William, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. The President is not a Muslim. And even if he were, that is not grounds for impeachment. Thanks.

@Shawn Drury:

one is entitled to their opinion...well guess so...but there should be limits...as when there is no basis for thr opine...at least they should consider the facts before stating political vitriol.

perhaps william (and 30-35% of the GOPs) who say BO is a muslin...would/could state basis for their stupid, racist opinion...

so sad what their 'entitled opinion' has done to the GOP and our country...

but MIT tricked them...eg, he was going to repeal BO-care...now he likes parts of BO-care and will not repeal...hard to keep up with MIT flip-flops...

oh/BTW...i'll take a muslin over a lying flipfloper '8 days a week'...

I would even take W over MITT the flip...actually W was a DEM plant...eg;

‘This [spending cuts] was always pure fantasy. Government grew massively under President Bush. He was a bigger spender than any previous president going back to Lyndon Johnson. He massively expanded entitlements, grew food stamp enrollment (almost as much as Obama) and nearly doubled "investments" in education. He created a new Cabinet agency...Homeland Security...and signed into law sweeping new regulations, like No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold.’ [LATimes]

moving on:
re: 'Duncan even brought out an empty chair a la Clint Eastwood to hammer home the point.'

just what we need a stand up comedian...word to duncan, 'dont give up yo day job' (what ever it is) to become a stand-up idiot with an empty chair to match an empty head.

yo opine,'O has lost MO' is based on latest polls right? well maybe not as BO has MO and is leading in most polls...and;

you do have the facts to back yo opine that the opine BO is a muslin is a fact...

oh/and, political BS is NOT a fact...

Shawn Drury Quote in his BIO.

It's undeniable that Gov. Nikki Haley is as divisive a figure that South Carolina has seen.

Opinion versus fact?

well, instead of diverting the topic, why don't you just provide evidence of the fact? PLEASE NOTE: use *legitimate* ones, not like the slew of them you posted about solar energy companies, all of which I easily refuted

How about the most accurate poll organization in 2008. Would that suit suit you?

BTW. You have never refuted anybody on anything

BTW Seigler and reg
You two NEVER provide supporting links. Hmmm.

What about all the valid references I posted that defeated your insinuations pertaining to solar energy grants? http://summerville.patch.com/articles/after-the-conventions-who-will-win-the-2012-presidential-election-obama-or-romney-7004b854 You even listed something that said the DoE gave money to a Canadian company!

Energy Guy: If you don't think people have strong opinions about Gov. Haley I suggest you look a little harder, starting with stories about her here on Patch.

@Shawn Drury
The point is Editors should Editorialize in the appropriate place, like in an Editorial.

Notice that says "final" - go look at Rasmussen's "final" poll, and then see the ones it listed repeatedly prior to. It knowingly, purposefully reports false information using push polls, hoping to influence the elections. It then tries to provide valid data at the last day.

Energy Guy you have to be the most delusional person on the planet. You even lack the ability to read a poll that you pretend agrees with your nonsense. I think the energy has stop flowing to your brain.

September 15th, 2012. This poll is TODAY

pfft! Too bad you posted the link - it defeats your argument, emerging sigh. That article ("Living with the Muslim Brotherhood" ) picks apart the piece written by former Bush adviser David Frum ("Obama's foolish embrace...").

surely enguy did not believe the mother jones (MJ) article criticizes BO's policies...but in case he did...

enguy should understand irony, nuance, sarcasm before reading liberal rags like MJ...

the point of the MJ article was nor to criticizes BO's policies but to asked the BO's critics what they would have done...eg;

'Frum may disagree, but if he does I'd sure like to hear his side of the argument. What exactly is the more tough-minded policy that he thinks would have produced a better result?' [MJ]

perhaps enguy could help frum...what does he recommend...

BTW thanks for the MJ article criticizing those (eg, frum) who believe BO's policies are a foolish embrace of the muslim brotherhood...

BTWbtw reg said it better than i...

Where is your source for the statement. Again unsubstantiated

ummm, energy dood? stanley's source is *your* source.

@Energy Guy

re: 'Where is your source for the statement. Again unsubstantiated'

didn't think your comment was addressed to me (stanley s)...couldn't believe you didn't recognize the MJ link you posted...

assuming you arent busting my whatever, you should avoid MJ articles if you want to support your BO-hater positions...

as you know MJ is the most liberal of the bleeding hearts media...but they usually have the facts and back them up with references...

as does most main stream media in contrast to fox-etal media who shamelessly ignore facts...

Gateway Pundit is a tabloid website - equivalent of National Enquirer. It claims exemption from posting false news because it is not actually news.

Where is your source for the statement. Again unsubstantiated

http://mediamatters.org/tags/gateway-pundit Gateway Pundit produced articles claiming NYC public schools were having kids read the Koran. It consistently promoted the "obama is a muslim" line. Lots of other fraudulent, completely false "news."

The Cleveland Leader is a rightwing website; it uses the name of an old newspaper from Cleveland (one that went out of business a decade ago), hoping some folks will think it's one and the same.

Where is your source for the statement. Again unsubstantiated

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

Ah, Fox News. The company that in 2003 testified in Federal Court that it was not actually a news media, and that it could broadcast information it knew to be false -- and won that case. (and look at what they've been pulling from that point on!)

Oh please with Fox news.

oh, yes! an editorial is *definitely* news, emerging sigh! Especially when it comes from somebody who's worked for the Heritage Foundation!!

Pitiful nonsensical response.

and when the source of Heritage Foundation is revealed (after it being criticized throughout this thread), you can only resort to comments like that?

10 million people watch Fox News. You reveal yourself as just a democrat operative. $8 bucks an hour.

No they don't - they use this link http://www.newshounds.us/ "We watch Fox so you don't have to" is their slogan! And 10 million people? In a country of 310 million? ....doesn't sound impressive

@ Shawn Drury.

No I am not William. I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are still missing my point. You should bring up the topic at you next meeting with other Patch Editors and the Regional Editor (one of those old fashioned face to face meetings. That topic being should you as an Editor actively participate in any thread.

Oh, wilenerguy - your'e attacking Shawn, but have yet owned up to the challenging statements I've made.

Ha! A chop quote in a 7-second video! In that statement, Obama referred to wall street executives who just gave themselves $20 billion in bonuses after the Bush Bailout - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/business/30obama.html Keep it real -

If the person who works for this company and writes articles for this website can't provide an opinion, then why do you think that *you* can? You do it over and over and over again, too - complete with cheesy links, too.

written by the guy who is "a former Reagan economic advisor" who complains that Bernanke's not following the reaganomics route (...and how much debt did that policy cause?).

"Fed Statement" is not a "fed statement" but a statement from the Federal Open Market Committee - a group within the Federal Reserve (which is the same one referred to when those reichwingers holler "end the fed!"). You reichers need to make up your mind....

A fed statement is not a fed statement. Hmm very enlightening

your reichwing source calls it "Fed Statement" to imply it comes from the federal government; however, it's actually from a reichwing panel group that's outside of the federal government.

an op/ed written by someone citing the Heritage Foundation as source.

and now you're posting information from the Republican lobby group that formed the Tea Party in attempt to rein in particular voters who were leaving the Republican Party and registering as independent.

re: The fundamental question remains, why is anyone actually surprised over the failure of Obamanomics? [enguy's link say]

apologies for the repeating the FACTS...but there has to be a response (per josch) to GOP mis-information and unsubstantiated opines that they repeat ad nauseam

SEE: 2008 DJI 6-7000
SEE: 2012 DJI 12-13000
SEE: 2008 losing 750,000/mo
SEE: 2012 gaining jobs (not losing)
SEE: 2008 economic metrics trending dn
SEE: 2012 economic metrics trending up

this IS NOT a failure of BO/dem policies also:

SEE: 1929; 10 YRS of GOPs prior 1929 great depression
SEE: 2008; 8 YRS of GOPs prior 2008 great recession

it IS surprising (incomprehensible) and, 'The fundamental question remains' WHY: 'none so blind as those who will not see.'

aside:

besides IKE's interstate hiways...are there any...ANY... major GOP policies successes...such as social security, medicare, WWII GI bill, civil rights legislation, BO-care, ledbetter act...? there must be some...help me recall (BTW all these were opposed by status quo GOPers)

Obama missed 23 million in the Middle Class that are unemployed, underemployed or have given up.

hmm....after having his reichwing sources questioned, now energy dude is just posting stuff with *no* source. And this last comment? Energy Dude is trying to take the percentage of unemployment and apply it to the whole US population. Yes, babies and old folks are unemployed.

Seigler provides no links to support his statements AGAIN.

@Energy Guy: 'Seigler provides no links to support his statements AGAIN'

AGAIN didn't think it necessary to provide links to painfully obvious facts...eg:

do you doubt DJI at 6-7000 in 2008 now at 12-13000...do you doubt losing 750000 jobs in 2008, now gaining jobs...

if you have trouble with the facts and cant google...advise which facts you dont believe and i will provide googled references...

No links again

@Energy Guy

to which painfully obvious fact would like a link...

AGAIN:

if you have trouble with the facts and cant goggle...advise which facts trouble you and i will provide googled references...

yo 'No links again' is your typical, SOP, non response...

who you vote for is none of my business, readit. What I am doing is challenging the fraudulent info being littered on the site by energy dood.

@Ambassador

sigh...hey do you have any facts, reasonable opines, insights, to contribute or just BO-hater, useless, grammar school, vitriol...other than skin color on what do you base your 'piece of garbage,' evaluation of BO...

TRANLANTION OF MARTIN,BOB rediculous claims he is attempting to convience Spanish speaking voters of his stupidity cause it doesn't work out so well on this post when he says it in English and the people on this blog will sort his nonsense out. So here you go a TRANSLATION so that all my English speaking friends can tell Boob Martin it still insanity no matter which language you say it in.

PER MARTIN,BOOB:
For Obama it costs us $ 1.080 more per year.
Gas prices have gone up and is the same as a tax

actual 3.64
Back then 1.84
1.80 increase

Average miles per year 15.000
Average 25 mpg
Gas used by the 600
600 plus 1.80 equals
$ 1.080

You could buy a new car with that money

Romney promises energy independence by 2020

absurdo total de bob martin.
Robme promises modernday slavery by 2014

now, now, fartin bob - you can't just copy and paste what others are posting on other patch editions. http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/aaa-gas-prices-risen-steadily-since-early-july that's not nice for you to do.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about seigler, reg and mimi. They never include supporting links. They always attack. Then the lose the argument and cry like babies. Wah, Wah, Wah

Are all Republican mushroom tea drinkers lacking in BRAINS???

join the club. Every registered voter in the state is independent.

@energy guy

mimi's opine applies to some indeps...and some indeps sound like BO hater, T-GOPs...hard to tell the diff w/o a program...as (as reg say) Every registered voter in the state is independent...

U sound like a political op to me. Is that how they talk.

@marin bob

re: 'Gas prices have gone up and is the same as a TAX'

'the music goes round and round ohoh oh' and gas priced go up and down, ohoh...

1979: 0.80 [JIMMY]
1984: 1.30 [RR]
2001: 1.60 [W]
2008: 4.40 [W]
2008: 1.60 [W, and USA fell off a cliff]
2012: 4.00 [BO]

prices picked off a chart...so not exact...but close enough to indicate presidents have little to do with the price of gas...certainly cherry picking snapshots in time is useless and misleading...

but perhaps one could make a case that gas prices began their rise under RR...:)

BTW

re: 'Mitt Romney Promises Energy Independence by 2014'

MITT say that now what will he say if elected (or next week)...ie, do you still believe in the tooth fairy...

oh/and...opine: we would be energy independent today if RR had kept carter's policies in place.

aside and apropos of nothing (as are cherry picked gas prices)...

re: they pay $8 to $9 per gallon overseas

it was around $0.05, 'overseas' in saudi circa 1979 and i remember $0.18 and $0.25 in USA.

anyhow, 'asides' make as much sense as cherry picked gas prices...

Obama wants $9-10 per gallon gas prices just like in Europe. BTW the difference is all Taxes. More Taxes on the Poor?, More Taxes on Women?, More Taxes on Latinos?, More Taxes on the Middle Class.

Romney promises energy Independence by 2020. Obama makes promises and quite frankly LIES.

Link? For any of what you posted?

How does Romney propose to gain energy independence by 2020? Solar is the only possible answer, and the GOP has put us so far behind China with their regressive policies toward renewable energy that we won't be independent, we'll just be beholden to someone else.

Re gas prices, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTvomrCjnQc

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

So tell me bob, am I lying or are you?

@martin, bob

where do you come up with your comments...eg bo wants $9/gal gas prices...

you have to know better...tho increased gas price hurt po folks mo the rich folks...it not is not a tax anymore than the price increase in collard greens and black eye peas...now/but;

what is the same as a tax increase, for po folks, are cuts to safety net programs...ie, these cuts decrease their already pitiful disposable income (but let them eat cake)...as do tax increases decrease rich folks abundant disposable income (but they need car elevators)...

so guess GOPs, in essence, say no more tax increases except on po folks...

@martinbob

gas prices go up and down more due to price of oil. NOT whether/not we are in a recession...but, assuming there is some basis for your comment:

ATTENTION! gas prices did go down in W's recession...we are now in BO's recovery (eg, DJI up and gaining jobs) so prices are rising.

caveat: maybe gas prices go up/down due to big oil's market manipulation and speculators more than due to oil price..

?? Why, then, did they not go down when the recession started under Bush? In fact, gasoline hit record prices: http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/17/news/economy/gasoline/index.htm?iid=EL Another thing, fartin bob - you think the president is supposed to direct prices of gasoline? ...if he did, you'd just holler "SOCIALIST" over and over again. So, because the president is *not* acting like a socialist, and you find that incorrect, then .......*YOU* must be socialist! Shoot! My ketchup costs too much! Why didn't the president do anything about it?

@reg 'Why, then, did they not go down when the recession started under Bush? In fact, gasoline hit record prices'

not sure martinbob's point...but the chart i saw did show (after the record hi) gas prices bottomed at $1.60/gal in the last month or two of W's term (2008)...

also not sure where martinbob got his info re gas prices and recessions...but based on most of his information bet it's taken out of context...to say the least.

OTOH

it seems demand would be less in a recession...thus prices may go down...sad there are no one handed economists.

my bottom line/opine (and other's): NO way BO, W, geo washington, abe...any president can control gas price...

well/but OTOH-otoh a release from the strategic reserve could reduce gas prices...ditto if a president controlled the speculators

fartin bob's gift to Patch.com readers - MISINFORMATION

40% of this "national debt" isn't debt, but assets held for the future - social security funds, reserves held for national emergency

25% of this "national debt" isnt government debt - it's yours, mine, your company's.

This information is garbage - $9.5 trillion of our debt came from Reagan/Bush/Bush, and you (like other GOP, including Tim Scott) are trying to dump the blame elsewhere, and even adding to it with made-up figures and irrelevant information.

This flawed method of computation is like saying you owe $200,000 on a house - but overlooking that you have that $200,000 value as an asset, too.

@martin, bob

re: 'Obama plans to add 4 Trillion to the debt...'

the facts (my opine): not rats ear's diff in what DEM or GOPs will do re the debt...
W made the same/similar MIT promises...so what happened...

[repeating] ‘This [W's promise] was pure fantasy. Government grew massively under President Bush. He was a bigger spender presidents going back to LBJ...he expanded entitlements, grew food stamp enrollment...etcetc...signed into law sweeping new regulations, like No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold.’ [LATimes]

FDR say:

‘Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion [of the GOPs] which says, "Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them- we will do more of them we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.’ http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15142

gawd was FDR good...

the DEM/GOP diff (my opine): GOPs will run up debt with tax cuts to rich folks (big oil, kockbros-etal)...DEMs will do it with programs for the least (po folks, the disabled, teachers)...i'll take compassion over greed...and;

do we want strike three...eg, [1] 1929, [2] 2008 and [3] MIT’s end 2016.

@Bob - learn your Spanish better - Cell game for gringo??????? Can't you spell?

Actual topic recommendations instead of diversions:
See the third one here - it show's where and when for the debt categories. Also details how much of it isn't debt, but reserves for later use. Also details how much is consumer debt, not government debt.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/28/us/charting-the-american-debt-crisis.html?hp

This one (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday) breaks down Bush v. Obama. Of Bush's $6.1 trillion, $1.8 trillion result from the tax cuts on wealth; $1.5 from Afghan/Iraq.

celda de juego por un gringo

actually, the correct format for your phrase is "juego de celda" --- not that it has any relativity to this discussion, mind you, but if you can't come up a reply in English and resort to Spanish as a distraction, at least use correct Spanish.

@Bob - learn your Spanish better - Cell game for gringo??????? Can't you spell?

and if you're trying to say "shell" - that would be "esqueleto" (same as skeleton). Why are you saying "cell" instead? Again, if you're trying to divert the topic because you can't think up a good reply in English, then at least use Spanish correctly. Comprenda?

@ Bob - Maybe you should read *not rely on the news* read the following bills. The Library of Congress - Thomas - will allow you to see the bills without commentary:
1. H.R.5752 : To suspend temporarily the duty
2. H.R.5753 : To suspend temporarily the duty
3. H.R.5754 : To suspend temporarily the duty
4. H.R.5755 : To suspend temporarily the duty
5. H.R.5756 : To suspend temporarily the duty
6. H.R.5757 : To suspend temporarily the duty
7. H.R.5758 : To suspend temporarily the duty
8. H.R.5759 : To suspend temporarily the duty
9. H.R.5760 : To suspend temporarily the duty
10. H.R.5761 : To suspend temporarily the duty
11. H.R.5762 : To suspend temporarily the duty
12. H.R.5763 : To extend the suspension of duty
13. H.R.5764 : To extend the reduction of duty
14. H.R.5765 : To suspend temporarily the duty
15. H.R.5766 : To suspend temporarily the duty
16. H.R.5767 : To reduce temporarily the duty
17. H.R.5768 : To extend the temporary suspension of duty
18. H.R.5769 : To extend the temporary suspension of duty
19. H.R.5771 : To suspend temporarily the duty
20. H.R.5772 : To suspend temporarily the duty
21. H.R.5773 To suspend temporarily the duty
22. H.R.5774 : To suspend temporarily the duty
23. H.R.5775 : To suspend temporarily the duty.
24. H.R.5776 : To extend the temporary suspension of duty
25. H.R.5777 : To extend the temporary suspension of duty

@Nancy Seufert

thanks for refs to thomas...previously i only read thomas the train...butbutt

dont expect T-GOPS to read it...they prefer rush and if the happened to read thomas they would say thomas lied...as they did re the fact checkers and BO...

good news...

GOPs may have pushed their trickle down (well UP) policies too far...as mentioned here: i said some time back BO was giving them enough rope to hang themselves...and looks like they took it...

The Democrats were the conservative party in 1940. Come to think of it they're the conservative party today. The GOP is currently the regressive party, and progressives are effectively without a party.

I'm sorry whatever it is that causes you to act out in such a blatant cry for attention happened. For what it's worth, it's not your fault.

@JoSCh: ' I'm sorry whatever it is that causes you [martinB] to act out in such a blatant cry for attention happened. For what it's worth, it's not your fault.'

thanks, been trying to figger martinB's motivation...you got IT: 'it is a blatant cry for attention.'...but;

as with a few PATCH others he does add to the discussions...he provides straight lines which allows others to easily post facts...butbutt;

he loses this plus with ad nauseam irrelevant links...

hard to believe martiniB or anyone really believe the crap they post...almost think they put me on...but i never hear the gotcha.

Yup and Romney says 47% are not worth his time

Its Obama that has turned his back on that 47%. Obama does not deliver. Worst President in modern history.

martin, bob posts libel disrespecting the president and the United States with no supporting data in another desperate cry for attention. Nobody is impressed or surprised.

I continue to feed the troll. He's representing you GOP. Speak up, or we'll think you're all ignorant liars.

@Nancy Seufert'...George W takes that honor [worst pres]...'

not sure where history will rank W...as posted he wasn't all bad:

[repeating] ‘This [W's promise] was pure fantasy. Government grew massively under President Bush. He was a bigger spender presidents going back to LBJ...he expanded entitlements, grew food stamp enrollment...etcetc...signed into law sweeping new regulations, like No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold.’ [LATimes]

btw would take W over MIT any day...MIT cant manage his campaign much less the country...speaking of the 'worst'...MIT is the worst candidate ever...

feel sure history will rank BO among the top 10...he will be given similar credit for getting us out the 2008 GOP 'dugged' ditch...similar to what FDR did post 1929...

BO already has a nobel peace prize...BTW as predicted, at least, 6 months ago...BO in a landslide...

Romney has never hidden his true colors and his supporters including and perhaps especially the ignorant poor will continue to support him to their own detriment. Why, I do not know.

so, what's yo point...

Yes, listen to the whole thing (and this vid is only a small portion of the address, please mind you) - he says "redistribution" in reference to government funds. Meaning, you'll hear him say a community should be getting its tax payments back to help its own community. Thanks, emergily dood!

You actually believe in trickle down redistribution, despite evidence that it doesn't work.

wow! so now you're citing Washington Times - which was founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon - who created the Unification Church - and who was convicted of tax evasion and conspiracy - and whose newspaper has never made a profit in the 30 years its been in business, but that's okay because it gets funded by lobbyists and special interest groups. Keep it up, emergily fella! You make it so easy for folks to write you off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_myung_moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_times