This made me laugh -- I read it more like, "What drugs are you on?", as though they're both using a little too much "recreational" substance! But now I get the question, and it's a good one.

What about our upcomming State of Emergency, When planet Nibiru collides with earth?

Hi Ponce,

I have seen the President address the first part of your question regarding immigration reform during the first year. I believe he addressed it in the first debate, but it may have been in an interview.

Essentially, his response was that he fully intended to achieve immigration reform, but that he was counting on support from many Republican leaders who had up to that point said that they too would support reform measures that were within negotiating distance of the measures the President had proposed. But, he added, Republican leaders changed their positions and became unsupportive when the President entered office, so unsupportive that no reform was possible.

While I am not Hispanic, the President's explanation is fully credible and creditable to me. My belief is that the Republicans main objective over the past four years was to deny the President any successes, especially in areas, such as immigration, where large portions of their party were either unenthusiastic or in outright opposition. If you have not noticed what has happened politically regarding the "Dream Act," take a look at that. The record is highly informative about strong opposition to immigration reform among a large portion of the Republican party in Congress.

Yes, the President could have issued the executive order earlier, but that would not have been bipartisan, and would have lessened the pressure for the needed more comprehensive reform, which is still needed.

Hi again Ponce,

Just to finish up my previous response, here's the way many of us see the point about deportations. What the President said, and has not been disputed by anything I have seen, is that those deported were in substantial trouble with the law. I believe the overwhelming majority of both the Hispanic and non-Hispanic communities here are in agreement that illegal immigrants in substantial trouble with the law should be deported.

Isn't the President protecting society - turning away those who seriously break the law, while striving to keep law abiding people who contribute to society.

For decades, our 'leaders' have been carefully maintaining the broken status-quo of our so-called immigration system, for the sake of selectively generous supporters who benefit from the resulting cheap illegal labor. The policy has been "Keep them illegal, to keep them cheap - and keep them coming!" Powerful, monied interests wanted that policy to continue, and Republicans and Democrats have been perfectly happy to keep things that way all these years.

But this has been going on for so long, that a large number of the illegal aliens' children, who were born in this country, have reached voting age. Naturally, the same political interests that were happy to use their parents as cheap labor, now want to take advantage of this emerging voting block as well.

I have to wonder why people who support illegal immigration only focus on Hispanic people. Why is there no concern about the plight of illegal aliens from other parts of the world? Perhaps there are not enough votes to be derived.

In 1986, Ted Kennedy proposed an amnesty that he said would mean that there would be no more illegal immigration and we would never need another amnesty. Hah. If you keep offering things like free schooling and free medical care, of course people are going to come here illegally. You can't pretend to have an immigration law on one hand and yet reward people who are here illegally. The first two years he was in office, Obama did propose the Dream Act, multiple times -- and even with a Democratic House AND Senate he could not get it passed. Why? Because enough Democrats recognized that their constituents were against it. So Obama, right before the election, decides to bypass the Constitution and make a law himself to buy votes. He legalizes every Hispanic under 30 at a time when our US citizens graduating from high school and college have 50% unemployment, directly affecting their ability to find work. My question for Obama is, where in the Constitution did you find the right for you to bypass Congress?

Hi Jorge - During the first few months of George W Bush's term he apparently met and spoke with Fox about major reforms, but 9/11 killed those possibilities (very sad since Bush would have had the "Nixon goes to China" edge in pushing it through congress and the public opinion). I think both Obama and Romney are compassionate about refugees and won't not count either out from doing the right thing. We have not had an immigration policy for decades and that has hurt businesses and immigrants (both legal and "illegal"). Romney, however, will likely pivot our focus on middle east threats and cyber threats and try to work with businesses for a compromise. Obama would also likely want to do the same if can find a way to work with congress. He made a huge mistake in refusing to work and compromise his first term (remember his "we won" statement or just read Woodward's book). I found this on Romney's site:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration

At the bottom, he does state not in favor of letting those here illegally "cut the line" and against amnesty. I hope involves letting those here work their way past any past illegal status by playing by the rules, etc. I'd remind those against such paths to read "The Grapes of Wrath" again.

That said, I'm personally most concerning about the economy & our long term health as a nation for all of us.

I guess I'm lost here, Mr. Ponce. Are you saying that we should stop deporting illegals and have another amnesty?

What will happen during the State of Emergency, what is the Contingency plan for an major event such at the Planet Nibiru passing close to earth, or possibly colliding entirely with it. What will happen then?

I'm with you in wishing Presidential campaigns were not so negative, but negativity has been a hallmark all the way back to the days of John Adams versus Jefferson.

I am still amazed though, that you and so many people do not see the awesome accomplishments of President Obama, making him an outstanding candidate for a second term and far from the "less of two evils."

I won't go into the long list of accomplishments and leadership characteristics that are so clear to me, but here are a couple key reasons to vote for the President and against Governor Romney - reasons that affect you and your family: Federally funded medical research, and affordable healthcare insurance and patient protection.

Both candidates "SAY" they support Federaly funded medical research, which involves the National Institutes of Health (and the National Cancer Institute, among other institutes), the Centers for Disease Control, and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. However, while President Obama has repeatedly demonstrated strong and effective support of those programs, candidate Romney has given no specifics to show how he will keep those programs growing while achieving his tax reducing and deficit cutting priorities. Experts believe substantial reductions will be needed in those programs if Romney is elected.

Likewise, candidate Romney has given us almost no specifics about how or even if he would work to make health care affordable and adequate.

Mitt Romney: "I don't know what I said, but I stand by it, whatever it was".

(And then he says something different.)

Jim Waldenfels - are these "leadership characteristics" (I don't see them, which I why I use quotes) that you see enough to overcome:
- committing military troops in the absence of congressional approval, in violation of the War Powers Act (which the nation rightly condemned Bush for)
- unilateral decision not to enforce duly enacted federal law, and to sue a state for enforcing it
- signing into law a poorly designed bill that permits our government to treat its own citizens as war criminals and enact punishment without due process
- use of Executive Order to circumvent laws
- ignoring Congress because it's "the right thing" to do (in one man's opinion)?

Full disclosure -- I am not a Romney supporter AT ALL, but cannot countenance a Chief Executive who, like Nixon, apparently does not believe the law applies to him.

His answer should be: As well as Obama, Reid and Pelosi worked with them, especially during the first two years when the Dem Party controlled the WH, Senate and House.

Yo "the stix,"

As a former Republican now absolutely disgusted with the current Republican Party, I closely watched the interaction of the parties during the first two and the last two years. I was appalled by actions by the Republicans. In a minority during the first two years, they still wanted it "My way or the highway" - virtually no cooperative effort. Yes, at times Senator Reid and then Speaker Pelosi were at times as aggressive in return, but I saw so many instances where the President worked hard to reach out to Republicans, only to be spurned.

Congressional Republicans need to use the heart and mind as models for political behavior instead of solely modeling their behavior on the sphincter muscle. I doubt that is going to happen, and I dearly hope the current crop of arrogant Republican incorrigibles will be swept away in this election.

I doubt that you can name any Republican idea that has been adapted by Obama/Reid/Pelosi that has found its way into any legislation, especially in the first two years of the Obama admin, and especially in the signature Obama programs, the trillion dollar stimulus and Obamacare. The fact that Republicans were not even allowed into the formulation of these programs was consistent with Obama’s first words to Cantor in 2009 at the WH economic emergency meeting, “Elections have consequences … and, Eric, I won.”

Bottom line Dem Party spending over the last four years has been shameful and that is hardly due to your abandoned Republican Party. Of course to the left an increase of over $5 trillion in debt for the last nearly four years, and growing another $5 or more with four more years of Obama seems of no concern. Congratulations on your party switch Jim.

Republicans in Congress declared via Mitch McConnell that their #1 priority wasn't to increase employmnet or cut the deficit, it was to make sure Obama was not reelecteed. Yes they seriously said that. No wonder they obstructed the effort to pass the health care plan that had been proposed by their own former leader Bob Dole! Yes Obamacare was a Republican plan! It was Dole and the Republicans proposal when the Clintons took up healthcare reform. The only reason they opposed it this time was that it was being proposed while Obama was president. Seems to me that Republicans putting party before country ought to be called what it is, treason.

Good morning "stix" (replying to your reply of 7:49 PM on Sunday 10/7),

Indeed it easy to name a Republican idea adapted by Obama/Reid/Pelosi that found it's way not only into legislation but signed: the very law you mention - the Obamacares Law (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). That law is essentially a Republican idea as everyone who pays attention to politics and has some historical memory knows.

Regarding Eric Cantor's behavior, polite words are simply inadequate, but here's a try: incompetent, greedy for power, extremely arrogant, wasteful of precious time, heedless of the nation's and his countrymen's crying needs. I hold him chiefly responsible for derailing cooperation and the atmosphere that is needed for bipartisan compromise. I am convinced he will be remembered as a disgraced political hack. Regarding the incident you mention, he was trying to dictate to the President, but did not get away with it. He richly deserved the President's pointed but polite comment. Time and again the Republicans were invited to participate, and a number of their ideas were adopted.

Obamacare is not a Republican idea! Although the broad idea of ONE aspect, the “mandate”, was once embraced by some Republicans, there is no evidence that the idea extended to forcing individuals to buy insurance in the private marketplace under the threat of paying a penalty.

And that is just one of many provisions of Obamacare that are completely distasteful Dem Party constructs in the law. Stealing $716 billion from the elderly in Medicare to pay for younger American’s healthcare is another, especially by limiting future payments to healthcare providers which will have the certain consequence according to the CBO to diminish medical services and choice to our older citizens.

The bogus Dem claim that Obamacare is a Republican idea is nonsense, meant only to blow smoke on a healthcare law that most thinking Americans reject!

On Monday, October 8, 2012 at 10:22 am, 'the-stix' claimed "...there is no evidence that the idea extended to forcing individuals to buy insurance in the private marketplace under the threat of paying a penalty."

Sorry stix, but your claim is contradicted by the facts. The plan was certainly that individuals would have to buy insurance in the private marketplace under the threat of paying a penalty. This was the plan in 2006 while Mitt Romney was still Governor of Massachusetts:

In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?
Bloomberg Businessweek, April 03, 2006
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-04-03/in-massachusetts-health-care-for-all-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
"Beginning in 2008, individuals who don't have insurance will be subject to a penalty equal to half the cost of health insurance."

Also, young people got a discount:

(Massachusetts) Insurance deadlines
Boston Globe, November 15, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2007/11/insurance_deadl.html?p1=MEWell_Pos3
"Tuesday [November 20, 2007] is the deadline to sign up for state-subsidized health insurance in order to avoid a tax penalty next year. In addition, people seeking to buy special discounted insurance aimed at 19- to 26-year-olds must also make their purchase by Nov. 23 [2007]."

I stand by my reply to Jim’s declaration that Obamacare “is essentially a Republican idea”. It is/was not, except for the idea of an “individual mandate”, which is but one part of the some 2000 pdf pages of the law.

I also invite you Mr. Bruhns to find evidence that when the “individual mandate” was conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation and by a handful of Congressmen in the late 80’s/early 90’s, that paying a penalty was part of the plan. In fact, I would suggest the idea was devised primarily by the overwhelmingly Dem Massachusetts legislature (and Senator Ted Kennedy) during the negotiations for what is now called Romneycare, signed into law in 2006.

You must read Mr. Bruhns before you attempt to correct.. thank you.

What, are you making a reverse psychology pro-Romney argument, stix?

The 2006 Massachusetts plan is called Romneycare, because it was Romney's idea. Yeah, there had been previous attempts, and yeah, Edward Kennedy had proposed national health care way back in 1970. But Romney's plan was different, and Kennedy jumped on board and fought for it.

Wait - here's the story, from the pro-Obama liberal media.

Mitt Romney's Defining Moment
Time magazine, Nov. 02, 2007
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680168,00.html

Well, a few of these are already out there. As to #1, the long-form was released, and confirmed by the Republican governor of Hawaii. As to college records, under the Republican Buckley Amendment (FERPA of 1974), a college can't make the record available to the general public, even with consent. Distribution is limited by statute. As to #2, at least 2/3 of the students at Columbia and Harvard receive financial aid, up to and including 100% of all costs. That may not be the way that Bob Jones University does it, but need-blind admission and full aid funding have been the defining policies at the top 40 or so universities for decades.

The "birther" argument is dead -- read the papers!

to Ronald S: Too bad you didn't go to college....as evidenced by your ignorance.

LOL Facts.... yeah.... while the information may be constructed with bits and pieces of fact, I'll bet the interpretations and conclusions are based on only those facts that support your agenda and are replete with assumptions. Both sides do it - don't pretend one side has the "facts" and the other doesn't.

Would you be willing to ask Mr. Obama the same question?

"Mr. Romney, can you tell the truth?" No matter what he says, he's screwed. If he says, "Yes," he's lying. If he says, "No," he's telling the truth, but then he's in trouble. Love this paradox!

Executive Orders do not circumvent the law. If they did, SCOTUS would have outlawed them long ago. In fact, the Court has overturned a few. The Constitution offered the Executive Branch tremendously broad powers. An Executive Order cannot change a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by a President. It can only change how that law is enforced. As for "listening to the people," if you believe we are a representative democracy, and that Congress is the body that represents us, then you cannot say he did not listen to the people. Congress passed the bill. He might not have listened to YOU -- but that doesn't mean he didn't listen to the American people.

Good one, and let's add the Yucca Mountain debacle to it. We have 105 operating nuclear plants in the US, each with its own rad waste storage. That's a security and environmental nightmare. Just as Yucca was getting close to opening (well, as close as it's ever been), Harry Reid shut it down. I'm not a shill for the nuclear industry by any means, but this is a serious issue for all the communities in which almost 50 years' worth of waste is being stored.

Mike - You're joking, right? You admonish not to use sound bites but then you rattle off nothing but a handful of extreme lib talking points? Get real dude. BTW, you misrepresent republican positions on all counts. I'd explain but it would take more space than we have here and I don't think it would matter to you anyway.

That's an unusual observation. Since the consecutive numbering of Execuive Orders began, roughly 100 years ago, there have been thousands. And that doesn't include several thousand determinations and directives. Obama hasn't issued 200 yet. Almost all Executive Orders are public -- you can do the math yourself. See the following public link from the National Archives and Records Administration (apologies if linking to public record is prohibited here): http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/

Marie, before you spew out the lies of Fox News, you should look up facts for yourself. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

When people accept such "facts" without validating them, they believe other lies, like the one about "cutting your tax rate by 20%". But what he doesn't say is that by eliminating the home mortgage deduction for millions, the effective tax rate actually increases for the vast majority of middle-income Americans. He always carefully leaves that fact out. So he will raise your taxes, even while "reducing" your tax rate. But he's counting on Americans being too stupid to figure this out for themselves.

Good one. We can't have four more years of, "If Obama says yes, we say no, no matter how good his ideas are."

Joseph Robert,
How are things in Alemeda, California where you live? Not the same as here in NEO where we have a balenced budget and a government that doesn't control every facet of our being.

He should answer.. "no more than President Obama being a "pathological liar" inhibits his ability to conduct foreign policy".

Well, I reckon any answer "Romney the Liar" gives to my question will itself be a lie.

So really, what you're saying here is that you not interested in even asking a worthwhile question as you have already decided. Fair enough. But for those of us that are not led around by the ideological nose, I sure would like to hear some insightful questions for the candidates.

Nice try, but you and that rag the NYT are wrong. Before the debate, Romney was close to being flat on his back, democrats were declaring the race over and won, etc.--and now Romney has dramatically catapulted out of the sink and onto the springboard, leading Obama in Florida and Virginia, neck-and-neck in Ohio, and so on...the debate was the very definition of a game-changer!

Just curious - what has President Obama done to bring employment down below 8%? I thought all his initiatives were being blocked by the Republicans. With that sort of power I would have thought he could have done something sooner than, coincidentally, the election cycle.

Tim - the unemployment changes are considered to be the result of the stimulus plan. The very plan that is being falsely attacked for not working. It DID work, and especially stopped the free fall of our economy that was taking place when he took office.

GREAT question. He has never actually said what he would do differently from Obama in a foreign policy standpoint. If he wants war, He certainly hasn't indicated how he would pay for it.

Great one! But I would ask him why neither he nor any of his sons served, and why he got so many deferments that others could never get during the VietNam war. Since I lost my father to that war, and my older brother served during it, I think I deserve an answer.

Gail, you say that your religion allows abortion. Many people believe that abortion is murder. The Muslim religion allows such things as "honor killings," and also commands the killing of apostates from Islam, etc. Now, by the same false token you employ in your argument, Muslims here in the U.S. could go around killing people according to the decree of their "religion," and they could also claim that it is a First Amendment issue as you do. Would you support their murdering of their wives and daughters who are caught in some kind of extramarital tryst, or them executing converts to, say, the Baha'i faith or to Christianity, etc., or their executing homosexuals? After all, it's just their freedom of religious expression, right? Celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, Gail!

This is why the arguments of the Left are void of merit, and invalid; they do not withstand the tests of reason, rigor, conscience, and consistency.

You can argue about when life begins(which is not necessarily a religious question), but you cannot plausibly say that abortion is a First Amendment issue.

You are barking up the wrong Constitutional tree. Roe v. Wade was decided on privacy issues, not religious or free speech ones (or even right to assembly, all of which are covered under the First Amendment). If you have a beef with the winning argument, you have to go back to the original basis of the decision. And it was not religion, free speech, or assembly.

Gail, you just don't get it. You claim that it is a First Amendment issue. Well, then, what would prevent jihadists from killing according to their religious doctrines, as long as they claim that it is their prerogative to exercise their freedom of religion? You fail to note that the right to life supersedes the freedom of expression. Muslims in strict adherence to their Koran, to the Sura, and to the Hadiths would deny that yours is a human life, too, in order to spread Islam by the sword, just as they have ever since Mohammed began his reign of terror. Besides, what you claim are the practices of "only the most extreme forms of Islam" are actually pretty commonplace wherever Islam dominates.

The point being, that as long as there is contention and disagreement about what constitutes and defines a human life, and as long as you maintain that the standard should be whatever one's "freedom of religious expression" deems permissible, then you have declared that no standard whatsoever holds, nor should any standard hold--do your own thing, right Gail?

Your candidate, Obama, was the key opponent of legislation (when he was in the Illinois senate) that would have required doctors and nurses to give medical care and feeding to babies who survived botched abortions. The bill was introduced after an OB/GYN nurse came forward and spoke up after she could no longer bear to be involved in what she'd seen at work--babies at a viable stage of development surviving botched abortions, fighting to stay alive, and just being left in a soiled linen closet to die, without care nor nourishment. Obama blocked the bill and gave speeches against it, rallying democrats to vote it down! What the hell kind of monsters are you people?

Oh Don Don Don. A fetus is not life. And people concerned about fetus should instead be putting their efforts against killing humans outside of the womb. I truly want to know why those who oppose a woman's choice about her body do not fight a needless war. Women are the low hanging fruit, that's why.

Oh please. Read up on the Super Pacs and then get back to us.

By the way, Breitbart is notorious for making up anything that comes into his mind that will discredit this President and his administration. That includes taking fragments of facts and weaving all manner of elaborate conspiracy theories and countless fairy tales,
THINK why this might be.

Where did this come from? There is absolutely no truth whatsoever to the notion that the UN could impose any tax on any nation. What taxes do you think are currently imposed upon the US? On US businesses, sure. We tax overseas businesses, too, if they perform work here, sell here, transport things here. But we cannot tax other nations, and they cannot tax us. What is the source of this question?

Cynde, international treaties have the force of law upon the citizens of the countries which enter into them. Dick Morris has written an entire book outlining the panapoly of taxes that will be levied by UN treaties on all of us if such treaties are ratified. Obama has indicated his intention to ratify the treaties. It's all the about the global redistribution of wealth, and Obama is one of the chief cheerleaders of that agenda.

Great questions K. Brooks. It would seem that Romney is among those knuckleheads who believe health insurance is available to people for the asking.

Moreover, why does Romney want to DEREGULATE the entities that delivered crushing blows to a global economy?? Why should he reverse the policies that are designed to stop the runaway Wall Street thieves?

Now now. Mittens has decided to flip again on this issue. We can't hold him to his many different promises of the past.

Oops. Mittens flipped again on his abortion stance. This week is saying abortion laws are not his top priority.

I'm sorry to inform there are more than a few Faux watchers posting here.

GREAT question. Your dad's views are shared by many, Republicans and Democrats.

Gail, your dad is a social liberal Republican. I am not an "extremly religious" person since I go to church for only weddings and funerals, but my gay brother knows I only believe in marriage between a man and a woman, and HE understands. Civil unions are different. I believe life begins at conception, and those views DO NOT make me a right-wing nut job, but only a social conservative. Those are the views of a mainstream conservative Republican, and I am proud to be one.

Lee - Social Security is an insurance program. It is there, in case one needs it. If you become disabled, if you are no longer able to work because you are old.

If you are lucky, you won't ever have cancer, total your car from an accident, or lose your home to hazard or natural disaster. People have insurance for all those things, but hope they don't need to ever use it.

April, Soc. Security isn't an insurance program, it's a "defined-benefits" program where people get a specified amount per year of retirement based on the amount of money they paid in while working.

Interesting thought. More than one excellent candidate has been unable to run (even 250 years ago!) because they weren't born here, but were as dedicated to this nation as those who were.

Sounds like you need to research exactly why it is that the founders saw fit to include the natural-born citizen requirement in the first place.

Gads! Amazing how often lies get repeated here. Before you swallow such nonsense whole, check out the facts for yourself. The number is 138, far fewer than George Bush had signed by this point in his Presidency. Are all people who watch Fox so misinformed?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

Dear Barbara,

You use "dictate" twice in paragraph three. That’s what I mean. Islam dictates to the world. Muslims use our freedoms, the very laws that freed us from religious tyranny, against us. This is absurd. And dangerous. Saudi Arabia funds nearly every mosque in America. Their goal is to conquer without a swing of the scimitar this time. They went from Baghdad to the outskirts of Paris in the 8th century. And if wasn't for Christian Charles Martel the world would be a very different and very ugly place.

I am NOT advocating for a Christian world. Quite the contrary. I wish religion would play less of a role in politics. But ISLAM unlike Christianity is 100% politics. It’s about laws about behavior about TOTAL control of all its submissive members. That control extends to personal choice. Apostasy is punishable by death. Make fun of Islam? You've seen what these savages do. Did the Pope issue a fatwa for John Cleese because of “The Life of Brian”?

If America stands for freedom of choice, if women here think Christians are wrong about abortion, they should think about the millions of muslim women locked up in an 8th century hellhole in their homes.

Read about the 14-year-old Pakistani girl fighting for women’s rights. These animals tried to kill her.

tinyurl.com/9hcxbjh

That is Islam. Repressive. No moderates. No moderating language in the Koran. Death is a prescribed remedy in chapter after chapter.

Islam is NOT a religion.
Thank you!

And more specifically, why is USPS the only organization in the Federal government that has to prepay five years' worth of retirement pensions for its workers? That's really what's put the Postal Service into horrible debt. It doesn't lose money on operations. But it has to pony up gazillions of dollars every year to "prepay" - more than any other organization within the Federal government.

The difference is that in the ‘Christian’ world (and the world of most other religions), the ordinary citizen can assume with considerable assurance that there is a wall between religious doctrine and public policy that affects personal freedom. Not so in most of the ‘Islamic’ world. For them religion and formulation of public and foreign policy is the same, with the concept of our 1st Amendment being an anathema. .

We all need to learn that the US dealing with ‘Islamic’ Iran for example is NOT the same as dealing with ‘Christian’ France, and to pretend otherwise, as I believe liberals/progressives (including Obama) are prone to do is a huge mistake.. and a mistake that if we continue to go down that path we will severely regret...

Barbara,

The Crusades have been over for centuries. And Hagia Sofia is STILL in muslim hands. So please, please remember that for every one demented Eric Rudolph, there are hundreds of thousands of savage, fanatical muslims just waiting for the privilege to slit an infidel's throat at the slightese provocation. Like a movie. I have lived and worked in the middle east. I married a muslim. I became a muslim. And the things I heard in that mosque in the midwest shocked me to my core. When these people thought that I was "one of them," they let their guard down and it was like living in a scene from The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. These people could not wait until Islam took over the entire country. And they were doctors, engineers, professionals. People who you think would know better. They were overwhelmingly from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia and Jordan (ethnic Palestinians). I have also live in Iran, a non-Arab muslim country and can safely say that most educated Iranians HATE their religious leaders and do not take Islam seriously. Kind of like buffet Catholics!

But when educated Americans like yourself, particularly women, think that Islam is "just another relgion" I fear for the future of our country.

Believe me, I have been in the burning belly of the muslim dragon. They do not want to compromise with the infidel. It is against their "religion."

Interesting that you bring up burning at the stake. Another person on this thread also uses burning at the stake to vilify the Catholic religion. I wonder if this is coming from some overall source. Burning at the stake ended about 500 years ago. At what point can we move on? I hope that in 500 years we are not still shouting about jihad. At the moment, although radicals of any religion may strike, we should worry more about radical Islam and try to find methods to influence events to diminish their power. I think it better not to stereotype any religion, race or ethnic group because each presents a diversity of opinion. However, we have to realize that threats exist and not excuse current events by going back 500 years.

Their "religion" and its leaders call for for extremism to spread Islam world-wide at all costs. Why aren't we listening and believing what they're saying? Christians like to think that because they're a "religion" and claim to love God that they can't be all bad. When their religion's ultimate goal is to anihilate everyone they can't convert, we can't afford to close our eyes and hope for the best.

Gosh, you don't think 1.9 million to the government is ample?
He also gave 4 Million to charity. Also, according to anecdotal information has performed a lot of PERSONAL service to his community. He also donated a lot of his time.
Not patriotic? Wow!

The RCP poll average shows Romney slightly ahead, and trending upward. In the state by state electoral projection, the two are nearly tied with Romney ahead on the popular vote.

Go back and look and you will see that most of that RCP average is old data. They are averaging in polling periods that concluded on the 9th, 10th and 11th of this month.

Check it yourself Watts. The Rasmussen, Gallup and IBT/TIPP over the same period have Romney ahead or tied. Your WP/AP poll is the only one that gives the edge to Obama.. and one poll, especailly that oversamples Democrats is.. well, only one poll.

Watts -

That WaPo/ABC News poll is a D +9 which gives the President the lead. This means the pollster is assuming that 9 percent more Democrats will be voting than Republicans. Considering the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats during the Daily Kos/SEIU poll, it doesn't stand to reason.

How is the Supreme Court's repeated determination that "anyone who happens to be born here automatically becomes a citizen" an "erroneous interpretation," as you've asserted?? That's literal Constitutional text. See, 14th Amendment, Sec. 1:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It's been the literal text of the Constitution for well over a century. It's not an error. It's the Constitution.

Jody, your position is dramatically incorrect. The application of the 14th Amendment to all persons born in the US is no misinterpretation. The 14th Amendment prevents someone born in the US from being deprived of civil rights, or expelled from the US as you suggest, based on parentage. If this amendment had been drafted differently, then descendants of immigrants (voluntary and involuntary, including slaves) could be callously deprived of civil rights and expelled. Since nearly all Americans except for Native Americans are direct or indirect descendants of immigrants who were not themselves originally US citizens, the 14th Amendment protects everyone ... including Jody, and Mitt Romney, whose ancestors had become Mexican residents so that they could practice polygamy. The 14th Am., cl. 1 citizenship text confers actual, complete, US citizenship and civil rights on essentially all persons born in the US. That was made clear by the President of the United States and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who issued interpretive statements when the 14th Amendment was being debated. And the Supreme Court upheld the automatic by-birth application of the literal text in 1898. Congressional authority over immigration and naturalization under Article 1 relates only to conferral of the right to enter and conferral of citizenship. Congress has no authority under Article 1 to rule on citizenship when citizenship occurs automatically, by birth in the US.

Not sure why they won't post my response but here it goes again.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the power to regulate naturalization and immigration deriving from Article 1, Section 8. The intent of the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, was to make sure the freed slaves were considered citizens. There were no immigration laws at the time but the authors of the amendment discussed the fact that foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Why bother to have immigration laws if we don't want control of who becomes a citizen? We know that this interpretation of the Constitution is a magnet for illegal immigration. No EU countries have birthright citizenship and we shouldn't either. A baby born to someone here illegally is subject to the laws of the country the mother is still a citizen of, just as a baby delivered in France by a US citizen could make a claim to be a US citizen.
Even if this is interpreted to be the law of the land, I don't see anyone trying to correct this glaring outdated error that makes a mockery of our immigration laws.

You mean, just let the government pay everyone the same, and provide everything for everyone?

Yeah, who needs merit? Or incentive? Or skill?

The 1% pays 55% of all the annual tax revenue of this country. How much more do you want to rob from them ?

Most of the 1% work their you-know-what off, can't sleep at night because they need to run the companies to keep shareholders' value up, etc. Can you out of your noble democratic conscience deny the hard earned money they work so hard for?

Yes, but I would restate your questions:
Would you enforce our immigration laws to reduce the glut of low-skilled workers in the labor pool who are depressing wages for almost everyone.
Would you get rid of ObamaCare and all its expensive pork and union perks and really do something about the cost of healthcare.
Would you pledge to dismantle the Dept. of Education and keep that money in the states to really make a difference in education. (And enforce immigration laws so we can reap the financial savings of the end of our '50's & '60's baby boom with respect to education)
Would you endorse campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of big money and big labor?
Would you push for a rewrite of the federal tax codes to get rid of all the exemptions special interests have bought over the years?
Would you change the 401(k) laws that funnel retirement funds to the stock market and allow tax-deferred non stock market retirement investment options?
Would you end allowing the capital gains tax for securities investment income since they are a non-productive use of money & should not be encouraged?

Typical rebulican ignorance and arrogance. Your responses have nothing to do with the question posed. To T Ailshire- The question doesn't ask government to pay for everything, and it doesn't ask workers to lack skills or incentive. It asks for a more level playing field so more people can prosper. What we have seen in this country, (post WWII) when everyone prospers, everyone prospers. Why wouldn't you want good for everyone?
As far as TBall Mama, their are plenty working class people who lose sleep at night working in overcrowded classrooms full of disfunctional, (trained to be selfish by their parents and a consurmerist society) students who interrupt and obfiscate learning, or people who work at a power plant providing you electricity but never getting the chance to move up in pay. Nobody's denying the 1% work hard to earn their money just recognize that so is everyone else and our wages are remaining low, our ability to pay for more education is getting harder and the wealthy are getting more access to legislators and judges than the working class. It seems you didn't really read the question or desire to understand the needs of the nation you are just looking out for yourself and portray yourself as a victim when it's clear that you have a bullying agenda like the obstructionist republicans in congress.

Hi Better...the problem with Obama's plan is that the numbers don't add up. His policies are failing miserably as evidenced by all of his broken promises from four years ago (e.g. unemployment, deficit, energy independence). His solution is to do nothing except blame the previous administration for all of his failings and to play class warfare. The fact is you create jobs by unleashing entrepreneurship. If you continue to raise taxes on the small and large businesses they won't invest. It's happening today. There are many companies both small and large which are just hunkering down because this administration is killing them with all of the government regulations and taxes. They simply aren't going to take risks and hire people which is prudent on their part. Additionally, look at what is happening overseas in Spain which has gotten itself into a similar debt crisis. That mess is coming here if Obama is re-elected.

You can say republicans are arrogant or whatever but just look at the facts. The facts are Obama and his policies are an absolute failure. He will no doubt go down as the worse president in history.

better help us: I'm sick of hearing about a level playing field and a fair shot. We all get a free K-12 education, beyond that, anyone who wants to go to college (even if you don't have the grades or aptitude for college) can get a federally guaranteed loan. If people don't take advantage of their opportunities, that is their choice. If someone is born into a poor family and a "bad" neighborhood, then they will just have to work harder to get out of their situation. Successful people weren't all born with silver spoons in their mouths; families often take many generations to work themselves up out of poverty, one person at a time. What would you do to create a "level playing field?"

Because as a smoker he will likely pay higher premium...

They are NOT excluded. "Good enough" is not the issue. Those who already get insurance through Medicare, Medicaid, the military’s Tricare insurance program, or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would not be eligible. All federal employees, including members of Congress, fall under the FEHBP.

Since 2009, wildly incorrect interpretations, embellished with assumptions, have been floating around the internet and even in snail mail. In short, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) IS NOT government-run health care, IS NOT socialized medicine (we are a long way from the universal health care provided in many developed countries), IS NOT available to non-citizens, DOES NOT get between anyone and their doctors, and does not exclude Members of Congress.

Here is a fairly short article on this subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/08/congress-exempted-from-obamacare/

Not good enough for all his union buddies who have been exempted either.
Ann- ObamaCare is "not available to non citizens" means that they don't have to purchase insurance! The insured will still be picking up the tab for them. ObamaCare just adds expensive (although some are good) provisions on top of out of control health care costs and Obama is still searching for ways to make the gazillion page plan work instead of admitting that it will greatly increase costs especially to small businesses and will continue to have a chilling effect on our economy. We need to scrap this thing the Dems pushed through in the worst partisan way possible and start over.

And you think Romney is for all Americans? It was a dysfunctional congress that failed the American people. Not just the President. A President isn't a savior. Plenty of Obama's policies have improved lives or saved jobs or whole industries. Yes their are several things I feel he could of done better like stand up to the banking sector. The reason busisness are holding back isn't regulations and taxes it's that the banks aren't lending money. Romney is only for the rich and the whole top down approach which has been proven not to work. And deregulation was the cause of our financial colapse, remember?
Romney views America as if it was one huge corporation, but we’re not a corporation; we’re a nation. He says corporations are people; touts his years at Bain as if making companies profitable qualifies him to be president; wants to deregulate corporations and Wall Street; and assumes CEOs and the wealthy are “job creators,” and if we cut their taxes they’ll have more incentive to create jobs. None of this is true. The nation exists to make lives better for all its people – making sure that corporations treat their workers as assets to be developed rather than as costs to be cut. The vast American middle class are the real job creators, but they don’t have enough money in their pockets because too many companies have broken the basic bargain linking wages to productivity.

Pres. Obama has taken responsibility as the top guy. HOWEVER, the entire sequence of entrapment operations was begun during the Bush administration... "Fast and Furious" is just the most recent operation. The hwole thing is stupid and BAD. The only scrap of good to come of this is that now it will END.

both men are having their money invested in China. most people have no idea where there is invested. to say you invested more than me is humorous, neither should allow the money to be invested in China. it's like saying I stole less than him so do not punish me. Do you agree?

wouldn't it be great if those who favor Obama care were allowed to pay for it and the rest of who do not want it , did not help pay for it.It's easy to say yes for Obama care if you pay little or no taxes. everyone should have health care in our country but those that have figured out how to never contribute to anyone but themselves; it gets really difficult making myself to believe that I owe those that are burden to everyone

Not sure what you're talking about but we need fewer overpaid, unionized, 100% job security government jobs. The defense contractors are are certainly overpaid also. Take a look at the massive Carroll Federal Directory and see how many agencies, boards, commissions etc. exist in Washington for everything under the sun.

Jody, my knowledge i am expressing is mainly on security jobs. Security Companies that employed hundreds of thousands of certified security guards to work at businesses who need or want security, those security companies are making millions of dollars per hour. The American People is the main resource to building our nation strong and wealthier than its ever been. by creating government security, The 1,077,000 American people who are certified guards can apply with the government and when that happens the government can revenue 2,7 trillion dollars in one year making that profit from businesses who want & need security.. The American people need to understand and fight back that the security companies are pick pocketing from the nation's main resource, that is me, you, and all of us.

@danny Please provide a link or reference that supports your assertion that "security companies are making millions of dollars per hour". And please name a company or two that gets paid this astronomical hourly rate. Thx.

the-stix, all security companies combined total of the American People who are Security Guards certified and working is 1,177,391 as of 2012. When the security companies charge businesses $20 an hour per guard. I have done the research myself as there is not an exact/correct number to use in any website. Math Proves from my knowledge and years of research that 1,177,391 x $20 =$23,547,820
So in one hour as we speak, all companies combined revenue $23,547,820 hourly
$23,547,820 x 8 hours = $188,382,560 per shift
$188,382,560 x 2 = $376,765,120 16 hours/2 shift's
Now in one year going on average 2 shift's a day not including grave yard
376,765,120 x 365 days = $137,519,268,800 per year
The percentage of security guards is less Than 1% of 314,603,417 American citizens. Creating government security for businesses who need and want security is the right path for our nation to be redeemed. We can hire more security up to 16% of the nations population and revenue 2.7 trillion a year. and at the same time welcome legal immigrants. using our population as an advantage. problem solved in just 4 years we can cut our nations dept more than half. 2.7 trillion x 4 years= revenue $10.8 trillion. The American People is this nations greatest resource to build our nation strong again.

Wow, why don't we have everyone work for the federal government so they can make all the profit in the country. How about hot dog vendors and life guards? Or maybe pool cleaners and tax preparers. I'm sorry to be sarcastic Danny, I'm just not following your logic on this.

Jody! I Did not say every job should be a government job, only pointing out security should be guided in the write path to support our nation's dept. you might not understand that The American People are blind from the Financial Civil War we Have today with Companies pick pocketing from our nations main Resource.
"The American People" u must understand the government will start giving more more to banks and etc.. to help better our economy. when government opens up doors and guide's the American people to these doors and say let's fight back. Fight back how? Compete against the security companies that are using our American people to profit money. when the government should understand that too, "we can be using that profit in much better use in this nation"... "The Truth is the greatest knowledge known to man-kind" Danny Ray Vasquez...

talk about making assumptions! Just like fox news you have to put a negative spin on everything. I can tell you like to argue for selfishness and thats fine for your world. I'm based in reality and have studied brain science. You seemed to be swept away in the victim consciousness and think that drugs and violence don't affect you. Well they do. And Mitt Romney's lets all be selfish agenda is not going to unite this country. Yes banks are in the business of making money but they also have been bilking the nation through financial schemes and hidden charges. As far a teachers, there are not that many ineffective teachers as you may think, thats a propaganda sound bite youv'e decided to believe created by corportations and the republican party who want to control our wages and working conditions even further, for what, to save money. Teachers face a battle field of obstacles and challenges that are so easy to judge when you have never done it. You seem jealous of unions when you should be asking yourself how can I form or join a union that will stand up for me. Sadly it seems you to argue because it gives you a sense of identity. As long as you feel right / righteous you matter you can justify any pain and suffering that doesn't affect you. So sad. I'm asking how it can be better for everyone not me. And I don't think I have all the answers. I like colaborating with others and don't feel isolated to make it on my own because in reality nobody makes it on their own.

Cut off the microphone of a speaking President or contender.. I don't think so.

But in the debate format, how about fewer topics with 4-5 two minute back and forths and a timekeeper only moderator (not necessairly from the press)? Let the candidates force each other to stay on topic by multiple direct rebuttals.

And in the town hall format, how about allowing candidate comments only directly to the citizen that asks the question, with comments at each other not allowed?