briefings and memos, the most famous titled bin Laden determied to strike in the US - 9/11 happened. Terror attacks happen. I hold Bush as responsible for the World Trade Center as I do Obama about the Embassy.

Both events were tradegies. I find it appauling that the conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job were all condemned immediately (as they should have been), yet the embassy attacks have turned into some political rallying cry about a very strong foreign policy president.

Oh - and I reject the opinions that uncertainty in the Middle East is due to American weakness. I thought we wanted democracy everywhere. If that truly is the case, we can't go back and blame our leaders when citizens elect people we don't like

FreeLoadinTroy: You think Al Gore would have been able to stop the attack on the trade towers and Pentagon? Bush never once blamed Clinton. Maybe you should step up and follow a real man's lead.

SO NOW GWB IS THE MAN?!?!?!????? That's funny. That's really funny.

Yes. Al Gore would have listened to President Clinton and stopped the attack before it happened. The warning signs were there, but GWB was too busy trying to invade Iraq even then.

Unbelievable. And you talk about me and ether and head somewhere.

Just stop. This is getting ridiculous.

Troy you are an idiot, an absolute idiot. Clinton had the chance to take Bin Laden out, and didn't. Don't pretend Gore would have got him before the twin towers were hit. Give me a break that Gore would have handled anything better.
Check into a substance abuse program if you really believe that.

LOLOLOLO

freethought BOY thinks Gore would have prevented 9-11... LLOLO

The same liberal people that gutted our intelligence agency are going to save us!>!?

LMAO BOY!

It would have helped if the Monica Lewinsky scandal hadn't overshadowed the news about former U.S. ally Osama bin Laden becoming a terrorist threat to this country. Also if the Bush transition team had been more receptive to Richard Clarke's terrorism briefings. Also if the FBI reports, including the imminent warning, had been acted upon. These actions may not have prevented the tragedy but might have mitigated its extent.

Bren: So let's grow the Gvt. some more. We know red tape exists everywhere in the Federal Government, so let's make that tape as strong as iron. Add more Gvt. regulations and programs.....
Thanks for pointing out the downside of Government being too big and Government redundancy.

Craig, we know that George W. Bush hired more government employees than any other president since Dwight D. Eisenhower, the pitifully-enacted Homeland Security initiative. The lack of response to repeated warnings of imminent terrorist attack in the contiguous United States can be attributed to election euphoria, incompetence, and excessive presidential vacation time. The success of the terrorist mission lay in its planners' deep understanding of the American mindset and business models; the unprecedented laziness and administrative penny-pinching that determined airport/airline targeting, etc.

Government wasn't too big.

Last night it was Mitt-the man of peace. What a joke Mitt is.

Beth:

Who is paying you to post this stuff? Not only are you from Florida, posting on a local Wisconsin Patch site, you also posted pretty much the same comment on the Exeter, NH, Alpharetta, GA, Plymouth, MN, Chesterfield, MO, Vienna, VA and several other Patch sites around the US.

http://dunedin.patch.com/users/beth-norquist

How much are they paying, and how does one get such a job?

Beth is a frustrated spinster.

Sounds more like Beth gets around, if ya know what I mean...Wink, wink.

Numbers don't lie like Obammy.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Reply

Really? Because pushing for a military with a WWII warfare mindset with George W Bush advisors is knowledge?

And I suppose Bin Laden and Gaddafi felt the submission.

Look at the concepts of what he said and not pick apart the examples he used to make a point. Next you'll tell me Romney's Tax Plan adds up - which it doesn't.

WWII warfare mindset? WWII was a war of aircraft carriers and submarines, remember Pearl Harbor?

My points are based on the context of the above article, I am not searching for the concepts of what he said.

FreeLoadinTroy: Gaddafi was better to leave in power than the Muslim Brotherhood. You have Obongo to thank for that stronghold now too.
Obama undermined everything Clinton worked for with Libya, and Libya was afraid of us. Now Libya sees the USA as a bunch of pantywaist apologists.

@Draig, "Gaddafi was better to leave in power than the Muslim Brotherhood."
Thousands killed while in prison, either as a result of torture, or deliberate mass killing of prisoners
Co-operation with the United States and Britain in the torture and rendition
Public Executions of Civilians in the 1980′s
Assassinations carried out abroad in the 1980′s, by way of example:

Shame on you. Shame. On. You.

I think you and HE need to take a break from the posts for a while. You are getting to fired up and making ridiculous statements that are both shameful & embarrassing.

FreeLoadinTroy: Gaddafi stopped effing with us after Clinton killed his son. What makes you think the Muslim Brotherhood taking power is better for stability of the region or for American National Security?
All Obama did was move us one step closer to an Arab world united in hate of USA.
Next time we are hit with a terrorist attack, you will just forget about Libya won't you?

My point is that Gaddafi is not a better choice than the Brotherhood by any measure. He committed attrocities against his own people and others well after we bombed him.

Just because he didn't directly attack America does not mean he was some saint that is better than Religious Fundamentals. If Religious Fundamentals are so bad, why on this earth do you support the TeaParty?

I think Gaddafi took a bayonet to the butt. Strange but true.

I've seen that footage, and it looks that way. If it was an American-supplied bayonet, I would tell them to keep it. We don't really want it back.

Mkay FreeLoadinTroy, Now you are asserting the Muslim Brotherhood is equated to the Tea Party?
You do understand the difference?
The Tea Party wants you to support yourself.
The Muslim Brothehood wants you and your fellow Americans removed from the face of this Earth, in the name of Allah.
Yeah, definately the same.

FreebaseTroy:
Now I am starting to know why you are so skewed with your thinking process.
Talk about shameful and embarassing, I hope the ether doesn't burn you.

TeaParty Conservative got this phobia about anything Muslim, or Progressive, or anything that isn't TeaParty Conservative. There is voilence against gay people, abortion doctors, etc. All done in the name of a god. Just like Muslim Brotherhood.

This is why we live in a secular (or what should be secular) nation. Fundamentalism leads directly to fanaticism.

It is true no matter how you play with my screen name to insult me and to dump on my Freethought Non-belief.

I doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood does anything in the name of God.

Wrong again buddy.

Pull your head out of your liberal rear end 'Buck'.

"From 500 yards, every Marine is accurate with a rifle. Attach the OKC-3S Bayonet, and the weapon becomes just as effective in close combat situations. Also a Marine's multi-purpose fighting knife, the OKC-3S is the weapon of choice when shots can't be fired. Every Marine receives bayonet training in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) and on the Bayonet Assault Course in Recruit Training."

Typical weak liberal male.

None?
How many submarines are deployed in Afghanistan?

“The first time we used our horses to train Special Forces was right after 9/11,” explains Mark Rossignol, business manager for Smith Lake Stables. Fort Bragg is home to the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Forces. “They were being sent to Afghanistan, and often the only way they can travel over there is by horse.”

The rocky terrain found in remote areas of Afghanistan isn’t easy to traverse, even by jeep. Native horses become a mode of transportation. Pack animals, especially donkeys, also become familiar partners. For some of America’s elite troops, however, knowledge of horses and their four-legged relatives isn’t familiar territory. The first time they actually halter a horse, saddle it and ride it may be at Smith Lake Stables."

Do you want me to school you on the use of bayonets too? As always Bucky, you are the idiot.

@Bucky

All us military STILL USE BAYONETS! And still use horses quite often in rough terrain.
Bucky = just another weak idiot wuss liberal = Obama

Yes, Greg and OCR, soldiers still ride horses in rough terrain. But how many horses does the cavalry have today versus in 1920? It looks like a private stable had to train our special forces when it came to riding.

So what did you expect from a slacker that coasted thru college.... did drugs.... was a mediocre state legislator, poor private sector employee, adjunct college teacher, mediocre lawyer, ..... & a mediocre US senator..... & as a middle-aged president - pronounced 'corpsman' as 'CORPSE-MAN'

@Pennypacker -- That is a very unkind thing to say about Scott Walker -- other than he's not qualified to teach college.

Randy, I will bet you Hoffa's $50 that our military currently has more horses than it has both aircraft carriers and submarines.
Randy you can even pick up a couple here:
http://www.govliquidation.com/events?cmd=details&event=11311

@Greg -- I'm not a betting person, especially after watching that debacles with Keith Schmitz. Whether the army owns horses is not the issue. Does it own as many horses as it did in 1920?

@Greg -- 36 now, and they're used for training and other duties including a day-camp for kids. Not exactly what I'd call an active cavalry unit.

I'd say no. But to the idiot Bucky's point, even one is more than none.

@H.E. Pennypacker....LMAO, you talk to much to be a real marine. Those who know do not say, those who say do not know. (Tao) BTW did some DI challenge your manhood and call you a wuss once too often? I used to get a kick out of BAMs kicking grunts' butts.

@Greg -- Great -- you managed to PWN Bucky but not the President.

By the way, there are no mounted cavalry (on horseback) units in the US Army, so that part is true.

Just an example of Lyle slamming a vet for his service. Bow down to the almighty Oz of Patch's far far left. Lyle, I had hoped you'd show more class than this. Oh well, guess your true colors are shingling thru.

Where was it specified as units? Or army? As I pointed out above, our forces do use horses in current combat zones. Spin it however you like.

@Greg -- I don't need to spin. I'm getting dizzy enough just sitting her and watching you guys doing it.

Hey, dipstick the American special ops are currently using horse’s to get around and blend in the mountains of Afghanistan. And Obama is listening to the liberals he put in power in 2009 not actual battle hardened combat vets. And I hate to mention this umm ... every marine is issued a bayonet and there are more of them now than in 1916…. just saying.

Y'know - all the name calling and finger pointing is distracting from the point. The state of warfare and the needs of the military have evolved over the years (sorry X-tians, there is that evolution word again). The point the President was trying to make is Romney doesn't understand the modern needs of a military.

Let us agree there are horses and bayonets in the military and leave this pointless string. Romney is out of touch with military needs just as he is with the needs of the middle class.

Case closed. Sheesh.

@H.E. Pennypacker....You're claiming to be a combat hardened veteran? Prove it marine.

"and who's the real idiot here."(?)

@Randy

There you go trying to deflect rather than get to the heart of the point. Obongo tried to pull a pre-packaged quip, and still f'cked it up by not knowing a thing about his military.

What would one expect from a loser who skips out on most of his daily military and security briefings?

There you go again Randy. What does Walker have to do with this topic? Not a damn thing. You just can't let go of that can you?
Move on.

Randall genuflects to the Blue Fist every morning, he can't let it go.

And there you go, OCR, using a racist nickname for the President. The word was 'fewer' than in 1920, and you need to go back to second grade if you think twenty-five million military horses is 'fewer' than thirty-six. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II#United_States

Randall or anyone help me out here....where does OCR use a racist comment about Obama?
Was the comment deleted?

OCR called the President 'Obongo', which has some lovely jungle savage nuances to it.

Or it means he's high.

So using the term Obongo is racist because....Obama is presumably black?
But it was acceptable to call Ronald Regan Raygun and Bonzo because he was white?

That's a reach, Randy.
I have even used the term Obongo, so that makes me a racist too?

Randy?

@Craig -- JQP has told me to return to my corner, so I'm dropping it. I'm not the only one who is 'uncomfortable' with that nickname.

And I thought it was 'bong', in reference to his drug use. I didn't see the racial overtone until you just explained it.

@Bob -

Hoffa has been curious about that as well - or is it all just another Obama lie?

I assume someone won, otherwise by now someone would have made an issue of it (call me PollyAnna, but I don't think the entire MSM is so in the tank for the guy that someone wouldn't want to make a name for themselves by exposing a scam run by his campaign - were that the case).

But it is kind of odd that HuffPo/Patch - a conglomerate site on which those ads were featured prominently - hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, made mention of the "winner, winner" of the rubber "chicken dinner" with Barrack. Maybe Sarah could look into that for us?

The winner was probably George Clooney.

"I feel that this article actually makes everyone who was there look like a bunch of idiots"

Of course you are a bunch of idiots, you are voting for Obongo.

Judging from this post from an acknowledged attendee, it looks like the author spared at least a few folks some embarrassment by not including any more information than she did.

Be glad you were not quoted, it would have proven you to be more of an idiot than you think. The article makes you look like an idiot not because of the author, but because of what you just stated in your comment.
This is the real you, no?

@Browen -

Who's Beth? According to the article, it was written by Patch editor Sarah Millard, and not someone named Beth.

Beth is a song by Kiss.

Neither of the two women who inspired the song were actually named Beth. So I guess we still don't know who the hell Beth is.

I did have a girlfriend named Beth, but I don't think Peter Criss would have known her.

I don't think that Browen Mead would have known her either.

But you never know, it's been a long time.

Romney has made his point rather stupidly. Yes, we may have fewer ships than in 1920, but the ships we have possess greater capability. How many ships in 1920 could incinerate a city in a single flash?

If Mr Romney had wanted to argue we need to update the fleet and explain exactly how, he should have done that. He didn't, and his arguments indicate he has a poor grasp of the issue.

When Romney wins it's yeaaaa. When Dems win it's because Obama's a bully or it's the Moderators fault? Two weeks before elections, should Obama just sit there and allow Romney to continue to back-track on everything he has said from a week ago?
Romney was such a great Gov that his state is 15 points ahead for Obama. But it is very clear than Romney would not have taken out bin laden. He would have asked Pakistan for permission and of course they would have said no. (Fact is, he would have been Bush and not even looked for him.) Romney never even mentioned our Veterans just like he never mentioned them at his Convention.
Obama said to look up what Romney said of the auto bail out so here it is from debate number one.

THE FACTS: Presidents have almost no effect on energy prices; most are set on financial exchanges around the world. When Obama took office, the world was in the grip of a financial crisis and crude prices — and gasoline prices along with them — had plummeted because world demand had collapsed. Crude oil prices have since risen even as U.S. oil production has soared in recent years because global demand is reaching new heights as the developing economies of Asia use more oil.

Obama pulled a Biden and acted like a rude child. Typical liberal though, they just cannot help it!

Look at the latest polls, you are in the minority with that opinion.
Romney up by 5 points!

@Randy1949 -

Are you implying that you'd expect our commander in chief to use our nuclear arsenal to "incinerate a city in a single flash?"

Just because we have the capability doesn't mean that we'd use it. The rules of engagement expressly prevent us from using such a heavy handed approach, thus having more conventional weapons become necessary to maintain the strength of our military and engage enemies according to the rules we've agreed to abide by, as Romney stated last night.

Did Hoffa really have to point this out to you?

Come on - you're a smarter guy than to buy into Obama's line of crap!

@JRH -- I'm not implying that our Commander in Chief would do anything like that other than in the gravest of circumstances. My point is that we no longer have to send multiple ships full of marines to storm the beaches with their bayonets or send a cavalry brigade thundering into the valley of death. One ship off the coast with the ability to send cruise missiles sends a message.

*yawn*

Are there any liberals who understand bankruptcy? My God you guys are morons, bankruptcy means reorganization, not a fire sale! Idiots.

Do you believe your own drivel? You are so far off the mark, I can't even begin to point out the stupidity in your comment.

@carolo -

Your so-called 'facts' are grossly incorrect!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

"The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. "

Ultimately what happened is that both Chrysler and GM were taken through a structured bankruptcy, just as Romney recommended. New corporations were created in the bankruptcy process, and the good assets from each company were transferred to those corporations, while the liabilities remained with the failing bankrupt companies.

What was unnecessary were Obama's crony deals with the UAW, Canadian government, and the private Italian firm Fiat.

Next time, get your so-called 'facts' straight!

Yeah Keith Jackass (he insists I call him that), pay Hoffa already.

You forgot to tell Herr Schmitz to pay the $35,000 he owes Shorewood. Truly, it's not about "Chrome Dome's" ( that's one of his favorite insults...if the shoe fits) failure to pay off his debits. We all know he's all smoke and no fire, It's about his total lack of credibility.

It's Steve ®

@John Q. Public -

If "it gets old," then why are you here commenting?

John Q. Public commenting on the "somewhat anonymous" nature of others. Perfect. No need to read any further than that.

A rare voice of reason amid the partisan circle jerk known as the Patch. Refreshing.

@bewildered -
I didn't forget about Keith's $35,000 to Shorewood; that's his debt and he should be left to deal with the consequences.
@Steve -
Your "registration" mark is as ridiculous as me calling myself JQP and Hoffa referring to himself in the third person.

@Satori -
Thanks for the comment. What I would like to see is more reasonable discussion on this site - it's just gone straight down the drain.
@Bob McBride -
I trust that you understand the concepts of irony and subtlety - they are fused together in that comment - although you may have missed that.
@Hoffa -
I comment because, every once in a while, someone has to tell these Internet pugilists to go to their respective corners. I suggest that those that post here on a frequent basis should think about reading their posts out loud to their families. If they're not willing to do that, then chances are they're embarrassed of what they've posted.
Regards,
JQP

JQP: if you don't like it you can always change the page.

It's Steve ® get it right

John Q. Public
3:46 pm on Tuesday, October 23, 2012

@Bob McBride -
I trust that you understand the concepts of irony and subtlety - they are fused together in that comment - although you may have missed that.

*****************

"Irony", the alternative excuse for having said something stupid and being unable to undo it.

Seriously, you're an idiot. You're what's wrong with Patch. Anonymous idiots. Get lost.

@Steve ® -
® you happy now?
-JQP

@John Q. Public -- This is more or less how I found the site to be when I showed up a year and a half ago. It was Joanne Kloppenberg and the President being called names back then. Not much has changed.

@Bob -
I'm pretty sure I saw that "definition" of irony used elsewhere in this thread today. Choose to believe it, or not, irony was the intent. Your decision to call me names and to tell me to "get lost" only makes your temper tantrum that much more memorable.
Good day,
-JQP

John Q. Public
4:37 pm on Tuesday, October 23, 2012
@Bob -
I'm pretty sure I saw that "definition" of irony used elsewhere in this thread today.

*****************

No, you saw that definition used with "satire" - which is used more frequently as an excuse for saying something stupid and being unable to do anything about it. Maybe if you read and paid attention you could get past the "anonymous idiot" designation and just be "anonymous" like some of the others here. Good luck with that.

@Bob...
Your "definitions" are...
"satire", around here that's known as the all-purpose excuse for "I said something stupid and I can't take it back at this point."
"Irony", the alternative excuse for having said something stupid and being unable to undo it.

So let me get this straight, in your world you have two similarly but incorrect definitions for two completely different words - brilliant. I didn't realize that you were such a stickler for accuracy (that was intended to be ironic, but not subtle).
Again, good day!
-JQP

No, John, actually what I was doing was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you'd be able to follow a none-too-complex thread here (hence the use of the word "alternative"). My mistake. I should have known better.

Steve ® is happy

I didn't think he was an expert on anything but affirmative action. And housing deals, and reverend right, and how to get away with being a domestic terrorist, and how to steal a senate seat and how to vote present. Yeah those are the things I thought he was an expert on.

If your neighborhood still has a milk man delivering milk, you aren't going to replace him with a supermarket. Those who support Obama are being supported by Obama.
The dreams of his father have already begun to take hold here.

Dave:
There is absolutely no reason for that kind of talk here on Patch.
Your sexual fantasies have no place in this thread.

Ah yes, Hoffa's old friend Dave Koven - how are you doing skippy?

You should really check out Hoffa's awesome blog about the Top 10 original songs made specifically for use in your favorite horror movies:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/blog_posts/hoffas-top-10-horror-movie-songs

You just may discover some titles and songs that you've never heard before.

Come on Koven - expand your mind, what have you got to lose?

Dave, you can't but that apparently doesn't stop some from trying.

If I make any comment on Obama's looks I will instantly be labeled as a racist by the left.

Perhaps this will earn me the 'racist' tag, but I must admit that Obama is a good looking man...

Why should you worry Greg? You step into that Cow Dung all the time. Knock yourself out. Please.

Keith Jackass, I did not say that I wanted to comment on his looks, I just pointed out that the left is made up of tools (like you) that use the race card constantly.

To quote the highly inflated ego of Nick Poulos, " I am an asshole, and I approve this message."
Nick: Shut the front door!
At least put an adult diaper over your mouth when you speak.

Nick, if you're running around promoting a letter you got published in the NYT magazine, at least have the common sense to include a link. Assuming anyone is going to put in extra effort to search for it is presumptuous at best.

Sure looks like Hoffa's expose of the hard objective FACTS and REALITY is getting under the skin of our favorite UWM adjunct/professor ;-)

The scary part is that Poulos actually believes in the doom and gloom scenario that he paints. What he doesn't realize is that despite all of his pseudo-intellectual bloviating, his message is essentially the same as this stooge's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8KeO_lirBo

Could that be Nick's long lost brother from another mother?

No cocaine for Hoffa, thank you very much - Hoffa is pretty much straight edge like the real Hoffa, and just like our next President of these United States, Mitt Romney!

President Romney and Vice President Ryan - has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Not to mention Senator Thompson!

Nick has "hinders full of men" in his classroom.

WOw what a dumbarse. We would lose our democratic republic if Romney were elected?

Elected being the key word here. You still don't get it, do you?

@Fred -

Hoffa doesn't have the power to remove the comments of others, nor did he flag any of your comments as inappropriate.

Once again, you really need to come up with some better material!

@Dave Koven -

The Jersey Shore clip that McBride provided was all the exposure that Hoffa needed, thank you very much. And Hoffa just says no to honey boo boo or whatever the hell that is. If Hoffa had children, they would not be allowed to watch to such nonsense in his home!

Zarathustra is a little over-the-top, don't you think? But then again, Hoffa guesses that Koven needs something to re-enforce that over-inflated ego! Does Koven picture himself as the ape holding up the bone in front of the monolith as he listens?

Gallagher isn't too bad - more of a southern rock sound/style. Hoffa usually prefers more of a synth based melodic rock sound.

But to each their own!

I start the day by going to work.

@Fred -

Mourdock is not Hoffa's boy, nor does Hoffa agree with Mourdock on this issue. Mourdock's position on this issue is also contrary to the official Republican Party platform.

Hoffa's position regarding abortion is that abortions should be granted and performed at the mother's unilateral request in the cases of criminally reported rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

In all other cases, Hoffa believes that an abortion should only be granted and performed where there is consent from both the mother and the father, as after all, it takes two to create a life, thus it should take two to arbitrarily terminate a life.

If you really want to play this game of selecting the wack jobs amongst the parties as representing the personal held believes of the entire party and its supporters, then let's talk about Nancy Pelosi, Ms. "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it." Hoffa guesses that this must mean that all Democrats believe in passing legislation in secret and not allowing the public to view copies of the proposed legislation before it has actually been passed.

How can you support such an oppressive and totalitarian party position that the Democrats clearly have?

See how stupid this game is - so let's drop the petty crap!

After all, Hoffa is an adult, are you?

What country is that?

@Dave Koven -

No, they are not. They are concerned about standing up for the rights of a life that is incapable of advocating for itself. Beyond that, Republicans could care less about a woman's reproductive system.

As a public school teacher, you really need to broaden your horizons. If your misconceptions about this issue are as faulty as they appear to be, then Hoffa can only imagine how much more you're wrong about that you're probably trying to teach our children.

And then you wonder why the public currently has such a negative view of public school teachers - honestly?!?!

@Fred -

Republicans have not voted against Planned Parenthood - stop perpetuating LIES.

Republicans have voted against using tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood - big difference.

And if you believe so strongly in Planned Parenthood, then please tell us all how much of your own money that you've donated to PP so far this year.

Waiting....

Hoffa - voting against Planned Parenthood and voting to eliminate funding are pretty much the same thing. To argue against this is scemantics to distort from the topic.

I personally am a donor and volunteer. But again, that has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is Republicans vote against/vote against funding Planned Parenthood. Again, for a party that preaches on and on about personal freedom and choice in healthcare, they sure do insist on gov. intervention with women's health.

"Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide."
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform Aug 27, 2012

Where is the exemption for rape, incest and life of mother?

@FreeThought Troy -

It's implied:

"We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage."

Doesn't say anything about banning the use of private funds to support abortions, does it?

Nor does it say anywhere that abortions would all together be outlawed, does it?

And why would it get so specific about the use of public funds and other factors if the intent was to outright ban under all circumstances the practice of abortions with the force of law?

Stop drinking the MSDNC kool-aid and start thinking for yourself!

Since when does the mighty mighty Hoffa subscribe to implied positions?

Can I imply positions to Democrat platforms?
You you allow that oh guru of primary sources?

Their position to not ban abortion is only because there is no way Roe would be overturned.

It is implied Republicans would. Right?

Esp. since the Rep. Pres. Candidate flat out said he would appoint judges to overturn Roe.

Or did he? He has changed positions on the issue so many times, I have lost track.

@FreeThought Troy -

Read the entire position contained within the platform. What's not included is just as telling as that which is included. And if the official position is to ban all abortions under all circumstances, then why didn't they just say it that way and be done with it?

Personally, Hoffa stands with Ryan on the procedural matters surrounding this issue.

The duly elected legislature and executive branch should make the decision, and not unelected justices.

But until a constitutional amendment is passed, we're at the mercy of the Court, unfortunately, regardless of how the Court decides.

Hoffa - I have daughters. I don't want unelected judges involved in their health descisions either. The difference is I don't want elected officials involved, either - esp. when a majority of them are male and have no business even having an opinion.

The only people I want involved in my girls' health descisions are their doctors and themselves.

@FreeThought Troy -

So, regarding abortion, you don't feel that the father has any rights?

FTT, If the only people you want involved in your girls' health descisions are their doctors and themselves, then you are against the ACA?

@FreeThought Troy -

How exactly do Republicans "dictate whom you can love and marry?"

Hoffa - are you denying the Republican Platform of defining marriage between a man and a woman?

@FreeThought Troy -

The Republican Platform defines legal marriage as being between a man and a woman.

It does not prevent people from loving one another or recognizing any other kind of religious or other union between themselves, does it?

Marriage in a legal context has nothing to do with love or togetherness - it's merely a set of laws that apply to people who avail themselves of meeting the legal qualifications.

What's the matter, freethought BOY. Upset that you can't marry your older, and more masculine, boyfriend?

Gay rights are number 20 on the list of importance. Grasping at straws, BOY.

oak creek - please stop calling me BOY. Though I am male, I have stopped being a boy a long time ago. Insults do nothing for your argument you homo-racist-pig (see... nothing).

Actually - yes. I would rather enjoy being married to my boyfriend and enjoying all the rights and priveleges straight people have. Wait - I happen to be bi-sexual and don't have a boyfriend, presently. But if I did and wanted to marry, well...

By the way - the insults to my masculinity do nothing for your argument but pander to the other masoginistic homo-phobes you seem to cater to.

I can guarantee you if the gov. tried getting involved in your marriage, oak creek, you would have lots of strong opionions about it.

So there is my counter argument, oak creek SCUM

Hoffa - do you deny married people enjoy rights those who are not married are not allowed - benefits, heath descisions, tax incentives, etc. ?

I can aggree with the meeting of legal qualifications. I just find it repulsive that a gov. is trying to make gender preferences one of those qualifications.

@FreeThought Troy -

Hoffa is a white male. Because of Democratic federal affirmative action laws, is Hoffa not being discriminated against by his government?

Sometimes life isn't fair - even in a democratic republic. But you make the best of it.

Personally, Hoffa could care less about extending legal marriage to LGBT couples.

Hoffa - you are a white male. The issue isn't your being discriminated against. The issue is you are bent that discrimination isn't continuing to keep your unfair advantage.

I happen to care about LGBT issues quite a lot, and strongly push for our rights to have the same freedoms as every other American.

Considering you keep beating the Affirmative Action Horse, fairness and equality are important to you, too - but only if you are a while male, right?

@FreeThought Troy -

Stop allowing extreme partisanship to form your conclusions on the basis of erroneous assumptions.

Hoffa believes in merit - the best qualified for the opening/position, period!

Hoffa does not believe in awarding points or restricting government contracts on the basis of skin color, gender, familial status, nationality, prior military service, etc, as affirmative action laws permit.

To do so is discriminatory and only acts to perpetuate individual feelings of stereotyped animosity.

"I happen to care about LGBT issues quite a lot, and strongly push for our rights to have the same freedoms as every other American."

That's great - and more power to you. As Hoffa previously stated, that's an issue that Hoffa could honestly care less about one way or the other. While Hoffa's not going to actively advocate for it, he won't stand as your opposition either - get it?

So a bisexual person should have the right to marry a male and a female? I don't think so.
I don't care if the gays have civil unions to protect their rights as a couple. But a man who lives with a woman for 30 years does not pass his estate to that woman (according to state law), unless his will designates such. Same can be said for health care decisions, as an unmarried couple she has no rights regarding his health care.
There is a simple fix for this problem for Troy and the others like him out there. See a lawyer and have a living will drawn up, health care power of attorney, and anything else you want your buddie to have control of.
Too cheap to invest a couple grand on your relationship? Go to legal zoom dot com and do it on the cheap.

If I marry a bisexual woman, do we get more rights than if she were straight?

The marriage issue is one where I tend to disagree with the Republican party. I think way too much effort is being put into the 'one man-one woman' definition of marriage. Considering the scope of world events, preventing 'Adam' from marrying 'Steve' is of such little importance they shouldn't be bothering with it. If anything, they should just redefine marriage as the union of two 'people' and be done with the issue.

Better than actual, PHYSICAL, bowing to a MUSLIM KING.

Pick your side. How about you move to saudi arabia and live where OBAMA BOWS LIKE A BITCH. Bitch meaning, a female dog, in this case.

Many in The TeaGOP does seems to trip all over their vile tongues when mentioning rape!

EMILY's List ‏@emilyslist

Maybe the GOP should stop talking about rape http://on.msnbc.com/RVZvkI

Good summary.... and

...For the record, 83% of Americans believe it should be legal to terminate rape pregnancies. With public opinion, and basic human decency, in mind, perhaps Republicans should try to avoid discussing the issue for a while until the party comes up with a more compassionate, and less extreme, position.....

The TeaGOP loves freedom!! (insert sarcasm)

EMILY's List ‏@emilyslist

New York City Launches Clinic Escort Program, Anti-Choicers Offended By "Government Interference" http://bit.ly/XhSX4t

Hoffa...While you and your creepy republican buddies sit around playing "gynecologist" and worrying whether gay people should be allowed to live fairly and happily, the country has other more pressing needs. You can say you are advocating for the unborn all you want, but it is still odd. Once a child is born, then it is another ballgame. I'd share the advocacy for them. How far into the future do you want to try to help the unborn? This gets really silly, but typical for you. Why not advocate for the foetuses that might arrive in a foetus of today someday, and so on? Wow! I think I've found the perfect job to keep you busy for a lifetime, and out of the hair of developed, actual, individual, thinking human beings in the here and now, with developed or developing personalities, who would love to have a good life. Stay in the here and now, Skimpy. "Sometimes, life just isn't fair", but you don't need to punish women with your republican views, that's an unfairness they REALLY don't need. Women are quite capable of taking care of themselves without the republican party's permission. Get your church out of my government.

I get a kick out of eunuchs like Dave Koven who want us all to stay out of the abortion decision, but has no problem coming to us with his hands out having us pay for the mass killing of unborn children. Typical skinny jean wearing liberal male.

Pennypacker has obviously never heard of the Hyde Amendment. That's what come of living in a cave and not reading the newspapers beyond what Fox News and WND feeds you.

Dave:

It isn't necessarily a religious idea that life begins at conception, or that unborn children need protection and care.

From the first moment that a woman believes she may have conceived a child, most do their best to avoid alcohol, get proper nutrition, etc. to help keep her unborn child healthy. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable that some in government want to offer similar protections from harm for the unborn as they do for the born.

Up kind of early Randall? Please shoot down this source, its right from the belly of the beast, PP.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf

Ah CowDung - I am so happy you have weighed in on the situation. A rational person discussing things with an open mind, staying with positions and arguing with intellegence... so nice.

Any way - I did just a tad of digging and found this http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/

This is a complicated issue to say the least. There are many reasons life begins and birth and not conception. Though I do see the validity of the argument that pregnant women who take care of themselves have more healthy births than those who don't as a reason life begins at conception, I must still disagree.

I see this as a planning issue. There are steps needed to plan for a human life. Whether it was a long term plan or shorter than expected, it remains one of planning. Planning with for a baby includes the pregnancy.

Now - all this talk is well and good. I remain uncomfortable discussing pregnancies as I am male and ultimatly have nothing to do with the whole being pregnant and giving birth thing. I have had attorneys (my ex-wife's for example) tell me that as long as a woman says they want the children, she gets them. Women are ulitmately responsible for the whole children thing. Right or wrong - or if I have documented pushback, I won't argue. I will agree men need to be more involved in child care, but as it stands, women hold most of the cards so I bow to their opinions and a vast majority seem to lean toward choice.

@Pennypacker -- So you consider the government funding of abortions that conform to the federal exceptions to be 'mass killing'? I'll put you in the crowd with Akin and Mourdock.

@Dave Koven & @FreeThought Troy -

Koven - you should be ashamed as you're a teacher, there is no excuse for you, and yet Hoffa is willing to bet that many of your students have a higher level of reading comprehension than you!

James R Hoffa
12:40 pm on Wednesday, October 24, 2012

"Hoffa's position regarding abortion is that abortions should be granted and performed at the mother's unilateral request in the cases of criminally reported rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

In all other cases, Hoffa believes that an abortion should only be granted and performed where there is consent from both the mother and the father, as after all, it takes two to create a life, thus it should take two to arbitrarily terminate a life."

Honestly, what was so ambiguous about Hoffa's statement that you apparently were unable to accurately comprehend it, so instead you decided to misrepresent Hoffa's position on abortion with a bunch of partisan rhetoric that you pulled out of your ass?

Koven - as a taxpayer that pays your salary and benefits, Hoffa honestly wants his money back!

Bottom line to any of Hoffa's arguments is personal responsibility and fairness. If a couple decides to abort a fetus, then they should pay for it themselves - the taxpayers should NOT under any circumstances, be funding contraceptives or abortions! If you want to play, then you must be prepared to pay, PERIOD!

Please, don't misrepresent Hoffa's position again.

@JRH -- Are you referring to the legality of abortion overall, or are you referring to those instances where government funds can be used to fund abortion? Hoffa is certainly entitled to his own views on the matter, but Hoffa is not entitled to enforce his personal standards on someone else, especially since Hoffa is unlikely to ever become pregnant himself.

I also assume that if Hoffa were to find himself involved in a problem pregnancy, he would have made some form of commitment to the woman involved, and then any decision could be made as a couple without the third party government having any legal say.

@Randy1949 -

Is it honestly that hard to understand Hoffa's position? What is it with you guys?!?!

Hoffa supports the legality of reasonable abortions (within the first trimester except in cases pertaining to the life of the mother) with the following conditions:

1) the decision can be unilateral (by the mother) only in cases of criminally reported rape, incest, or if pregnancy complications are jeopardizing the life of the mother; and

2) the decision must be bilateral (both the mother and the father in full agreement) in all other circumstances, as after all, it takes two to create a life, therefore it should take the consent of two to terminate a life (the only exception made here reverting it back to a unilateral decision would be upon proof of the death of the father).

And ALL contraceptives and abortions MUST be self funded, without any support from taxpayers - the only exception would be in the case of a criminal conviction of an alleged rapist, and even then, the rapist would first be divested, with public funds only used to account for any deficiencies realized, with the rapist having to repay his public debt (which would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy).

Hoffa believes that his is the fairest compromise to both sides and would actively and openly support such a framework.

Hopefully, that addresses your question.

Thank you for clarifying (again), Hoffa.

It's not that we don't understand you position, it's that we don't agree. There are a host of flat out un realistic & impossible conditions.

The ACA expands women's health issues with their doctors. Other than that, gov. needs to stay out of it.

@FreeThought Troy -

And just what's so unrealistic and impossible about Hoffa's position on this issue?

You can't just say that someone else is wrong without explaining your rational if you're trying to have a civil discussion about the issue!

For all you pro-lifers out there...If you're so protective of the lives of foetuses, what about the human lives lost by our young men in wars? Romney seems like more of a war monger than Obama. You can't be pro-life AND pro-war and expect to make any sense to anyone. Romney's hard line regarding Iran is going to end up costing a lot of lives, if it comes to pass.

Hey Dave, love your crystal ball! just wondering what wars Romney is Commander in Chief over ? Gee, and here I thought it was Obama. You are ignoring the fact that it has been during Obama's watch the past four years many fatalities of war occurred ( not to mention in Libya) and you are living in the hypothetical world of the future under Romney. Facts vs fiction. Pls elaborate us on how a private citizen is a war monger ( facts pls, not left wing talking points) and what specific military actions has Romney taken? You argue against your own false points. All that being said, yes, I prefer a strong leader vs. an apologist ( had to get my own talking points in before you go off on a rant).

Military service is voluntary, aborted children don't get a choice. We do not pay our enemy to kill our soldiers, they have to fund that themselves.
I am not pro-life, but I am pro-common sense and I see that Dave aborted his.

@Dave Koven -

FACT - More military fatalities occurred under 4 years of Obama than under 8 years of Bush.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/over-twice-as-many-u-s-soldiers-have-died-in-afghanistan-under-obama-in-3-12-years-than-did-under-bush-in-8-years-yet-no-media-outrage/

Kind of deflates your argument on this red herring, doesn't it?

Care to try again?

Ouch! Almost feel sorry for Dave as he's proven to be a fool. Almost.

Obama is getting D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E!

@Greg

Pres Obama has the mojo.

‏@Lis_Smith

HUGE: 16,000 people turn out mid-afternoon for @BarackObama in Denver. pic.twitter.com/1gnqMPJD

Mojo? How rasist!

The government tends to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. An unborn child would be one that cannot speak for themselves. If the government can create and enforce laws against taking the life of someone that has been born, it is just as proper for them to create and enforce laws against taking the life of the unborn.

I know of no government (aside from Vatican City, perhaps) that is working to prohibit or outlaw contraception. As far as the government providing contraception, sex is an optional activity--the most effective and cheapest method of contraception is to abstain from sex.

If you go into a store with no money and you know that you have no means of paying for things, yet when you leave with an item it is theft. Why are the same rules not applied to sex?

http://womensissues.about.com/od/abortion/f/Does-The-Government-Fund-Abortions.htm

So the Gov. does not fund abortions.

I agree the most effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinance; however, 95% of Americans have premarital sex.
88% of True Love Waits signers have premarital sex anyway. So that isn't really realistic.

Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-08/rape-results-more-pregnancies-not-less

This quote is to illustrate my point that these women - who are defined as persons in any context - need to have the ultimate descision to speak. Those rights should not be taken away based on mainly religious arguments.

@Dave Koven -

Engaging in sexual relations is not a need - it's a luxury!

People should not be engaging in sexual relations if they are not prepared to independently deal with the probable results of doing so - that's a little something called taking personal responsibility for your own actions in life.

Honestly, Hoffa doesn't expect you to understand such a radical and extreme concept ;-)

Hoffa - I hesitate to get into a discussion with you because I seriously question if you are just that loyal to the Astro-Turf TeaParty organization that retains you or if you are just that developmentally challanged. But as my name was brough up, I guess I need to respond.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

There are many medical reasons for birth control - not just family planning. But if folks want BC for family planning, I will point you to:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/marital_sex

The almighty Bible places a premium on sex. I know couples who have been granted divorce from the church based on withholding of sex in the marriage.

I find the Bible full of morality stories, but honestly, women have every right to thier bodies men do. Please find me a married man who is ok with not having sex because his wife doesn't want to be pregnant. I have Schmitzy's $50 that says that percentage is super low.

@FreeThought Troy -

First off, Hoffa has no issue with birth control - honestly, what gave you the perception that he did?

Hoffa just believes that taxpayers should NOT be paying for it under any circumstances, period, regardless of what it is being used for.

Honestly, what is so hard to accurately comprehend about such a position?

Second, Hoffa is not a Bible thumper (no offense to anyone who is), so he will respectfully decline to comment on such issues. Hoffa's positions on morality and humanity derive from his own logical analysis and conclusions.

Third, in response to your challenge:

"Please find me a married man who is ok with not having sex because his wife doesn't want to be pregnant."

although Hoffa isn't married (yet), Hoffa is in fact such man.

What is it with you liberals? Are your arguments so inherently weak that you constantly feel the need to misrepresent the arguments of others in attempting to 'win' on your points?

It's a pathetic and unbecoming strategy/tactic!

As Hoffa instructed you previously, stop making assumptions about others! You're so blinded by your own partisanship and the rhetoric and propaganda of your ideology that you can't even accurately comprehend the relatively basic and simple positions of others, such as Hoffa's.

And it greatly diminishes your credibility.

You claim to be a 'free thinker' - well then, start actually listening to others and thinking for yourself!!!

Speaking of assumptions, Hoffa.

All of my opinions are determined through rational thought and research. I listen to both sides of an argument and make the descision. To assume how I come to my own conclusions (constantly I may add), you only indight yourself of your own accusation.

We disagree on BC - fine. Those are our rights. Please, as a matter of courtesy, cease accusing me of ignorance only because I dis agree with you. It happens to be pretty insulting, and for someone so sensitive about it, I am sure you would agree.

@FreeThought Troy -

So, let Hoffa get this straight, you're against birth control?

Or are you just in favor of having government (taxpayers) paying for it?

Where does the disagreement lie exactly, as you haven't explained your position and Hoffa has made no assumptions about it, despite what you seem to believe!

One:
I believe in BC.

Two:
There is not a time gov. pays for it. ACA requires employers to pay for BC. If there is a religious exemption, then the insurance company needs to pay for it.

http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/storage/FAQ%20Final%20Version.pdf

@FreeThought Troy -

So, 1) you're OK with the legalization and open availability of Birth Control and 2) you don't believe that government (taxpayers) should be paying for or subsidizing it, correct (quit trying to shift the subject into provisions of the ACA, as that's not relevant to the general ideological issue that Hoffa thought we were discussing)?

If that's correct, then where exactly are we disagreeing with one another, as you've previously asserted?

I do believe in BC.
I do believe in family planning.
I do believe in Planned Parenthood. If that is an argument that taxpayers pay for BC than whatever. I am beyind it all at this point.

I do believe in ACA (I believe in single payer, but that's another topic)

So we can call a truce, now?

@FreeThought Troy -

Hoffa is still trying to figure out where you stand, as you keep trying to obscure and shift into other issues - ie ACA, Planned Parenthood, etc.

Try to stay on a single train of thought for a moment - can you do that?

OK, Hoffa and you both support the legalization and open availability of Birth Control - that is clear, and hopefully you can see that from everything that Hoffa has written about this issue.

What is not clear is whether you believe that government (taxpayers) should be paying for and/or subsidizing birth control.

So, in your opinion, should government (taxpayers) be burdened with paying for and/or subsidizing birth control?

Yes or No?

@JRH -- Taxpayers will only be subsidizing birth control for those consumers who purchase their health insurance through the health insurance exchanges set up under the ACA and who qualify for premium support. Contraceptive coverage is already available under Medicaid.

Taxpayers will also be subsidizing the cost of pre-natal care, delivery, and a child's medical needs until age 18 for those who choose (or not) to bear children while having a low income. Which do you think will be less expensive?

@Randy1949 -

Yes, Hoffa knows all that - he's trying to understand FTT's ideological positions, but FTT keeps on trying to deflect and obscure / shift the subject instead of just answering the question outright.

And the government/taxpayers shouldn't be paying for any of what you mention. The way you premise it as a choice between taxpayer provided/subsidized birth control or child welfare is faulty in that you ignore the third option of not providing any kind of government assistance for people engaging in sexual activity and the probable results of such activity.

Personal responsibility for one's own choices/actions is the standard by which this country must become reacquainted with if it's to survive.

Honestly, what is so wrong with being responsible for yourself - especially in regards to a voluntary and luxurious activity such as engaging in sexual relations?

This is getting utterly ridiculous!!!

And now Randy is trying to figure out why Hoffa and the others seem bent on setting this one area of human activity part from all others. Are you squeamish or what?

@Randy1949 -

Because, for the millionth time now, it's "a voluntary and luxurious activity," as opposed to a mandated and necessary activity.

Get it?

If you want taxpayers to pay for poor people having sex, then why not have the taxpayers pay for a new Rolls Royce for every millionaire in America?

Seriously!

Hoffa - officially. For the record. I believe in BC. I believe the Gov. should subsidize BC through Planned Parenthood, Medicare and Medicade. The ACA aids in reducing this as insurance co. presently pick and chose what to cover and seem to have this habbit of dropping coverage once someone gets sick.

It is not a matter of luxery or right, Hoffa. It is realism. No matter your view on sex or premarital sex, people in this country have sex. Not all of it (or most if it) are for procrative purposes. It's reality. That just needs to be accepted.

It is less expesive to supply BC than offer assistance to those who can not afford children. To a conservative party who likes to go on and on (and on) about food stamps and gov. spending, about abortions, I would think supplying BC to low income - through Planned Parenthood, Medicare & Medicade - would be something to support.

For a party who likes to go on and on (and on) about personal freedom, the fact that they believe the gov. needs a say in family plannin- the definition of personal freedom - astounds me. And please spare me the religious freedom argument. This is (and needs to strengthen) a secular county and the rights and freedoms of non-Catholics need to be respected on the same level.

Hope this clears things up. I am the primary source of my own descision. This is not a partisian post. It is a human one.

It is cheaper, in the long run, to pay for birth control including abortions, but this is about personal responsibility. Our society can and should set standards for accepted behavior, but we seem to have none. You can hump everything in sight and no matter what the results you will be taken care of. Father 4 children with 4 different women, OK. Not sure who the father of your children is, any of them, OK. Get free birth control but don't feel like using it, OK. Etc., etc., ad infinitem. Personal freedom means that I don't want to be around this kind of behavior, and I really don't care to pay for it.
Dinner and a movie is expected, but a condom is too much to ask for?

@Greg -- True, but now that birth control *gasp* has been made into a political football, let me postulate another case of a married Protestant couple, one of whom works as a janitor for a religious institution. The boss provides health coverage, for which they pay a portion of the premiums, but the plan does not cover contraception. The other is self-employed as a hair-stylist, with a low enough family income to qualify for premium support under the ACA. That would mean a minimal amount of your and my tax dollars will got toward purchasing a policy that *gasp* pays for birth control pills. This couple exercises personal responsibility and wants to limit their family to only the number of children they can support. Oh, and one of them has a latex allergy.

You want to tell them they're not 'worthy' of a gratifying marital life?

Greg - I do understand your position and your response was very amicable and I truly truly desire to keep it that way, Things have a way of getting way to personal way too fast on Patch - at times.

Here is my concern: I do not believe it is the role of gov. to decide our morality. I mean, what happens when your personal morality is questioned? There are those that have no problem with 5 kids with 5 fathers - multiple marriages. I personally have no opinion on that matter. You have read enough of my posts to understand the reasons I can't get anyone in a long term relationship let alone more child bearing situations. What happens if/when the gov. decides multiple marriages is ok. We could have a Morman President (I know it's an obscure sect and Romney pushes monogamy as his own life is a reflection. I bag on the man but fully believe he is a good father and has a great family life).

The point is though I see your position, I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Let the churches take care of morality. The State needs to take care if it's people.

@Randy1949 & @FreeThought Troy -

Why do you support the government (taxpayers) funding a completely voluntary and luxurious activity?

Would you both also support the government (taxpayers) funding yearly luxury vacations to Maui for poor people?

If not, then isn't there something wrong with your logic on this one?

It's an apples and oranges issue, Hoffa and you know it (at least you should anyway).

It's not a luxery issue like a vacation.

What if aliens invade the earth and enslave it's population? Then should we really worry about the spending and debt?

Please tell me what right you have to place your morality on anyone else?
Here is the answer: you don't. You don't even need to respond (though I fear you will anyway with some sort of circular logic insulting my opinion making ability at some point).

Family Planning needs to happen. If that means supplying BC to low income families - or individuals - it is a better alternative than unwanted pregnancies. Period.

Please. Let's get serious, here.

@FreeThought Troy -

Hoffa never said that he was trying to impose his morality on others - STOP making ASSUMPTIONS!!!

Poor people can have sex all day long - Hoffa just doesn't want to pay for their contraceptives, resultant children, or STDs.

Honestly, what is so hard to understand about that?!?!

What right do you have to say that Hoffa and other taxpayers should have to pay to support other's morality judgments?

Answer these questions:

Is consensual sex voluntary?
Is consensual sex absolutely necessary?

Is consensual sex voluntary? Yes
Is consensual sex absolutely necessary? No

I see your point. I wish you would see mine. I know you don't want to pay for it. From reading your prior posts, you don't like paying for food stamps or welfare, either.

My point: although sex is not necessary and voluntary (consentual per our discussion), people have quite a lot of it. A lot of poor people are having it. No matter our personal morality (and please understand I am not judging you and your views of sex... you have every right to them as I do mine), there are there facts,
The estimates of the cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to the infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies range between $9.6 and $12.6 billion per year, and average $11.3 billion. The estimates of the public savings that would result if these unintended pregnancies were prevented range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion per year, and average $5.6 billion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/05/19/index.html

Randy, If that were the extent of the problem I am sure we could come to a consensus. It is a political football and it seem that it is intentionally misdirected from the actual problem of personal responsibility. I don't care if people have sex, but they should really have a plan and the means to deal with the results.

@FreeThought Troy -

Here's a real life experience. Hoffa has an old high school friend. He works part time at McDonalds as a fry cook and his wife works part time at a gas station. They had a child together. They are on food stamps, welfare, and receive Medicaid, in addition to state government assistance programs. They do not have a federal income tax or state income tax burden.

Over the summer, they went on a luxury two week vacation to Jamaica.

Is it right that Hoffa is working nearly every day, paying federal income taxes, so that the government can support my friend's family daily needs, while he uses the money he and his wife earns working part time to go on luxury vacations?

And that kind of thing happens all the time - whether it be luxury vacations, 24" rims for their rides, personal bling, etc.

Is that right? Do you like paying for that - or don't you pay federal/state income taxes?

Greg... huh?

You do know what Bain Capital does for a living, right?

Some business fail. Bain has always made a profit on it. Always.

So I guess if you don't mind a president with the business expirence to export all the jobs to China and file BNKY - still collecting fees, vote for Romney.

Though I do tend to wonder if Romney understands shipping jobs overseas doesn't help the actual country...

TeaPary Conservative insults in

3...2...1...

@FreeThought Troy -

Bain also helped to create a lot of jobs right here at home - but you ignore those. Why?

Also, the US federal government is not Bain Capital - why do you assume that Romney would manage both entities in a similar fashion? Did you not hear in the debates that Romney plans to get even tougher with unfair trading partners than Obama currently is? If you didn't, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position on Romney based on the FACTS, as opposed to speculative and unfounded propaganda.

Barack Obama spent most his private career as a 'community organizer,' advocating for special interest groups - and yet you honestly believe that makes him qualified to now take on the special interests and lead the country?

Your logic, as applied to both candidates, is inconsistent.

You really need to start thinking better - at least be consistent with your application of logic.

FTT, Please site one example of Bain taking the taxpayers for a ride the way that Solyndra and it's investors has.

Romney benefited from gov. bailout:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

Tough on China:
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201210190739KRTRIB__BUSNEWS_4264_27104-1&params=timestamp%7C%7C10/19/2012%207:39%20AM%20ET%7C%7Cheadline%7C%7CBain%20bus%20protestors%20blast%20Mitt%20Romney's%20outsourcing%20record%20%5BBoston%20Herald%5D%7C%7CdocSource%7C%7CKnight%20Ridder/Tribune%7C%7Cprovider%7C%7CACQUIREMEDIA%7C%7Cbridgesymbol%7C%7CUS;SPLS&ticker=SPLS

Bain and the FDIC
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/mitt-romney-and-bain-company

FTT: I guess you are going to blame that on George Bush also?
Who else could be to blame?
The big O!

All this happened in the 80s per the articles and early 90s.

Who deregulated banking and investment firms?
Who has taken the teeth from any kind of banking reform?

I am not blaming GWB. But I am also not blaming Obama, either. As conservatives so like to point out (like it's an insult or something) Obama was, to my knowledge, community organizing at the time.

Thanks for actually reading the articles, though

@FreeThought Troy -

So, you're holding Romney the businessman accountable for what Romney the President would do, while completely ignoring the actual platform/policy positions that Romney is running for President on?

Yeah, that seems fair all right! (That was meant to be sarcastic BTW.)

Applying that logic consistently with Obama, you then must believe that Obama the President will attempt to institute socialist and communist policies, as after all, he was self-admittedly a student of such ideological disciplines and was very fond of them.

So, why do you want America to become communist?

So FTT, By your response I take it that you are just fine with Solyndra and its investors taking $900 million from taxpayers. Your response to Obama milking us is to shift focus to Romney as a private businessman, hmmm.

No. I am not happy about Solyndra. I had high hopes for the company. But it didn't work out. I am not happy, but I need to get over it.

What I don't like is Romney being put on some pedistal as a private business man when he would never have made it with out gov. aid.

Oh, and how $527 mil turned into $900 mil is a mystery to me. Yes. I concede $527mil is a ton of money, but the $373 mil. swing is pretty big, too.

Here is a good article that I am sure you won't read and end up bagging on me somehow.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/30/technology/solyndra/index.htm

Oh and, start here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-taxpayer-loss-due-to-solyndra-may-be-as-high-as-849-million/article/2511398
$849 Million
Then add in this: http://www.westernjournalism.com/solyndra-to-cost-you-another-14-3-million/
14 Million plus the $12 Million in solar tax credits.
George Kaiser makes the Koch brothers look like Saints.

@Dave Koven -

The only reason that Hoffa is currently paying is because of liberal policies - we're currently trying to remedy part of the problem in the upcoming election, in case you didn't get the memo.

Hoffa could honestly care less that people engage in non-marital sexual relations - but they should have to pay for the probable results of engaging in such activity, as it's no secret as to what those results could end up being.

Sexual relations are a choice - a luxury. It's not a mandatory necessity.

Honestly, what is so wrong with demanding that people accept personal responsibility for their own actions/choices in life?

Why should others be burdened with the poor choices/decisions of some - that just drags everyone down.

If you were raised to expect that everyone else should have to suffer and cover for your screw-ups in life, then your parents really let you down!

Only those who are truly incapable of helping themselves, which account for less than 1% of the overall population of this nation, are deserving of public assistance.

All of the other BS that liberal policy has pulled us into only takes away from those truly deserving of our assistance.

Honestly, you should be ashamed, but Hoffa knows that you aren't!

Hoffa's right. Sexual relations are a choice- ask any married man.
The choice is do I want to get a decent night's sleep before a long day at work or should I spend the next 3 or 4 hours excersizing that luxury?
Are the kids really sleeping?
Can we afford another one if precautions fail?
That his and hers stuff they have on late night TV commercials should be handed out by teachers like Dave, bet that will get the kids to crack the books.

@Craig -- Three or four hours. Really? I suspect some braggadocio here.

But make the choice to go to sleep consistently and see how happy your domestic life stays. Or even if you wife stays.

Seriously, though, if no prescription drugs were covered by insurance, then the price of those drugs would come down very fast. And that includes oral contraceptives, which used to be affordable out of pocket but now are not. Or so I'm told.

@Randy1949 -

$9/month for oral contraception (birth control) is unaffordable? The average American spends more than that on fast food in a month.

Come on - get real!

Where are you getting that figure, Hoffa? What pharmacy? What brand? Remember, we're talking about the full price of a month's supply of pills or patches, not just a co-pay.

Randy: Okay, 3 or 4 minutes. You really didn't see the humor in that?
"But make the choice to go to sleep consistently and see how happy your domestic life stays. Or even if you wife stays."
I would venture to guess that after 27 years of being married to the same person, sex is no longer a priority. It remains a luxury.

Ah, Craig, I see. The other three hour and fifty minutes involve begging, pleading and other forms of negotiation. LOL

All I can say, after 45 years with the same person, is thank goodness contraception is no longer an issue.

@Randy1949 -

Tri-Sprintec is offered at both the WalMart and Target pharmacies for $9/month - that's the cash out-of-pocket price, no insurance required.

Again, you consider that to be unaffordable?

Again, let's get real - can't we?

Nope, that's affordable. However, the cost for the non-generic forms range from $15-$80 per month.

@Randy1949 -

Is there a point?

The point is that some women report severe side effects with the generic after being switched by their insurance companies off Ortho-Tricyclen. Other than that, I was agreeing with you. It's good there's a generic.

@Randy1949 -

Well, you use what you can afford to purchase. If you can't afford to purchase something that works for you, there are other cheaper alternatives available - condoms, diaphragms, calendared planned, or abstinence.

Bottom line - have as much sex as you want, just stay out of Hoffa's pocketbook while having it and don't burden Hoffa with the cost of supporting your child.

What's so wrong with that?

Randy: Pretty close. After 3 1/2 hours of begging, pleading, etc., I finally give in and say yes. ;)
Regarding contraceptives- the pill is not advised for women over 30 who smoke.

ROFL, Craig -- match, set, and game to you, sir.

Nobody in my household ever smoked, but there comes a time when one has to consider something more permanent, and thank goodness insurance covered that too.

Randy: :)
Getting neutered was never an option for me due to some health issues. Mainly I was too chicken to have the boys disconnected.
Back on the farm, they use a strong rubber band...

Based on his last four years of history (we really don't have much more than that), He is a total failure!
Name one good thing he has done for this Country?
People are and have been working their BUTTS off only to find they are falling further behind under Obama.
So glad you decided to work for a week, it will give you something to put on your application when Romeny and Ryan get the lazies off the Government teet.

@Patricia -

How much are you being paid by leftists/liberals/Democrats to troll a SE Wisconsin Patch site from Plymouth, Massachusetts?

At least Patricia posts different text each time. The other 'out of state trolls' just copy and paste the same stuff over and over again...

We certainly don't want that! Why would we want the deficit to be smaller than it is now? Why would we want the unemployed to have jobs? Why would we want 36 million on food stamps when we can have 48 million?
I would settle for a carbon copy of Jimmy Cater over Obama!
Thank God we don't have to settle for that....
Romney/Ryan to the rescue!

@Jean Hoffman -

How much are you being paid by leftists/liberals/Democrats to troll a SE Wisconsin Patch site from Cuyahoga Falls, OH?

@Dave Koven -

If you don't mind paying for my friend's luxury vacation and luxury sex. that's fine - Hoffa's not going to stop you from paying.

But for those that do have a problem with footing the bill for others' luxuries, they shouldn't have to pay.

This is a matter of fundamental fairness! My friend was afforded the same opportunities as Hoffa was in life. Hoffa chose to take advantage of those opportunities and expand them to his own benefit. Hoffa's friend did not and has no one to blame but himself.

Equality of opportunity is all that the government should be expected to provide - NOT equality of outcome!

Dave Koven - please answer:

If certain taxes were voluntary (opt-in), would you personally opt-in to pay for programs that allow my friend to go on luxury vacations and have luxury sex without consequence?

@Jean Hoffman -

Actually, that's not true at all.

How much are you being paid by leftists/liberals/Democrats to troll a SE Wisconsin Patch site from Cuyahoga Falls, OH?

All of the great Democrat Presidents and yet you have the total failure of Obama.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!!

@Jean -

Just to give you a sneak peak of how easy it is to debunk your so-called 'facts' we'll start with this one:

"Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents"

We'll focus on debt accrued since the Carter administration, as prior to that, it was a pretty even wash.

When Reagan (R) took office, the debt stood at $909B. When Reagan left office, the debt stood at $2.601T. Thus, Reagan added $1.692T over 8 years.

When HW Bush (R) took office, the debt stood at $2.601T. When Bush left office, the debt stood at $4.001T. Thus, HW Bush added $1.400T over 4 years.

When Clinton (D) took office, the debt stood at $4.001T. When Clinton left office, the debt stood at $5.728T. Thus, Clinton added $1.727T over 8 years.

When W Bush (R) took office, the debt stood at $5.728T. When W Bush left office, the debt stood at $10.627T. Thus, W Bush added $4.899T over 8 years.

When Obama (D) took office, the debt stood at $10.627T. On January 20, 2012, the CBO has projected the debt to stand at $16.556T. Thus, Obama added $5.929T over 4 years.

Totals:
Republicans: $7.991T over 20 years
Democrats: $7.656T over 12 years

Source: US Treasury Direct
http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

As you can clearly see, the amount of debt added by the parties is about equal. The difference is that it took the Democrats 12 years to add as much as the GOP did over 20 years.

Hoffa - 1
Jean Hoffman - 0 and a LIAR!

Hoffa: Jean will just keep repeating it until she believes herself.

That would be double the gas--don't forget about his imaginary friend.

...........

"You [Hoffa et al.] spend so much time online gassing,"

Send it all Dave, after all you took that "vow of poverty".

@Dave Koven -

Please post a copy of your most recent tax return, with the personal info redacted, showing where you donated in excess of what you legally owed in taxes to the federal government. Until you're able to do this, then you're all cheap talk and no action!

Waiting...

@Dave Koven -

How does Hoffa make life less fair with his philosophies?

How exactly is people being able to keep what they earn in life unfair?

@lyin' morninmist -

Most recent OH polls show a dead heat race in OH, just like this state - you're right, that is great news for Romney!

@morninmist -

Obama should be hiding Biden, the man who thinks he's in Iowa when he's really in Ohio - but they don't!

How's the weather in Virginia?

The US economy grew in third quarter to 2%, But it might be too late convince some swing voters to give Obama that extra 4 more years.

2% of squat is squat. That is not a recovery, we are not even keeping up with inflation.
4 more years of Obama = Hellenic Republic

Vote ROMNEY/RYAN 2012