Poll: For President, I am voting…

For President, I am voting...

  • enthusiastically for Obama (38%, 161 Votes)
  • reluctantly for Obama (13%, 53 Votes)
  • enthusiastically for Romney (22%, 92 Votes)
  • reluctantly for Romney (10%, 40 Votes)
  • for someone else (13%, 56 Votes)
  • I'm not voting in the Presidential election. (4%, 18 Votes)

Total Voters: 420

This poll was active 10.28.2012 through 11.03.2012

  

About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

200 comments:

  1. 1
    The Tim says:

    Not that it really matters, since Washington State’s electors will be going to Obama pretty much no matter what.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. 2
    David Losh says:

    RE: The Tim @ 1

    Public opinion matters.

    If you look at the past four years, I don’t think I have ever seen a guy, a President, more villified from beginning to end than Obama. I like him, but most every one I have ever spoken to, with a very few exceptions, voted for Obama because McCain is a bozo.

    Sarah Palin? Anybody? Come on.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. 3

    By David Losh @ 2:

    RE: The Tim @ 1 – If you look at the past four years, I don’t think I have ever seen a guy, a President, more villified from beginning to end than Obama. .

    Wow. He was given pretty much a free pass at the beginning through the first year. He was referred to as Obamessiah because of that.

    Ignoring that, I would hardly say either Clinton or Bush (W) weren’t vilified from the beginning by the opposing party.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. 4

    RE: The Tim @ 1 – Exactly my thought.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. 5
    Tatiana Kalashnikov says:

    Obama will lose big. Read about the wave. It’s coming.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_wave_that_breaks_the_liberal_bubble.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. 6
    Pegasus says:

    RE: The Tim @ 1 – Vote early and vote often! Tim, are the dead able to vote in your poll like they are in the real elections?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. 7
    K says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 3 – Yeah, but most of those people were investigated by the DHS and fired from their jobs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. 8
    K says:

    RE: David Losh @ 2 – “because McCain is a bozo.” And Romney is a sane, consistent, brilliant individual with a track record of creating jobs and ending wars. McCain is at least consistent from year to year, week to week, in what he claims to believe.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. 9
    David S says:

    I’m counting on Romney losing with the popular vote. Then scratch one for Gore and one for Romney and goodbye electoral college.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. 10

    So how are the Seattle Bubble voters different from the State of Washington’s voters and the City of Seattle’s voters? As I’m writing this, Seattle Bubblers are going 50% Obama, 32% Romney and 14% other candidates. Obama is expected to win the state by about 15%, so we’re not that far off. Obama will win in the City of Seattle by 40%. Where the Seattle Bubble voters differ is the 14% for other candidates, a much higher number than the state’s or city’s voters. I’d like to think it’s because we’re more thoughtful and independent minded, and realize that there are other candidates running for President. In fact, these are the only candidates actually discussing the issues.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. 11
    Eastsider says:

    I’m glad that you include the option for the “reluctant” voters. That tells you how pathetic the choices we have this election. What changed in the past 4 years?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. 12
    whatsmyname says:

    By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 5:

    Obama will lose big. Read about the wave. It’s coming.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_wave_that_breaks_the_liberal_bubble.html

    Wow, sounds like the fourth reich is really on a roll.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. 13
    Joem says:

    RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 5

    “Lose big?” A wave? Come on. That “American thinker” C. Edmund Wright you linked to has been trotting out the same tired line about the supposed conservative majority for years and years. This from 2009: “Yes, there are more of us than there are of them. Sarah Palin has reminded us–and them–of that fact. And it drives them bananas.”

    Sarah Palin? Uh, not even conservative spokespeople talk about her anymore, except throwbacks like “C. Edmund Wright.” You types have been crowning yourselves the “majority” since Spiro Agnew’s days. It’s just hoping to win by bullying. You’re not the majority anymore than liberals are–but you’re the ones driven bananas by it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. 14
    David Losh says:

    RE: Eastsider @ 11

    The entire world changed in the past four years. Our economy changed, our attitudes, and our place in the world changed.

    This election can’t undo what we have already been through, but we can finish the job with Obama.

    We don’t have dictators running North Africa, or our oil fields. We may have spent $1 Billion on a solar panel company, but the price of heating technolgy is lower this year than four years ago.

    We got the electric cars, cheap natural gas, the end of war, an economic relationship with China, and a Russia that wants to talk, after the election.

    Those 12 million jobs that Romney is spouting about are coming no matter who gets elected, because we are already on that path.

    The world changed, and our place in the world changed with it. We are stronger, more forward thinking, and much better prepared for the future than Europe.

    Come to think of it I really like the idea of opening trade in the Pacific, while the Romney idea of trade with South America is already a done deal.

    Romney hasn’t proposed anything that isn’t already done, he just wants to reap the credit.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. 15
    David Losh says:

    RE: Joem @ 13

    Don’t forget the Great Silent Majority http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3K2N7FZSXc

    and Jerry Falwell, and the Moral Majority.

    There is a majority, out there, lurking, so beware.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. 16

    By Eastsider @ 11:

    I’m glad that you include the option for the “reluctant” voters. That tells you how pathetic the choices we have this election. What changed in the past 4 years?

    What’s changed in the last four years?
    Four years ago, the American public was sick to death of the Republicans. In ’08, the Republicans could have had Jesus Christ or Brad Pitt as their candidate and they would have lost. By the time George W. Bush’s Presidency was ending, he had an approval rating in the low twenties. But the American public’s memory is very short, and in the intervening four years, Obama hasn’t looked great. When he ran four years ago, he had virtually no experience in big time politics, a couple of years in the US Senate, and a couple of years in the Illinois State Senate. He was an intelligent young guy who was determined to go places, but he came into the Presidency not having much of a clue of what to do. There was a lot of gall, bravado, ego for a guy to think that he could just come in and turn things around. He’s done a lot of on the job learning and as a result the results have not been stellar . But like I said, people forget. They forget that the Republicans drove the economy into the ground and started two wars. I didn’t think that people’s opinions of politicians could go any lower, but it seems to have.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. 17
    ARDELL says:

    If you support Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, Freedom of and from Religion, that makes it Obama. There’s no way around that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. 18
    Kim Mulligan says:

    Right On Ardell. . . . . The problem with politics is everyone talks about the present so they vote with their pocket books. If we all believe the the shortsighted vision there will never be an agreement. We are still dealing with Clinton’s and Bush’s policies as the long term.
    I vote for the survival of the humans (and other creatures). That translates to the progressive stance. The 50’s were never what you might think they were, and oh yeah, look at what the richest Americans were paying for taxes back then!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. 19
    Eastsider says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 17

    LOL – According to your logic, if Jim McDermott were on the ballot, he would be your choice for the President.

    That said, I better stay on the Eastside… ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. 20
    ray pepper says:

    Obama baby! But, quite honestly…………………….It just doesn’t matter!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. 21
    The Tim says:

    RE: ray pepper @ 20

    It just doesn’t matter!
    It just doesn’t matter!
    It just doesn’t matter!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. 22
    ray pepper says:

    hilarious clip! …Appears u have been waiting a LONGGGG time for someone to say the CATCH PHRASE so u can post the Meatballs classic scene!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. 23
    The Tim says:

    RE: ray pepper @ 22 – Haha, nope. I just assumed that’s what you were referring to and thought I would use my power as site owner to embed the clip. Great scene, and totally on-topic here, IMO.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. 24
    Scotsman says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 17

    Right. And all those other “freedoms” Obama trampled, they just don’t matter. Obama voters hate his policies, but vote for him anyway. Does this mean they are all insane?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Skw-0jv9kts#

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. 25
    Scotsman says:

    Heh. “Seattle Bubble”- it’s about more than just housing . . .

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, Obama gets ready to lose. Guy has already bought his retirement home in Hawaii. Let’s help him get there as soon as possible!

    Gonna be a lot of surprised people Wednesday morning after the election.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. 26
    ray pepper says:

    RE: The Tim @ 23 – sharp man!!..everyone is just too wrapped up in this election thinking doomsday will occur if Obama gets another 4 years. GOOD GOD!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. 27
    Tatiana Kalashnikov says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 17

    “Women”s rights?? Wasn’t that in the 70’s? I don’t need Obama’s help on my $10 co-pay for birth control pills.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. 28

    Regardless of who wins, America, you need to do something about your rediculous18 month election process. In Europe, the party in power declares an election, a month later, a new government is in place and everyone moves on with their lives. If it takes you 18 months to decide who you want to vote for then that’s just sad. The only ones benefiting the from the protracted election process are media organizations that are raking in bazillions in advertizing revenue. Thanks be to jasus we don’t live in a swing state!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. 29

    RE: David Losh @ 14 – About the only positive change you mention there is cheap natural gas. President Obama isn’t responsible for that–it was a technological change in drilling. He’s only responsible in that he didn’t stop it, like he did the pipeline from Canada. That, BTW, is needed to get crude to southern refineries.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. 30

    By David Losh @ 15:

    RE: Joem @ 13

    Don’t forget the Great Silent Majority http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3K2N7FZSXc

    and Jerry Falwell, and the Moral Majority.

    There is a majority, out there, lurking, so beware.

    Or your favorite, the Occupy Movement, which falsely claimed to represent 99% of us. In the past I’ve compared their claim to the Moral Majority, because it’s just as false.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. 31

    By Ira Sacharoff @ 16:

    By Eastsider @ 11:
    I’m glad that you include the option for the “reluctant” voters. That tells you how pathetic the choices we have this election. What changed in the past 4 years?

    What’s changed in the last four years?
    Four years ago, the American public was sick to death of the Republicans. In ’08, the Republicans could have had Jesus Christ or Brad Pitt as their candidate and they would have lost. .

    I agree with the last part, and have said something like that myself. But it wasn’t because they were sick of Republicans, it’s because they were terrified of the economy collapsing and wrongly blamed ONLY the Republicans.

    Unfortunately both parties had picked Senators for their candidate, and Senators were just as much to blame as the President. The only possible way the Republicans could have won in 2008 would have been if a DC outsider (e.g. a governor or former governor like Romney) had been their candidate.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. 32

    By ARDELL @ 17:

    If you support Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, Freedom of and from Religion, that makes it Obama. There’s no way around that.

    President Obama is anti-Freedom of Religion. If you care about the Bill of Rights, that makes it anyone but President Obama. He has no respect at all for restrictions on his power, unless maybe the restrictions are something the NRA supports.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. 33

    By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 27:

    RE: ARDELL @ 17

    “Women”s rights?? Wasn’t that in the 70’s? I don’t need Obama’s help on my $10 co-pay for birth control pills.

    With Obamacare the price of birth control pills (and other types of BC) for those without insurance will rise significantly, because those for insurance won’t be paying for it at all.

    So he’s actually hurting those least able to afford birth control.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. 34

    By Conor MacEvilly @ 28:

    Regardless of who wins, America, you need to do something about your rediculous18 month election process.

    Oh, but it’s worth spending all that time, because every time we come up with two really great candidates. /sarc

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. 35
    Ahau says:

    I’m voting for Obama, somewhere between “enthusiastically” and “reluctantly”. He’s done less to convince me this year than he did in 2008. On the other hand, there is no way I would vote for Romney. I could have voted for a Republican (despite my progressive stance on social issues) if one had produced a viable plan for the economy and tax reform, but I don’t see that from Romney. Further, I was raised Mormon (left at 18), and based on what I know about the teachings of that church, I would have a hard time voting for any practicing member (regardless of their party or platform) for public office.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. 36
    softwarengineer says:

    Looks Like From the Blogs Above

    Getting agreement on all of us on New World Order politics is like Tim said, “it just doesn’t matter”….

    I see 55% of Washingtonians polled support legalizing pot though, makes the presidential race of picking between the two ugly NWO sisters a somewhat moot point in this state? Imagine the laid off state alchohol workers rehired at the new state run pot stores….I’d add too, imagine a reduction in alchohol use period. Imagine the new tourism money propping our total labor force numbers out of stagnation?

    We’ll become the new sole Amsterdam of America, with much more bucks in our pockets to spend on things like real estate. Unless Obama’s DOJ Holder tries to put a stop to it, like he did with AZ’s SB 1070 laws. The 12th man in Washington is evidently screaming like Pat Robertson from the 700 Club, its time to legalize it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. 37

    RE: softwarengineer @ 36
    I voted for it. But there are a few scenarios that could happen. First, I’d say 50/50 that the Feds won’t allow the law to be implemented. Second, I don’t think there will be state operated pot stores. I think they’d license privately operated places like they now do for liquor, so maybe you could buy your bud at Fred Meyer

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. 38
    ChrisM says:

    Ron Paul! :-)

    I find the attention paid to “women’s issues” laughable. Seems like no one understands how the Legislative branch of the government works. I guess it is pandering to the clueless masses to speak as though the Executive branch has all this magical power.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. 39

    RE: ChrisM @ 38 – Isn’t most of the election about convincing the “clueless masses”?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. 40
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 27

    There is no “once and done” in this Country. We tend to regurgitate our ills from time to time, and some States are not, for sure, gay friendly or even supportive of gay rights. “Leaving it up to the States” when it comes to basic human rights…that’s not the America I live in. That’s just a “divide and conquer” strategy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. 41

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 33 – Sad that six people on this site don’t understand Economics at even a beginner level. Either that, or they think that saving someone who makes $100,000 a year a $10 co-pay is a good trade off for making contraception more expensive for those low income people without health insurance.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. 42
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 41

    If you think the only issue on the table for Women’s Rights is the cost of contraception, you are living in a cave.

    Would love to hear your views on Gay Rights…or is the almighty dollar the only thing you comprehend.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. 43
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 32

    You missed something there, Kary. It’s called “freedom OF and FROM Religion”. People have a right to have NO religious views or their rights limited to a majority religious view.

    In fact…it was the basis for the founding of this Country in the first place…Church of England and all that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. 44

    By ARDELL @ 42:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 41

    If you think the only issue on the table for Women’s Rights is the cost of contraception, you are living in a cave.

    Would love to hear your views on Gay Rights…or is the almighty dollar the only thing you comprehend.

    That was the topic discussed. Don’t be like President Obama and try to claim that just because someone disagrees with forcing Catholic entities to provide free contraception that they are anti-abortion, anti-contraception or anti-gay. I am not any of those things, which is part of the reason why I hate President Obama’s BS on that issue. He converted being anti-First Amendment into being a women’s rights issue. I’ve called that politically genius, but that doesn’t make it stink any less like crap.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. 45

    By ARDELL @ 43:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 32

    You missed something there, Kary. It’s called “freedom OF and FROM Religion”. People have a right to have NO religious views or their rights limited to a majority religious view.

    In fact…it was the basis for the founding of this Country in the first place…Church of England and all that.

    Yes, but how does forcing a Catholic entity to provide something that violates their core beliefs fit in any way with allowing them their freedom of religion? This is not about freedom FROM religion at all. It is about freedom OF religion.

    I’m pretty sure that the law doesn’t give religious entities an out on everything that might be part of their religion. For example, if they were against paying time and a half overtime, I don’t think they could get away with that. But the Catholic church’s position along with being very out-dated is also very well known as being a core belief. And I suspect the harm to their women employees is fairly minimal, because BC pills are probably fairly cheap. Unfortunately I no longer have access to pricing on prescription drugs.

    Balancing a core religious belief and the First Amendment against someone having to pay a few dollars a month, and I’ll support the Bill of Rights. Unlike this guy.

    http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/07/03/obama%20bill%20of%20rightsa.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. 46
    Doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 45

    Kary, we already had it out on this topic, but if you want to do it again, I’m game.

    The Supreme Court has upheld that constitutional religious freedom does not exempt you from the law of the land. The Supreme Court has upheld the ACA as constitutional, and the law of the land. Therefore, religious entities are required to conform to it. You can’t smoke peyote for religious rituals. You can’t be a polygamist. And now, you can’t deny provisions of health insurance based on religious objections if you’re a private entity. (institutions whose primary purpose is worship are exempt, as you know.) We’re talking hospitals, schools, etc.

    Otherwise, what’s to stop an employer from exempting him or herself from paying unemployment insurance (real religious institutions do this all the time), or the minimum wage? God says that we should be happy with the fruits of our labor, ergo work is its own reward, ergo no minimum wage for you!

    In law, there is rarely such a thing as absolute freedom, in that different groups’ freedoms are often counter to each other. Rand Paul argued that businesses should be able to bar racial groups from their premises due to freedom. But is it not more important that any customer have the freedom to traverse publicly-accessible institutions without the fear or indignity of reprisal based on race?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. 47
    Doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    Also: do you really, in your heart of hearts think that Obama’s intention here was not to ensure the right to full coverage for women, but to antagonize religious institutions and piss them off? Why would Obama do that?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. 48

    RE: Doug @ 47RE: Doug @ 46 – I agree with what you say in post 46, and said something to the same effect when I discussed minimum wage. But there are some limitations on what the government can make religious entities do. But hey, I was the one saying that the Second Amendment was an individual right, that Obamacare couldn’t be upheld on a Commerce Clause basis and that laws restricting political speech prior to elections were unconstitutional. So clearly I don’t know anything about Constitutional law. /sarc

    As to your second post, I don’t know what President Obama was thinking when he first created the new rule, but how he dealt with it was political genius.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. 49

    RE: Doug @ 46 – Here’s some discussion of the topic.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html#5

    Employment Division v. Smith is somewhat disturbing, but so was McConnell v. FEC. The latter case was unbelievable to me at the time, but thankfully its life was short.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. 50
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 49

    You seem hazey with the Constitution and the link you provided kind of proves that point. It’s a flip flop of one court case after another with no real meaning to the 10th Amendment.

    Individuals can always ask the courts for relief, but it doesn’t provide any impact on our rights.

    The Catholic Church has no right to impose its antiquated belief system on any one, for any reasoning. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, and I don’t envision us changing the Constitution to accomodate them, any more than we should for Mormons, Jews, or Jehovah Witnesses.

    How about Muslims? That was missing a little bit in this conversation. Muslims have rights, should we change the Constitution to suit Muslims?

    How about all the laws we have concerning liquor, violent love, pornography. Should we change the Constitution so we can not offend just about everybody on religious grounds?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. 51
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    I have not heard Obama speak of that. I heard Romney and Ryan loud and clear, in their own words, say that their religious views WOULD be forced on the County if they had their way. They did not even hem and haw around about that.

    Maybe you didn’t watch the three debates?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. 52
    Tatiana Kalashnikov says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 42

    A recent Gallup poll says that only 3,40% of the population is LGBT. Why should we let this tiny minority have so much say? Thank God the children in my family are taught in their private religious school that LGBT behavior is a sin. And go ahead and flame me – I love the attention!

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-poll-only-3-4-percent-of-us-adults-identify-as-lgbt-83545/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. 53
    Tatiana Kalashnikov says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 42

    “If you think the only issue on the table for Women’s Rights is the cost of contraception, you are living in a cave.”

    But you aren’t talking about yourself of course. I imagine you no longer have the need for contraception..

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. 54
    David Losh says:

    RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 52

    It took me a long time to come around to gay rights, but it is discrimination against sexual behavior.

    My Catholic Schooling also taught us masturbation was a sin. Catholics say we should abstain from violent love, and that violent love is only for procreation.

    Well how about your photo there. It seems provacative to me. That is also a sin.

    In the world of violent love, even this blog doesn’t allow the word to be used.

    So I started thinking of all the sins I’ve committed performing acts of self expression, and with others. When it comes right down to it, almost everything is a sin, or against the law, so if there are two people doing something that is what they like, I don’t see the harm in making it legal.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  55. 55
    Scotsman says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 51

    “I heard Romney and Ryan loud and clear, in their own words, say that their religious views WOULD be forced on the County if they had their way.”

    Total bullsh#t. Got a link for that?

    I didn’t think so.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  56. 56
    doug says:

    RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 52

    “And go ahead and flame me – I love the attention!”

    Clearly.

    Why is it proper for the majority to impose their whims on the minority? That’s essentially what you’re saying. It’s almost like we have an institution to protect against that. The Supreme Council, or something like that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  57. 57
    whatsmyname says:

    By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 52:

    RE: ARDELL @ 42

    A recent Gallup poll says that only 3,40% of the population is LGBT. Why should we let this tiny minority have so much say? Thank God the children in my family are taught in their private religious school that LGBT behavior is a sin. And go ahead and flame me – I love the attention!

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-poll-only-3-4-percent-of-us-adults-identify-as-lgbt-83545/

    This seems like a weird posture for you, since everyone knows you are a man posing as a woman.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  58. 58
    Scotsman says:

    Here we are, four years later, with an answer to your question Mr. President. In your own words, it’s time for you to go.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDw5_d0M-wc&feature=player_embedded#!

    Turned out he was all talk, no walk. Big hat- no cattle.

    Bye-bye.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  59. 59
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 58
    Good work. A few more cowboy cliches should push Romney over the top for sure. Are you “all in” at Ladbrokes yet? It just gets better; now 11/5.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  60. 60
    Andy says:

    This country is so far gone that the presidential election doesn’t matter. Our choices are between a drug using, white-hating, african communist and a right wing religious zealot. The US debt and entitlement burden is beyond the point of no return, we’ve been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs for decades, both parties would rather play race politics that address boarder security and our unsustainable immigration debacle, and our social programs are breeding hoards of cow eyed, empty headed, govt dependent drones. We’re headed for a trainwreck either way.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  61. 61
    doug says:

    RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 53

    Wow. What an absolutely wretched thing to say.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  62. 62
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 55

    Ryan…from the debate: “I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith,” Ryan said. “Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course.

    vs Biden in same debate: “I accept the church’s doctrine when it comes to abortion, but I refuse to impose that on others.”

    Both are Catholic, but one understands that this Country stands for religious freedom including a person’s right to not share the same view as others…even the majority of others.

    And yes Tatiana, it is our duty to protect the human rights of all and yes, especially the minority. It is what this Country stands for, freedom to be in the minority, without one’s rights being lesser as a result.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  63. 63
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 58

    Thank you for that clip, because it reminds me of what we have won so far, and how much more we can accomplish with four more years of President Obama.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  64. 64

    RE: Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 52
    One of the great things about the United States is that all of it’s citizens are supposed to have equal rights, no matter how small a minority group they’re from. It’s not the 3.5% Gay population that wants to have so much say as much as millions of non gay Americans who feel that every American is entitled to civil rights and needs to be protected from discrimination. Blacks are only about 10% of the American population. Is it okay if we turn them into slaves again? After all, they’re a small minority. And Ukranian evangelical Christians? There aren’t that many of them in this country. Maybe we should pass a law insisting that they give up their religion or become Orthodox. The difference I see between your view and mine is that you think that Gays are demanding special rights, and I think they and their millions of allies are demanding basic civil rights. You read the bible. You mist be aware that there are many, many sins listed. Can you tell me where in any book/scripture it states that homosexuality is a bigger sin than any other, or where it states that it’s okay to hate Gays?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  65. 65
    Eastsider says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 62
    I’m not taking side on this pro-life issue here but your argument is weak. If a Catholic is pro-choice, he is NOT imposing his religious view on others. But if a Catholic is pro-life, he IS imposing his religious view on others. (Try substituting adultery for pro-life/pro-choice and you’ll see what I mean.)

    Further, Ryan never said he was imposing his religious view on others based on the quote you gave above. You are the one that made it up.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  66. 66
    Scotsman says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 62

    Sorry, what you put up doesn’t come close to substantiating the claims made in #51. Can’t even give you partial credit. Try again- especially on the “impose” part.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  67. 67
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Andy @ 60

    While I have to agree with you, stating it openly like that kinda takes all the fun out of the great partisan battle we have going on here- as well as pulling the curtain back once again on a reality we’re trying hard to deny. Please play along. /

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  68. 68
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Eastsider @ 65

    hmmmm…ok…I’ll buy that. It still looks the same to me, but I recognize that somehow I am applying a filter different from yours. I am Catholic by the way as were both men addressing the issue. So I don’t have different views from either of them personally. I just believe in people’s freedom to make their own choices without regard to my beliefs or the beliefs of politicians. I am also Jewish and Protestant…all 3. Still I believe people have the right to be atheist.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  69. 69

    Losh wrote: “You seem hazey with the Constitution and the link you provided kind of proves that point. It’s a flip flop of one court case after another with no real meaning to the 10th Amendment.”

    David, like real estate, you’re in no position to judge me on legal issues. Also, “flip flop of one court case after another?” You really don’t understand the law! Finally, I’m not sure why you mention the 10th Amendment. We’re discussing the First.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  70. 70

    By ARDELL @ 51:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    I have not heard Obama speak of that. I heard Romney and Ryan loud and clear, in their own words, say that their religious views WOULD be forced on the County if they had their way. They did not even hem and haw around about that.

    Maybe you didn’t watch the three debates?

    I’m not sure how you missed Obama on contraception. A huge deal was made of that. And you made the exact same jump as the Obama administration: If you’re against forcing religious entities to provide contraceptive coverage, you’re against every woman’s rights issue. Amazing coincidence if you’ve never heard what you claim you’ve never heard.

    I watched 2 1/3rd of the debates. The foreign policy debate was too boring. And never had Romney said he would force his religious views on the world. That would be disaster for any Morman running for office. Are you borrowing a page from Losh and just making things up?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  71. 71

    By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 52:

    RE: ARDELL @ 42 – A recent Gallup poll says that only 3,40% of the population is LGBT.

    That group of people likely don’t have land lines. ;-)

    Seriously, that’s below other estimates. But why do you care how other consenting adults behave?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  72. 72

    Losh wrote: “Well how about your photo there. It seems provacative to me. That is also a sin.”

    The Taliban would probably stone her for that picture if they could force their religious beliefs on us.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  73. 73

    RE: ARDELL @ 62 – Doesn’t say what you said it said. But in any case, as I mentioned elsewhere, abortion is a very odd Presidential election issue. They don’t control that directly. At best they affect the Supreme Court. Assuming the Supreme Court someday overturns Roe v. Wade, then it will be up to the states–unless you accept President Obama’s view of the world where the federal government is all powerful and can pass legislation on any topic.

    Stated differently, there’s no way Romney could ever make abortion illegal in Washington state.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  74. 74

    By ARDELL @ 68:

    RE: Eastsider @ 65

    hmmmm…ok…I’ll buy that. It still looks the same to me, but I recognize that somehow I am applying a filter different from yours. I am Catholic by the way as were both men addressing the issue. So I don’t have different views from either of them personally. I just believe in people’s freedom to make their own choices without regard to my beliefs or the beliefs of politicians. I am also Jewish and Protestant…all 3. Still I believe people have the right to be atheist.

    Not sure why you got three thumbs down on that, because that’s the most reasonable thing you’ve said here.

    That said, for any politician or judge, their religious views will affect their decisions and actions. It’s a real slippery slope when you decide you’re not going to vote for someone because of their religious views. It starts to reek of discrimination. That’s part of the reason why the “Obama is a Muslim” claims are so stupid. What would it matter if he was?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  75. 75

    This thread made me realize something last night that the political thread never made me realize. I am a one-issue voter. I am opposed to anyone who attacks the Bill of Rights.

    I voted for Clinton in 1992, but not 1996. Overall my view of Clinton is extremely negative, but thinking about it, it’s only because of his constant attacks on the 2nd Amendment. Other than that, he was a pretty good President. My biggest complaint about Bush (W) was his positions on due process and warrantless searches. Obama continued with both of those prior Presidents’ positions, but added his own attacks on the Bill of Rights, including Speech, Religion and even the 10th Amendment, which is hard to do. It’s all out war at this time on the Bill of Rights. President Obama has even purposefully killed a US citizen based only on only his order.

    The Bill of Rights is largely what made us a great society, and what keeps us a great society. People opposed to the Bill of Rights should be removed from office.

    Unlike Clinton, however, President Obama is nothing short of a complete idiot on economic issues. Yet another reason not to like him given our current economic cycle.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  76. 76
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 69

    It just doesn’t matter.

    Throwing out a court case link doesn’t matter.

    Calling people names, or making side comments about how no one knows anything doesn’t matter.

    It just doesn’t matter. It adds nothing.

    So you are right, I have no idea who you are or what you are saying, each day it’s some other insult to some one who doesn’t agree with you, but it just doesn’t matter.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  77. 77

    RE: David Losh @ 76 – David, it’s not just that I disagree with you. It’s that you started insulting me, which lead to me insulting you. I don’t insult people just because I disagree with them. For example Tatilina’s (sp?) comments about gay rights above, I disagree, but I don’t think I’ve ever insulted her responding to any topic. The difference between us is with my insults I know what I’m talking about. For example, you’ve admitted you were a horrible real estate agent. I was right about that.

    Your insults are just nonsense, like claiming my pieces on short sales were just self-promotion. Those two pieces served a real need, because the opinion of too many professionals of short sales are based on their own self interests. My pieces addressed both the pros and the cons, but you couldn’t respond to them in any substantive way, because it was all over your head, so you went off on one of your nonsense tangents.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  78. 78
    wreckingbull says:

    If the preservation of the Bill of Rights is your main issue, Kary, it surprises me you have never considered the Libertarian party. I think you missed Obama’s largest assault on the Bill of Rights – the 2012 NDAA, sections 1021 and 1022.

    It is nothing short of terrifying, especially the fact that most Obama supporters could not even tell you what the NDAA is, let alone, what the 2012 act contains.

    We the sheeple, indeed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  79. 79

    RE: wreckingbull @ 78 – I recognize I have Libertarian tendencies. And I would love a third party to pop up of some type. But right now the choice is between a Democrat who has many known problems, and a Republican who we don’t really know that much about for certain.

    It’s sort of like the choice employers face every so often. They have an employee who clearly is not getting the job done and doing bad things. They can replace them with someone they don’t know that much about just from a resume and references. Typically the employer would get rid of the poorly performing employee and give the unknown person a chance. That’s what I’m hoping the United States does next week.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  80. 80
    Eastsider says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 68 – I’m glad that you saw my view. In any case, I have been on both sides of pro-life and pro-choice. People do change their views. (You find similar change in position on the gay issue by some prominent conservative Republicans.)

    There are many pressing issues facing the country today but neither candidate has offered serious solutions. That’s why we have so many uninterested/reluctant voters in this election as compared to 4 years ago.

    Thanks for reading.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  81. 81
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 79 – Third party candidates are on our ballots now. The have already ‘popped up’. You already have this choice.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  82. 82

    RE: wreckingbull @ 81 – I have in the past gone that route, voting for a third party candidate, but I was talking about a viable third party that actually had a chance of winning, as opposed to someone playing spoiler or voters using their vote as an indication of displeasure with the top two choices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  83. 83
    Ahau says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 70: And never had Romney said he would force his religious views on the world. That would be disaster for any Morman running for office. Are you borrowing a page from Losh and just making things up?

    http://www.ldsendowment.org/terrestrial.html
    from the section on “the law of consecration”:
    “you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

    Romney has sworn a vow to dedicate all that he has and all that he can be to the Mormon church. Yes, he would be foolish to state this in a campaign speech, but he took this oath in the temple, and drew his thumb across his neck to symbolize that he vowed to die before revealing the nature of his temple oaths to those outside of his religion. Every day, he puts on holy underwear with symbols across his nipples to remind him of the oaths and promises he made in the temple. He spent two years as a missionary –not a service missionary like other churches — he spent two years of his life trying to convince others that his belief is the one true religion and all others are false. He was a bishop (lay leader of about 300 people in a ward) and a stake president (leader of a couple thousand).

    Again, this is not a quality I am looking for in a public official. There is a difference between having faith and belonging to a cult.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  84. 84
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 70

    Actually I was talking about abortion and attempts to overturn Roe vs Wade. Not sure how it turned into a discussion regarding the cost of contraception.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  85. 85
    Doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 75

    Kary, how is Obama a complete idiot on economic issues, and what actions would you recommend?

    Only economic issue I can think of that I strongly disagree with on Obama’s part was the short-term tax rebate to try to boost the housing market and delay the inevitable.

    EDIT: Also, the stimulus should have focused on low-cost infrastructure jobs instead of pricey green jobs and tax cuts.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  86. 86

    RE: Ahau @ 83 – Wow, religious bigotry out in the open. Not terribly surprising though. 50 years ago they were saying the same thing about Catholics.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  87. 87

    RE: Doug @ 85 – It’s been discussed repeatedly in the economics thread, but:

    1. Threatening tax increases he knows will never get past Congress. That leads to decreased economic output without any increase tax revenues. Similarly, almost all of his economic proposals this past year are things he knows will never get past Congress. They’re political rather than practical.

    2. Passing Obamacare lead to less employment due to uncertainty over the extra costs which would be incurred. His priorities either were not focused on jobs, or he didn’t have a clue what Obamacare would do to jobs. I suspect the latter.

    3. Anti-business rhetoric for political purposes (getting votes at the cost of jobs). Interestingly, he’s been very pro large financial entity.

    4. Throwing the Social Security system under the bus for short term tax cuts. Funny how he thinks tax cuts increase economic activity, but tax increases don’t harm economic activity.

    5. Not concentrating the stimulus over a shorter period of time.

    In short, he doesn’t know what to do to make private enterprise start hiring. He’s constantly relying on increased government spending to accomplish everything, and if re-elected we’ll see four more years of the same.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  88. 88
    Ahau says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 86 – Kary, I’m quoting facts here. I was raised Mormon, and almost everyone in my family and extended family are practicing members. I know a lot of Mormons, and I like and love them for who they are as individuals, but their religion is a fraud, and this is well documented. Regarding my characterization of Mormonism as a “cult”, I do not come by this lightly, either. Mormonism meets everyone one of these characteristics: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

    Speaking of your love for the Bill of Rights, do you happen to know why Joseph Smith was imprisoned in Carthage Jail prior to his death? Most Mormons don’t. He was imprisoned for ordering the destruction of a printing press, in violation of the First Amendment. The Nauvoo Expositor was running stories claiming that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, so he had their printing press burned to the ground (he was the mayor, prophet, and commanding general in Nauvoo and had a failed campaign to run for President of the United States). The claims turned out to be true — Joseph Smith had secretly married dozens of women, a well documented fact which is no longer challenged by the church (but it is also not taught this way to the members).

    So, you may call it “bigotry”, and you’re welcome to the term, but I was lied to by this organization for eighteen years and now I sit excluded from my family because I refuse to share their beliefs and deify a swindler.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  89. 89
    Blurtman says:

    I cast my ballot for William K. Black, PhD, for president of the USA, and I am proud that I did.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  90. 90
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 64 – By golly, I think you hit on it! Let’s bring back slavery as a way to compete with China. We can do this openly, or through continual destruction of the middle and lower class. Hmmmm….

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  91. 91
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Ahau @ 88

    Agree with your assessment. Over the 40 years I’ve observed them though Mormons seem to be becoming more and more mainstream. I’ve often wondered how many Mormons feel about the stranger parts of their faith versus just going along to stay involved with community/family/friends. Gotta be hard for many.

    Romney has publicly stated that he understands and accepts the delineation between personal faith and the rule of current law and can accept law as the ruling factor. I’m comfortable with that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  92. 92
    Peter Witting says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 17 – Word. I agree with all your comments on this thread.

    The more I see of Romney, the less appealing he becomes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  93. 93
    Ahau says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 91 – Thanks, Scotsman. The church has been moving more “mainstream” in many ways — the “oath of vengeance” was removed from the temple ceremony in the 1920’s. In 1978, they allowed blacks to hold the priesthood, and in 1990 (after Romney received his endowment) they removed the part about forfeiting their life to protect the secrecy of the temple rituals. In many other ways, however, they have stayed on the margins. I think that taking a position, funding, and organizing a campaign to pass Prop 8 in California (amending their constitution to preclude gay marriage) was a step in the wrong direction.

    A lot of active members don’t know about most of the “stranger parts” of the church’s history, but that is changing now that we have the internet and the church cannot control the flow of information. People respond differently when they find out, as one might expect. Some people don’t care, some people leave the church over it, some become zealous apologists. Cognitive dissonance is a heavy burden to bear, but you become skilled at it with practice and experience ;)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  94. 94
    Doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 87

    1 through 3: I’d really like to see any degree of cause and effect here. The markets sure don’t think Obama’s an idiot, or doing a bad job. Hurt feelings must not count for much.

    4. This is why:
    http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf
    (page 9)

    5. Why?

    Overall, I think we’re doing ok for having had $16 trillion of wealth destroyed four years ago. Unemployment is down. Total U.S. debt (households, business, local government, federal government) is actually increasing much more slowly than in the Bush years.
    ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf )

    The only ideas I hear out of Romney are his completely unworkable tax plan (revenue-neutral massive tax decreases by eliminating deductions, but not the popular ones that actually cost money), and mostly stuff we’re already doing (free trade!), plus a little drill-baby-drill. Not exactly stirring stuff.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  95. 95
    ChrisM says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 75 – “I am a one-issue voter. I am opposed to anyone who attacks the Bill of Rights.”

    Me, too.

    I’m having a fun time asking Republicans how they enjoy supporting Mitt Romney (who evidently hates the 2nd amendment) and actually signed into law a gun ban (unlike Obama).

    Romney came out in support of the gun ban not more than four months ago. He said he was proud that he reached bipartisan consensus on the ban.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide-romney-support-for/190318

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  96. 96
    ChrisM says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 78 – Gary Johnson is a pathetic choice for Libertarians. The party should be ashamed that is the best they’ve got to offer.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  97. 97
    ChrisM says:

    RE: Ahau @ 88 – As an excommunicated Mormon, I endorse Ahau’s posts.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  98. 98
    wreckingbull says:

    By Scotsman @ 91:

    RE: Ahau @ 88

    Romney has publicly stated that he understands and accepts the delineation between personal faith and the rule of current law and can accept law as the ruling factor. I’m comfortable with that.

    The executive branch does much more than enforce current law. It appoints members of the judicial branch, starts wars without congressional approval, and directly implements policy via signing statements. I won’t pick on Mormonism at all. I’ll say that I would be much more comfortable with an atheist in the White House. You know, someone who actually thinks that we need to get ourselves out of this mess without “higher intervention”.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  99. 99
    Scotsman says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 98

    The reality is we probably have an atheist in the White House now. I know that’s not the party line, but I don’t see a lot of credible evidence to the contrary.

    How’s that working out?

    One important characteristic of most true Christians is humility founded on the sense that they are not individually that important in the greater scheme. Humility can lead to introspection, caution, consultation, and self review. Obama shows little of these qualities. If he were god his demonstrated approach might work. But he’s just a flawed human, acting too often on his own, out of pride and narcissism. He’ll retire to luxury while the country has to do the hard work of recovering from his failures.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  100. 100
    Doug says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 99

    We’re still talking about politicians, right? You’re looking for modesty and humility in the wrong place!

    Also I like your ‘no true Scotsman’ argument. So appropo to your name, even! I’m a Christian; believers come in all shapes, sizes, attitudes and walks of life. :-)

    I’m not voting for a pastor, and likewise I’d rather my worship leader not be political at all. Good and great men seldom being the same, as the saying goes.

    Not to mention we let our distaste for politicians’ policies and parties color our perceptions of their personality. Obama is arrogant? Maybe. I think Romney genuinely subscribes to the Worthington principle: More money = Better than
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo
    Am I right? Who knows.

    The country’s already recovering, slowly and steadily. It probably will continue to do so whichever man is voted in. I’m of the opinion that more people will enjoy the fruits of that recovery if Obama is elected.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  101. 101
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 77

    It just doesn’t matter.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  102. 102
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 99 – The notion that a ‘real’ Christian, whatever that means, would be more altruistic or humble in the white house is laughable and antiquated.

    I know the Bible pretty well, as I was raised in a hardcore Presbyterian family (yes, another Scotsman). Based on this knowledge, I would say the Obama presidency is closer to the ideals of Christianity than the Bush/Cheney presidency, by a long shot. I’m not saying he is a good president, but your logic is severely flawed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  103. 103
    Pegasus says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 77 – Nonsense!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  104. 104
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 99 – George W – he was a humble guy. Jerry Falwell, Biily Graham cracker. Oh, yes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  105. 105
    Scotsman says:

    Wasn’t it Obama who claimed that “the earth will begin to heal” with his election? Seriously? Must be the new humility, kind of like the new math I suffered through as a student.

    Thinking is dead. Reactive emotion is the new program. Facts, reality, long term perspectives, all are on the junk heap of history.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  106. 106
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 4

    See post #105 above. If you had any knowledge you would understand Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham don’t belong in the same sentence.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  107. 107

    By Doug @ 94:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 87
    1 through 3: I’d really like to see any degree of cause and effect here. The markets sure don’t think Obama’s an idiot, or doing a bad job. Hurt feelings must not count for much.

    Businesses have complained a lot about possible tax increases and Obamacare. As noted, even President Obama has said at times that it was too early for a tax increase because it would hurt the economy. So President Obama believes there is an effect.

    You can’t judge what business thinks by the stock market. You’re confusing business with investors. Investors have moved into the stock market for other reasons, mainly falling interest rates, which makes bonds less attractive and more risky, and because US investments are seen as a safe harbor compared to other areas such as the Euro.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  108. 108

    By Doug @ 94:

    4. This is why:
    http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf
    (page 9)
    . . .
    The only ideas I hear out of Romney are his completely unworkable tax plan (revenue-neutral massive tax decreases by eliminating deductions, but not the popular ones that actually cost money), and mostly stuff we’re already doing (free trade!), plus a little drill-baby-drill. Not exactly stirring stuff.

    I don’t see what President Obama did when first entering office has to do with cutting the SS tax rate in 2011 and 2012.

    I would agree on the Romney tax plan being unworkable, and there are parts I don’t like (the territorial solution to off shore jobs). But where is President Obama on such matters? M.I.A.

    The main difference between President Obama and Romney is President Obama thinks everything, including jobs, is created as a result of government action, where Romney thinks government should create conditions which allows other things to be created by others.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  109. 109

    RE: ChrisM @ 95 – The the new case on the 2nd amendment, gun control probably isn’t much of an issue, but I would note that the NRA hates President Obama more than they hate Romney.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  110. 110

    By Doug @ 100:

    The country’s already recovering, slowly and steadily. It probably will continue to do so whichever man is voted in. I’m of the opinion that more people will enjoy the fruits of that recovery if Obama is elected.

    That’s probably true. The question is how fast.

    The one thing though that might make a difference is that President Obama’s spending could eventually turn us into Greece. I think that would take more than four years though, but in four years we could be past a tipping point.

    Connecting up to my prior third party comment, the Republicans weren’t much better on spending than the Democrats before them, but they weren’t as bad as President Obama. We need someone better than all of them, which is part of the reason I’d like a third party. Hopefully one without all the social policy nonsense.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  111. 111

    By Pegasus @ 3:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 77 – Nonsense!

    BS. Everything I said there was 100% true and accurate. You’re just biased.

    I do agree with Losh though that it doesn’t matter.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  112. 112
    Doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 107 – A lot of people just don’t like Obama (or any Democratic president) businesses complaining doesn’t hold a lot of water with me, sorry. I want cause and effect.

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 108 -The document states that you get a large economic benefit from cutting payroll taxes, larger than extending the Bush tax cuts. You asked why Obama thought that cutting some taxes was better than others, and this is why.

    You’re ascribing emotional arguments to Obama that aren’t borne out by the facts. Private sector unemployment is down, and government employment (local and federal) is down since Obama took office.

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 110
    No. Did you read the part of my response that showed that total U.S. debt was increasing at a much slower rate during the Obama years than it did during the Bush years? It’s barely higher than inflation. Public and private entities and state governments have been deleveraging. We’re not in any danger of becoming Greece.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  113. 113

    RE: Doug @ 112 – If you want cause and effect, President Obama complains about businesses spending money in certain ways, particularly Las Vegas conventions and private jets. They cut spending in those ways. Fewer people are employed directly and indirectly by the company as a result, and less money is in the system. More people lose their jobs as a result.

    As to your last argument, in absolute numbers debt has increased by over $1T each of the last four years. It was about half that rate before then. That ignores what the Fed, Fannie, Freddie and FHA have been doing.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  114. 114
    Doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 113

    You’re looking at Federal debt. I’m looking at household, state government, and business debt, taken as a whole. Total U.S. debt.

    The federal government has been taking on the debt the rest of the US leveraged up during the Bush years. If it hadn’t, we’d still be in a deep recession as families and companies struggled to deleverage.

    I’ll again point you here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf
    Page 2. Compare the Bush years to Obama years.

    ~4% debt growth ain’t bad with around 2% inflation, and an improving economy. Could Obama be doing more? Empirically, yes. In this political climate? Ha!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  115. 115

    By Doug @ 114:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 113

    You’re looking at Federal debt. I’m looking at household, state government, and business debt, taken as a whole. Total U.S. debt.

    Why limit it that way? Consumer debt has been decreasing, but that’s not a good thing because it’s probably partly due to foreclosures. Business debt is not necessarily a bad thing, and often a good thing. That it’s growing slowly is part of the problem. Many states can’t incur debt, or can only do things in limited ways.

    The federal government has been taking on the debt the rest of the US leveraged up during the Bush years. If it hadn’t, we’d still be in a deep recession as families and companies struggled to deleverage.

    I buy that argument for the first two years of the Obama presidency. That’s why I said the stimulus should have been more concentrated in time. At some point though you need the regular economy to take off, and my position is President Obama has hindered that rather than helped that.

    I’ll again point you here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf
    Page 2. Compare the Bush years to Obama years.

    ~4% debt growth ain’t bad with around 2% inflation, and an improving economy. Could Obama be doing more? Empirically, yes. In this political climate? Ha!

    You’re again just looking at total debt. It’s the federal debt which is the problem. Looking at the federal data from your source, the situation is hardly good during the Obama years compared to prior years. It is generally much worse.

    Also, you’re looking at percentage growth. If you borrow $1T year after year after year, the percentage growth will drop, indicating things were getting better. They would instead be getting worse. It’s the nominal growth in debt which is important.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  116. 116
    Doug says:

    “Why limit it that way?” Ha ha, looking at the big picture of total U.S. debt, rather than just federal debt is ‘limiting’ the analysis? That word… I do not think it means what you think it means!

    I think I’m getting the disconnect here. You’re applying business principles to the economy at large. This does not work as well as you think it does. Yeah, individual corporate debt can be a good thing if it’s part of a long-term strategy. But OVERALL corporate debt being lower is a GOOD thing, unless it’s so low that the economy simply isn’t growing. Same thing with personal debt. Sure you don’t want debt to be ZERO necessarily, but don’t tell me that during the bubble years businesses and households were underleveraged!

    Why is the national debt a problem if businesses, state governments and taxpayers are deleveraging? The government can raise more revenue, but it needs not at this time as bond rates are at historic lows. Better to take the burden of debt off of taxpayers and businesses to let the recovery continue.

    If homeowners, businesses and state governments are all deleveraging, whether that’s through foreclosures or not, that IS a good thing in the macroeconomic sense.

    And percentage growth is generally what matters, rather than absolute growth. That’s how you weigh it against inflation, which essentially reduces debt.

    Kary, you seem to want lower federal debt, lower taxes, lower consumer debt, lower corporate debt, a stronger stimulus, no inflation, and lower unemployment. Talk about some pink pony thinking!

    That Obama has delivered…

    -Lower taxes
    -Cut the rate of total debt growth in half
    -Lower unemployment
    -Great gains in private sector employment
    -Reduced total government employment
    -low levels of inflation
    -And all the above is holding steady or IMPROVING

    …seems to matter not one bit to you, and it seems to be due to some sort of emotional argument. Somehow President Obama personally hurt your feelings, and that’s not something I’m going to be able to remove or undo with logical arguments and statistics.

    But to argue that Obama is an economic idiot is just wrong, Kary. It is. Sure he’s made some bad choices. I don’t like the JOBS act’s IPO requirements loosening. But the economy’s doing quite well after taking a $16 trillion dollar hit.

    Here’s my emotional argument: A knew a TON of people who were unemployed and in dire straits about a half a year after the financial collapse. They are now all in work. They may not be doing perfectly, but they’re doing better.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  117. 117
    apartment boy says:

    RE: Ahau @ 88
    I once visited the Carthage jail, and then on to Nauvoo.
    We were on the 2nd story of a brick building, that was a dance hall for the Mormons. It was a large open wooden floor, and the curator looked at me and said ‘Some times when I’m up here, I feel the presence of Joseph Smith.’ That was 20 years ago and I still get a little freaked out by that.
    Still, I voted for Romney!
    hahaha

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  118. 118

    By Doug @ 16:

    Kary, you seem to want lower federal debt, lower taxes, lower consumer debt, lower corporate debt, a stronger stimulus, no inflation, and lower unemployment. Talk about some pink pony thinking!

    Now you’re just totally making things up. I’ve not said I want lower taxes, but I am against tax increasee. I’ve not said I want lower consumer debt. I’ve not said I want lower corporate debt. I have said I wanted the stimulus to be more concentrated in time. What I mean by that is they should have spent the same amount of money faster. I’ve not mentioned inflation. Yes, I would like lower unemployment–shoot me for that.

    That Obama has delivered…

    -Lower taxes
    -Cut the rate of total debt growth in half
    -Lower unemployment
    -Great gains in private sector employment
    -Reduced total government employment
    -low levels of inflation
    -And all the above is holding steady or IMPROVING

    More making things up. The tax cuts have been insignificant, and IMHO relatively ineffective. The debt, again you’re talking total debt, not federal debt. President Obama doesn’t control the others. “Great gains” in private sector employment, nope, barely any gains since he took office. And real unemployment is horribly bad. I’ll give you lower levels of government employment and low inflation, but the latter is low due to bad things, not good things.

    …seems to matter not one bit to you, and it seems to be due to some sort of emotional argument. Somehow President Obama personally hurt your feelings, and that’s not something I’m going to be able to remove or undo with logical arguments and statistics.

    Again, more made up arguments. I don’t have any personal dislike for President Obama. I just don’t like him as president because he’s a proven failure and doesn’t have a clue on economic issues for the reasons mentioned. Anyone who cared a dime about unemployment would not have pushed through Obamacare.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  119. 119
    ChrisM says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 109 – Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens disagrees with your position. But then, who cares what a *retired* supreme court justice says? :-)

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/us-usa-guns-stevens-idUSBRE89E1HE20121016

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  120. 120

    RE: ChrisM @ 19 – If 30 years ago you’d told me that Democrats and liberal Supreme Court Justices would become the greatest threat to the Bill of Rights I would have laughed at you. It’s become a rather bizarro world.

    The Second Amendment issue wouldn’t have surprised me, but the rest does.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  121. 121
    WestSideBilly says:

    This would have been a more interesting poll if the options “enthusiastically AGAINST Obama” and “enthusiastically AGAINST Romney” were there.

    I suspect most of the enthusiastically for Romney votes are actually against Obama.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  122. 122
    Pegasus says:

    At least someone gets it right:

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  123. 123
    wreckingbull says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 120 – Strange days indeed.

    How about this quote from a Republican president, general, and war hero:

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

    Of course this was over a half century ago before the party went bat-poop crazy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  124. 124
    Pegasus says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 123 – Bat-poop? I like it!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  125. 125

    RE: wreckingbull @ 123
    Einsenhower would be considered far too liberal to get anywhere in the Republican party today.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  126. 126
    ChrisM says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 125 – I doubt that at the time Eisenhower identified with the Republican party. He steadfastly refused to endorse his Vice President’s subsequent run for President.

    I like Ike.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  127. 127
    David Losh says:

    Did I mention that I think Obama is one of the best Presidents we have had in my life time.

    He’s up there with Reagan, and Clinton in my book.

    No one likes to admit that Clinton followed through on the Reagan promise of prosperity that neither Bush promoted or adhered to.

    Obama has shown himself to be much more in keeping of Reagan policies. Let’s not forget, any of us, that Reagan ran up a huge debt also.

    For the first ime, in a long time, I can see us at a point of world peace.

    Romney, like John McCain, keeps talking like our military can march into some place, any place, and fix something. Well, we can’t and that has been proved numerous times since the big one, WWII.

    Obama kills people. I like that. I like that Obama unapologetically kills people. He didn’t just kill bin Laden, he’s killed a lot of people, and toppled a lot of dictators. We’re just upset because Obama won’t march into Syria to get more of our troops killed.

    Revolution by militia is messy. We should know that, but we forgot. They haven’t forgotten that in the Middle East. They admire our rights to revolution.

    Obama’s doing good. Romney would be a tumble into a black hole of indecision, saber rattling, and gridlock. No one could ever allow a Romney Ryan to take control of our government. It wouldn’t be prudent.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  128. 128
    Maxwell says:

    If you are voting for Romney make sure you know you are getting the full package including his crazy beliefs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  129. 129

    By Ira Sacharoff @ 25:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 123
    Einsenhower would be considered far too liberal to get anywhere in the Republican party today.

    I wonder how Nancy Pelosi would have done as a Democrat in the 60s suggesting the First Amendment be amended?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  130. 130
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 129

    It’s become extremely (pun intended) that you don’t follow the Conservative movement in the United States, and I’ll wager you don’t follow the Conservative movement globally.

    I’m a Conservative. I’m a guns, and gold Conservative.

    The problem the United States has with it’s neo con movement, like the Tea Party, is that it talks a lot, but never walks.

    We elected Ronald reagan because he delivered. We got rid of George Bush the first because he sold us out. His son George the second promised to get it right, but he is a profiteer, and that is extremely evident today.

    The fact we have the likes of a Shaun Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck shouting “We Hate America, and We Need to Change It” in a crowded theater is a very good indication of how far we have fallen in the name of Conservative ideals.

    The Supreme Court handed the neo cons the right to dictate United States policy by financial means. No Conservative would ever allow a corporation to have the rights of an individual. You can’t trade government control for that of a corporation.

    The Conservative movement today is what is under attack.

    Obama is far more Conservative than Romney, or Ryan. There are trade offs in any election, but Obama has outlined a clear picture of where we can go as individuals, where Romeny wants to put more control into the hands of corporations.

    To be more clear, trading the yoke of the government for the yoke of a corporation isn’t a choice. I’ll stick with the government. Conservatives, both nationally, and globally like the United States government. We’re a beacon of light in a very dark world.

    So, telling me that some corporation hates our government, and wants to get rid of it, or change it, for the purposes of profit, isn’t making any points.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  131. 131

    RE: David Losh @ 130 – The idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations is complete nonsense. That’s why the McConnell decision was overturned so quickly.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  132. 132
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 131

    That really doesn’t matter to anything. You are, again, attempting to give individual rights to a corporation.

    Now I could waste some of my morning explaining why a corporation that controls a group of people, and potential voters, should never have individual rights, but I feel it would wouldn’t be productive.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  133. 133
    corndogs says:

    RE: David Losh @ 127 – Reagan inspired confidence, Bush actually had the highest approval rating of any President. Clinton is/was a disgrace and an embarrassment….. The difference between Clinton and Obama is Clinton failed health care by one vote…. during Clintons admin the Republicans took the house and Senate and he begrudgingly submitted…and the financial policies of that era were those of Gingrich et al…. Obama actually passed the health care law….pissing off the American public again, during the midterms the Repubs took only the house… Obama remained stubborn and didn’t submit and now we are at gridlock…. the critical mass of minorities and brainwashed preteens and brain dead victims living on SSI like yourself are too great to overcome these days. 65% of whites are voting Republican… it isn’t enough, unfortunately….

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  134. 134

    RE: David Losh @ 132 – If you don’t think corporations have rights under the Bill of Rights, why does the government need a warrant to search corporate files?

    If you don’t think corporations have rights under the Bill of Rights, why can’t the government just shut down the Seattle Times?

    If you don’t think corporations have rights under the Bill of Rights, why can’t government control the content of video games made by Nintendo, or movies made by a corporate studio.

    If you don’t think corporations have rights under the Bill of Rights, why are there decisions under the First Amendment holding that commercial speech has fewer protections than political speech?

    Again, that corporations don’t have rights is total nonsense, pushed by politicians who want to protect themselves by passing laws that restrict critical speech about their activities.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  135. 135
    Doug says:

    RE: corndogs @ 133

    I think you’re leaving out the salient fact that Bush also left office with an approval rating bouncing around the high 20’s, and also boasted the highest disapproval rating measured, at 71. There may have just been some sort of event that boosted GW Bush’s approval rating and caused Americans to forget their politics for a while…

    Also: Darn those preteens for voting Obama in! *shakes fist*

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  136. 136

    RE: Doug @ 135 – That same stat you show indicates how the voters blamed Bush for what happened, leaving Congress apparently totally without fault. We really should have had about 80% turnover in the House in 2008, and 25% in the Senate.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  137. 137

    RE: corndogs @ 133
    At the time of the 2008 election, after two terms in the White House, George W Bush had a 25% approval rating. At the time of the 2000 election, after two terms in the WHite House, Bill Clinton had a 57% approval rating. Gallup polls of recent Presidents suggest that ROnald Reagan and Bill Clinton are thought of as our best recent Presidents, and George W Bush only trails Richard Nixon as the worst.
    Also, while Obama might lead amongst “brain dead victims on SSI”, Romney clearly has the lead amongst uneducated ignorant white folk….And, last I read, Whites are not voting Republican at 65%, it’s less. 60% or something like that. I think McCain got 58% of the white vote. All that says is that there are a lot of white folks out there who wouldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln if they reappeared today with black skin.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  138. 138
    corndogs says:

    RE: Doug @ 135 – “Also: Darn those preteens for voting Obama in! *shakes fist*”…. The pathetic thing is that the majority of them will become Republicans later in life…. it’s a mystery how people seem to get stupider as they get older, huh?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  139. 139
    Doug says:

    RE: corndogs @ 138

    My Point is that pre-teens cannot vote.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  140. 140
    wreckingbull says:

    By corndogs @ 133:

    RE: David Losh @ 127 Bush actually had the highest approval rating of any President**

    ** Right after 9/11. Anyone would have had a high rating then. Do you not recall the freedom-fries, proud-to-be-an-american, wispy-eyed sentiment of the day? At the end of his term, he was tied at the bottom with Carter, only beating Nixon. Oops.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  141. 141
    corndogs says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 37 – “Romney clearly has the lead amongst uneducated ignorant white folk”…”All that says is that there are a lot of white folks out there who wouldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln if they reappeared today with black skin.”

    Ira, I think you’ve watched too many episodes of the Jeffersons. Sorry, Ira, minorities are not mentally superior to whites and white people are not largely racist at all. What’s funny is you can make a racist set of comments like you just did and no one will have a problem with it. I’m gonna call you out on it now and I’m going to get a bunch of thumbs down…65% of white men vote Republican…A majority of all whites educated or not, vote Republican. To the credit of white people, the percentage voting for Obama is almost identical to the percentage who voted for any other democratic president…. That shows that whites are amazingly not racist….. The only sh%t I hear about racism is coming from black or semi-black uneducated folks like yourself.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  142. 142

    RE: wreckingbull @ 140 – The worst president was probably Ford. Whip Inflation Now! Although that was better than the price controls from Nixon.

    Why is it so many presidents don’t know squat about economics?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  143. 143
    corndogs says:

    RE: Doug @ 39 – ooh well, let me be clear then, I’m talking about the pre-30 demographic…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  144. 144
    corndogs says:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 40 – Im well aware what happened and the rise and fall of the mans popularity…. The fact is, he was the leader at that time and was the most popular president of all time… All Presidents popularity is obviously based on the happenings of the day…. Clinton should have had a much higher rating based on the happenings of the day…. he brought down his own rating by actions unbecoming of a President.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  145. 145
    corndogs says:

    Jimmy Carter is typically judged the worst president ever according to the polls I’ve seen.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  146. 146
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 134

    Individual rights, are completely different from the laws we make governing corporations. You threw in the Seattle Times to see if you were on to something, but you aren’t.

    No Conservative globally thinks Corporations should share our individual rights, and no patriot in the United States thinks Corporations should share our individual rights.

    Obama made all of his points with Conservatives, by calling out the Supreme Court in front of the Nation, and Congress.

    That is free speech.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  147. 147

    By David Losh @ 146:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 134 Individual rights, are completely different from the laws we make governing corporations

    I gave you several examples where they are not different. You’re basing your opinion on nothing!

    Here is the text of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Only assembly and right of petition could possibly be interpreted to only include rights of individuals, because that is the only part that uses the term “people.”

    Obama made all of his points with Conservatives, by calling out the Supreme Court in front of the Nation, and Congress.

    Nonsense. It’s liberals who hate the Citizen’s United decision more than liberals, but most politicians hate it because it doesn’t allow them to protect themselves. And the Justices that were in the majority are generally seen as the conservative Justices. Yet another thing you have backwards in your mind.

    BTW, it’s actually worse than what I have stated. I had thought President Obama had called for an amendment of the First Amendment, but in the past I hadn’t been able to find a link. Here it is!

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/30/Obama-seeks-to-overturn-Citizens-United/UPI-46821346310000/

    President Obama is clearly anti-First Amendment. He wants to limit what is clearly political speech, the most sacred type of speech there is. I’ve said it before–the school where he taught Con Law should drag all their students back for remedial teaching so that they can be untaught the nonsense that he probably was teaching back then.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  148. 148
    Doug says:

    RE: corndogs @ 144

    I present your best, most popular president EVER!
    http://www.utahwildernessatlas.net/images/kos/bush_approval_graph.jpg

    “The only sh%t I hear about racism is coming from black or semi-black uneducated folks like yourself.”
    …corndog said without a shred of irony.

    Ira is uneducated? Coulda fooled me. Whether he is or is not, and whether I agree with him or not on a given topic, he’s one of the smartest people on SB.

    Since you put so much value on education, and seem to be implying that it correlates with intelligence, I’m sure you know that the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to support Obama:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/154562/gender-gap-obama-approval-constant-term-began.aspx

    Lastly, a protip.
    Ellipses… are not a catch-all… that can be used as a substitute……… for all other punctuation……………………

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  149. 149
    wreckingbull says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 142:

    RE: wreckingbull @ 140
    Why is it so many presidents don’t know squat about economics?

    Because most of them were lawyers? Sorry Kary, could not resist that softball :)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  150. 150

    RE: wreckingbull @ 49 – LOL–I liked it.

    Actually, in law school there were relatively few students with economics majors. They sort of stuck out, at least if their focus was microeconomics.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  151. 151
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Doug @ 148

    “Ira is uneducated?”

    Actually I was stuck at Ira being “semi-black” according to Corndogs. What the heck is “semi-black” and why is Ira whatever that is? Enquiring minds want to know. :)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  152. 152
    whatsmyname says:

    By corndogs @ 141:

    – To the credit of white people, the percentage voting for Obama is almost identical to the percentage who voted for any other democratic president…. That shows that whites are amazingly not racist…..

    That supports the notion that the percentage of whites that vote for a democratic president are not racist, or are at least not more racist than democrat.

    It says nothing about the percentage of whites that don’t vote for democratic presidents. We rely on on you and scotsman for amazing insights into that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  153. 153
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 147

    You only showed me examples of your opinions.

    The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, which begins with We the People.

    You are so far out of touch you can’t see that Conservatives hate corporations.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  154. 154
    David Losh says:

    RE: ARDELL @ 51

    You are in the world of back water bubba speak. I think, Ira has said at times he may be of Israeli descent.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  155. 155

    By ARDELL @ 151:

    RE: Doug @ 148

    “Ira is uneducated?”

    Actually I was stuck at Ira being “semi-black” according to Corndogs. What the heck is “semi-black” and why is Ira whatever that is? Enquiring minds want to know. :)

    I’ve got no idea why I’ve been labeled semi-black or what that means. I’m guessing that Corndogs sees everyone who is dark and swarthy, exotic and devilishly handsome as ” semi-black”.
    Mitt Romney might very well win this race, but the long term demographics may render the Republicans an underdog for years to come. In 1980, whites who did not attend college made up 63% of the electorate . In 2008, that number was 39%. This is the strongest demographic for Republicans. In 1980, blacks made up 8% of the electorate. In 2008, they made up 12%. In 1980, Hispanics made up 1% of the electorate, in 2008 they made up 8%, in 1980 Asians made up less than 1%, and in 2008 they were 2%. These are all groups who tend to overwhelmingly support Democrats. The Republicans can change their message, or they can risk becoming irrelevant.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  156. 156

    By David Losh @ 53:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 147

    You only showed me examples of your opinions.

    No, David. Those are examples of situations where corporations have rights under the Bill of Rights. There is case law to support those examples.

    Interesting bit of trivia: A corporate debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy has no 5th Amendment rights.

    In contrast, your position that corporations don’t have rights under the Bill of Rights–that’s an opinion. An opinion based on nothing but news reports by ignorant reporters.

    The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, which begins with We the People.

    People drafted and enacted the Constitution. That’s all that means.

    You are so far out of touch you can’t see that Conservatives hate corporations.

    LOL. David, I wouldn’t describe you as out of touch. I would describe you as totally delusional. That sentence is a great example of that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  157. 157

    By Ira Sacharoff @ 155:

    The Republicans can change their message, or they can risk becoming irrelevant.

    I would love for them to become irrelevant, or perhaps for the Tea Party to become irrelevant. If the Tea Party became a real party, either the Republican Party or the Tea Party could shed all the right wing social policy BS and focus on economic issues.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  158. 158
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 156

    So, let me get this straight, that after all this time you are equating Republicans with Conservatives. That’s a mistake.

    Second is that We the People means the people of the United States were to create a more perfect union.

    Your reliance on case law just shows how totally and completely out of touch you are.

    Laws come and go, that’s what makes the Constitution fluid, but it is also why Obama is asking for an Amendment.

    Once again you are in way over your head giving opinions about things you have no reason to be discussing.

    You’re flip flopping around just like a fish out of water.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  159. 159

    By David Losh @ 58:

    Second is that We the People means the people of the United States were to create a more perfect union.

    Your reliance on case law just shows how totally and completely out of touch you are.

    There should be a list of Loshisms. Those two would be near the top. David, this is yet another area you simply don’t know anything about. I really don’t know why anyone would describe Ira as uneducated, but you prove your lack of education daily.

    Laws come and go, that’s what makes the Constitution fluid, but it is also why Obama is asking for an Amendment.

    David, we’re talking about Freedom of Speech here. A very important right. The McConnell decision was probably the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court on the Bill of Rights as far as affecting the entire population (as opposed to only certain races). To suggest an amendment of the First Amendment, restricting it, is un-American. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi should be ashamed of themselves.

    Once again you are in way over your head giving opinions about things you have no reason to be discussing.

    You’re flip flopping around just like a fish out of water.

    Total nonsense David. What I’m discussing is way over your head. You have no legal training, and it shows.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  160. 160

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 157 – Here’s an interesting opinion piece, critical of our two party system.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/03/breaking-twoparty-stranglehold-gary-johnson

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  161. 161

    By David Losh @ 158:

    <Second is that We the People means the people of the United States were to create a more perfect union.

    By the way David, have you ever been to the United States? Do you understand its history.

    Here’s a hint. “Articles of Confederation” does not refer to something that happened during the Civil War.

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

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  162. 162
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 155

    On the bright side…Honey Boo Boo is not old enough to vote. :)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  163. 163
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 155 – We’re all from Africa.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  164. 164
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 159RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 160

    Like I said you are completely out of your depth, and desperately trying to relate this to some area you feel you know well.

    I’m talking about Conservatives.

    You keep throwing around terms without context, but you can deviate a little into case law.

    It’s typical.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  165. 165
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 161

    Well then let me direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

    That’s from the French Revolution, from those who helped us with our own liberty.

    Maybe a little less reliance on your 1970s degree in law, and a little more reading.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  166. 166

    RE: Blurtman @ 163
    I guess I should be grateful that Corndogs has evolved and only called me Semi Black. A few years ago he might’ve called me the n word (while proclaiming that racism on the part of white people no longer exists), or a moo latto( not a coffee drink).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  167. 167

    RE: David Losh @ 165 – Yes, David, our forefathers were so enlightened that that based our Constitution, adopted in 1787, on something that was not adopted until 1789. And our Supreme Court regularly cites to that later document, because obviously our what our forefathers were thinking in 1787 is best determined by what the French were thinking two years later.

    Is there anything at all that you know about? I don’t know why I waste my time with you, other than the fact that your ignorance is rather entertaining.

    BTW, I graduated law school in the 80s. Yet another thing you got wrong.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  168. 168

    By David Losh @ 64:

    You keep throwing around terms without context,.

    LOL. Better than your throwing around terms without any understanding of the term (or anything else in the world).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  169. 169
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 167

    OK, 1980s.

    You threw out a link, and I threw one back at you.

    It has nothing to do with your opinions about something that is completely unrelated to Conservatives.

    You want corporations to have the same rigths as individuals, then threw in a little case law for drill, I guess, because again, it’s another smoke screen.

    Individual liberty is the main stay of the Conservative movement. That is why Conservatives carry the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

    You can’t figure this out because you can’t give in on an opinion you have.

    So, you don’t get it that Conservatives like Obama. Conservatives like the fact Obama called out the Supreme Court Justices in front of Congress, and wants an Amendment.

    Now if you want to discuss something, or anything, you should stay on point, and stop throwing in strawman arguments.

    I’m a Conservative from way back.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  170. 170
    ChrisM says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 160 – Gary Johnson is an ass. Karl Denninger routinely blasts his candidacy. For instance, Johnson now wishes to limit the participants of a presidential debate (of the non R&D) to just the top two candidates!

    That said, I agree about the failings of a two party system. I wish we had a binding “none of the above” choice.

    Australia has a really interesting auction process:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  171. 171

    RE: David Losh @ 69 – Typical David Losh.

    1. Get involved in an argument by posting nonsense.
    2. Lose every argument decisively and then claim that the opponent is in over his head.
    3. Change the topic to something else.

    The issue is whether corporations have Free Speech rights under the First Amendment. Not whether you can craft some definition of conservative to suit your needs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  172. 172

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 171
    Corporations have free speech rights under the First Amendment. But that doesn’t mean that the SCOTUS made the correct decision in Citizen’s United. It altered 100 years of law, from the Tillman Act to Taft Hartley to FECA. Citizens United allows for corporations and unions to set up Super PACS and non profits, and these entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, as long as their campaigns are not co-ordinated with the candidate’s campaign. Free speech is a good thing. Corporations should have the right of free speech. But they should not have the right to buy elections. Are you tired of these extremely negative attack ads on TV? Many of theses ads aren’t coming from the candidates themselves, but from these Super PACS and non profits that were spawned as a result of this Supreme Court decision:
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/11766-citizens-united-ruling-accounts-for-78-percent-of-campaign-spending

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  173. 173
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 71

    Here’s your quote, “Nonsense. It’s liberals who hate the Citizen’s United decision” which is an opinion, like all of your opinions on this thread, lot’s of opinions.

    I said Conservatives hate corporations, and don’t think they should share in our individual rights.

    My conclusion, from all of the comments that you make here, all day, every day, is that you have a very narrow view of the world, and that the world needs to conform to your opinions.

    This thread is about who we like as President, and you want to change the subject to your own opinion about who has rights under the Constitution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  174. 174

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 172 – I would argue that Citizen’s United overturned about 4 years of law–the McConnell decision.

    Don’t assume that the Super-PAC money comes from corporations. There are both very rich individuals and normal individuals that contribute to Super-Pacs.

    Finally, the news reports I’ve seen indicated that the PACs had relatively little impact on total campaign spending. The concerns expressed after Citizen’s United was just hype.

    But let’s accept your premise that corporations only have limited rights, and then look at the facts in McConnell. There the law was used to limit the exposure of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton just before the election. If they have Free Speech rights, how could you possibly limit it in such an important way?

    Finally, even referring to this as corporations is a falsehood. Most of it is spending by labor unions and entities like the NRA.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  175. 175

    RE: David Losh @ 73 – This tangent started in post 129 with a comment about Pelosi wanting to amend the First Amendment. Your the one who brought up the conservative nonsense in post 130.

    But nice try trying to re-write what happened here.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  176. 176

    By Ira Sacharoff @ 172:

    But that doesn’t mean that the SCOTUS made the correct decision in Citizen’s United. It altered 100 years of law, from the Tillman Act to Taft Hartley to FECA.

    Here’s a case from 1990, which limited corporate contributions.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3609582225306729508&q=austin+v.+michigan+chamber+of+commerce&hl=en&as_sdt=2,48&as_vis=1

    No where does it claim corporations don’t have First Amendment rights, as claimed by the commentators on Citizen’s United. In fact they recognize the rights, but allow limitations (the entity could not use general funds to contribute, but could use special political funds).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  177. 177
    ARDELL says:

    I like to vote ON election day and I find myself wondering if anyone who voted early…too early…might be thinking they would have voted differently had they waited to the actual voting day.

    Not talking President necessarily, but the info that comes out on some of the smaller and more local issues and candidates tends to be more intense and expanded, due to monetary restrictions, closer to election day.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  178. 178
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 175

    It’s interesting that this is a thread about the Presidential election, but instead we are discussing case law, or the First Amendment.

    Seems more like lawyer kind of stuff to me.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  179. 179
    ARDELL says:

    RE: David Losh @ 78

    I’m a street kid. When a bully wants to beat someone up…they always drag them into their own turf first. #justsayin :) You both should have stopped at Kary is voting for Romney and David is voting for Obama because all the rest of the crap boils down to just that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  180. 180

    By David Losh @ 78:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 175

    It’s interesting that this is a thread about the Presidential election, but instead we are discussing case law, or the First Amendment.

    Seems more like lawyer kind of stuff to me.

    It came up because President Obama is very anti-Bill of Rights. Religion, Speech, Gun Rights, Due Process, States’ powers, you name it, the guy is against it. He’s more like Putin than the Democrats I grew up with. The Democrats I grew up with mocked the Republicans for wanting to amend the First Amendment over a flag burning decision. Now the Democrats are doing the same thing.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  181. 181

    RE: ARDELL @ 77 – I would tend to agree, but with vote by mail you almost have to vote a day early.

    When you’re dealing with multiple elections, many things can happen, including in the big races.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  182. 182

    By ARDELL @ 79:

    RE: David Losh @ 78 – I’m a street kid. When a bully wants to beat someone up…they always drag them into their own turf first. #justsayin :).

    I hardly drag Losh anywhere. He just won’t shut up and raises issues on which is doesn’t know squat. On the first page Doug brought up the issue of religious freedom, and Losh popped in with nonsense about how the cases were conflicting. No feces Sherlock. On this page it’s been speech, and again Losh pops in with nonsense.

    He’s sort of like the knight in the Monty Python movie. He just won’t quit, no matter how badly he’s beaten. But hey, maybe he’ll call it a draw!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  183. 183
    David Losh says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 182:

    By ARDELL @ 79:
    RE: David Losh @ 78 – I’m a street kid. When a bully wants to beat someone up…they always drag them into their own turf first. #justsayin :).

    I hardly drag Losh anywhere. He just won’t shut up and raises issues on which is doesn’t know squat.

    That says it all, once again, from your own words. Your intention is to silence, not just me, but any one who has an opinion that differs from yours.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  184. 184

    RE: David Losh @ 83 – I’m respectful of other peoples’ opinions, if they have not insulted me.

    Quite some time ago, you made the claim I don’t understand real estate. You’ve also made claims that I shouldn’t represent buyers (or was it sellers?) and that I don’t understand short sales, the law, economics, etc. Rather ironic since you don’t know squat about any of these topics. But unfortunately your total and complete ignorance doesn’t stop you. You just keep on and on making one nonsense claim after another. It’s tiring.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  185. 185
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 184

    Sorry Kary, but we are over here in a corner in the dark, and you can vent all you want.

    The fact is that you come to this site all day, every day, and insult, or bully people with your opinion, then shout them down.

    You sat down at a computer in 2008, or whenever, with no Real Estate experience, knowledge, or ability, and attacked Ardell. I was a fool to go along with it.

    Some one here pointed out you had no experience, and you said, they didn’t know what they were talking about because you were just helping your wife. Combined you both started in the business at the same time.

    Why do I even know that? Why do I even care? Because Kary, you haven’t progressed one bit in all of this time.

    The business of Real Estate is about adapting, and negotiation, that means giving a little. You don’t have that ability, so stop whining.

    You are fair game.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  186. 186

    By David Losh @ 185:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 184

    Sorry Kary, but we are over here in a corner in the dark, and you can vent all you want.

    The fact is that you come to this site all day, every day, and insult, or bully people with your opinion, then shout them down.

    BS. Find one example in the past week that doesn’t involve you. That should be easy, because you just said it happens every day.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  187. 187
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 186

    Kary, I have spent a lot of my time with you, now you want more of my time, to suit you.

    Why? That’s the question. You are here all day every day demanding every one play your game.

    I think this week it was Doug, the week before some one else. I don’t care, it’s just exhausting to have a Kary Krismer marathon of opinion.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  188. 188

    By David Losh @ 185:

    You sat down at a computer in 2008, or whenever, with no Real Estate experience, knowledge, or ability, and attacked Ardell. I was a fool to go along with it.

    Yes, David, in the 20 years I practiced law, I never dealt with any real estate. You’ve got that exactly right–in your own mind. Like everything else you think though, you’re completely wrong.

    I knew more about real estate at 30 than you have ever known.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  189. 189

    By David Losh @ 87:

    I think this week it was Doug, the week before some one else. .

    BS. You can’t just through a name out there. Support your BS claim. Show where I shouted Doug down! Show where I insulted him.

    Doug and I debated the religion issue in a courteous way.

    Like everything else, you’re full of it on this claim.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  190. 190
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 189RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 188

    You, see, you just don’t get it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  191. 191
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 88

    Baloney.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  192. 192

    RE: David Losh @ 191RE: David Losh @ 190 – I’ll take that to mean you can’t support your BS claim. Just like everything else you post–it’s nonsense.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  193. 193
  194. 194
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 188

    I’m not here to engage you with your circular arguments.

    I started work at 15 as a house painter working at the direction of some of the best Real Estate agents in Seattle. I became th gofer.

    In college my economics professor challenged me to a game of chess, which I accepted. During the game he asked me how much I made doing what I was doing, which was owning my own business, with a partner who was a bit older. I made $24K a year at the time, and I guess it was more than he made.

    By the time I was 33 I was retired, the first time. Of course my days were filled with charity work for the preceeding four years, you know how we do. My house was paid for, and my passive income was $2000 a month. Passive income is what it’s all about.

    If I remember correctly my stock portfolio was $250K with an income of 10%? That seems about right because a few years later Fidelity Magellan was paying 17%.

    But as you were told I bought a restaurant that we made into one of the top ten places in Seattle. The guy I sold it to still has it, and it still makes money. He became a client of mine later.

    It took me about five years to recover from that before I retired again.

    What I do, and how I do it is really pretty simple. I work in Real Estate.

    Now, you are an attorney, a bankruptcy attorney. Because I’m a Real Estate agent I am very familiar with the work of a bankruptcy attorney, what you do, and how much you make.

    You are like the thousands of attorneys in the world who are added to the thousands of attorneys who came before you, and are looking for work.

    Just by the things you say here on this blog, not counting the Trulia nonsense, it is clear that Real Estate sales is not what you do well. If you had some area of expertise in the Real Estate business then maybe you could share that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  195. 195

    By David Losh @ 94:

    Now, you are an attorney, a bankruptcy attorney. Because I’m a Real Estate agent I am very familiar with the work of a bankruptcy attorney, what you do, and how much you make.

    David, you don’t know squat. Quit pretending you do. Very few real estate agents know anything at all about bankruptcy, and if you were one of the few that did I would know about it. The bankruptcy world is a much smaller world than the real estate world.

    Just by the things you say here on this blog, not counting the Trulia nonsense, it is clear that Real Estate sales is not what you do well. If you had some area of expertise in the Real Estate business then maybe you could share that.

    I don’t know how many times I need to say this, but you’re in no position to judge me. Let me make this perfectly clear. You are too unintelligent, uneducated and inexperienced to judge me. I don’t know why you keep making claims you’re in no position to make, other than the fact that you’re really unintelligent and don’t know any better.

    As to my expertise in real estate, it’s over your head. You’re too unintelligent, uneducated and inexperienced to understand it. What I do on some transactions would make your head spin.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  196. 196

    Kary said” I’m respectful of other peoples’ opinions, if they have not insulted me. ”

    But if you do perceive that you’ve been insulted, it doesn’t seem to me that you’re very good at shrugging things off or letting things go. Doesn’t matter what the thread is or who the other person is, whether it’s David or Ardell or Pegasus, it can just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. It’s displaying something that I’ve been accused of more than once ” smart, but not necessarily mature”. And it doesn’t matter who’s reading or skipping past it, as long as you’ve made your point.
    How much does it really matter? Ever heard the expression ” pick your battles?”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  197. 197
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 195

    Man, you are so funny.

    Read what you write, it’s all there.

    I’m not judging you at all.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  198. 198

    RE: David Losh @ 97 – David, in the past I’ve said if you have a problem with something I wrote in a blog piece, point it out. Yesterday I said if you think I attack someone daily here, point it out. You’ve not responded to either request.

    Instead you just post a bunch of nonsense, because you don’t understand what I write and don’t understand the world in general.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  199. 199

    By Ira Sacharoff @ 96:

    Kary said” Iâ��m respectful of other peoplesâ�� opinions, if they have not insulted me. ”

    But if you do perceive that you’ve been insulted, it doesn’t seem to me that you’re very good at shrugging things off or letting things go. Doesn’t matter what the thread is or who the other person is, whether it’s David or Ardell or Pegasus, it can just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

    I do let it go. How long has it been since I’ve insulted Pegasus or Ardell? The answer is a long time. The reason? They have not insulted me for a long time.

    David just keeps up his clueless ignorant nonsense. That’s what goes on and on here–Losh’s nonsense. When he gets to the point of insulting me, I point out his shortcomings, which include things he agrees with, like that he’s an admitted failure as a real estate agent. Perhaps that’s because he thinks that being a real estate agent involves “sales” as he claimed yesterday. If you don’t understand the role, you’d be a failure at the role, but in any case you’d be in no position to judge other agents.

    The bottom line is Losh doesn’t understand squat about the world, but that doesn’t stop him from commenting on things he doesn’t understand or making claims about others which he is in no position to make.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  200. 200
    ARDELL says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 99

    Kary,

    Offering this as an attempt to mediate a peace, as David has done for me many, many times.

    Your logic would suggest that God or God-like people have an inalienable right to call everyone else an idiot and not entitled to an opinion as in “What do you know? You come from the ghetto!” …as my ex-husband used to say when he was losing an argument. :)

    When David says your pieces are “self-promotional” it is largely due to the fact that he views ALL internet writings to be self promotional. A wise man will see that David is trying to grasp the concept of how technology has changed the world he knows, the real estate world he has loved for most of his life, and reluctantly letting go the the ways of the icons of his youth..

    A bit of compassion for his loss and understanding of his ongoing efforts to grasp the inevitability of this change, well…that would make you a bigger man in the eyes of…me. Not that what I think of you matters. But do please try to see where David is coming from and others as well, vs taking everything so personally.

    None of us is that important for what other people are saying…even about us, to really BE about us.

    At the brink of the light bulb going on…at the brink of change…there is much angst. Recognize that angst as a personal struggle with the speaker’s personal change, and not really venom direct at you personally.

    My $02 on this Election Day…Peace to All and Goodwill to (wo)Men and all that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.