Taro T

Whoever made that statement was on the right track but not quite there. It should have been: if you work hard and people like to watch you work, you shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all. Athletes, musicians, actors, faux celebrities (like anyone on any MTV show), Congress-critters (hey, they've got their own show on C-SPAN), etc. should be allowed to never pay taxes (even stuff like sales taxes and property taxes, right Mr. Rangel?). People that work hard, but don't have adoring fans like small businessmen, large corporation CEO's (unless they work for 'cool' companies like Apple), and anyone making $0.01 more than me that isn't considered an entertainer should have their taxes doubled at a minimum. That should pretty much sum it up.

Wasn't the interview given in his office? If so, he pretty much has carte blanche to say whatever he wants. My understanding of that was always that they could say whatever they want as long as they're on the steps or in the Capitol. As soon as they're dumb enough to say something like that outside of the Capitol, they're fair game. So, was it a sleazy thing to say? Absolutely. Was it illegal? Very doubtful.

Fixed it for you.

Well, in fairness, that could take an hour or 2 out of a busy person's day. If they REAAALLY were concerned about the rights of the voter, they'd bring the ID application paperwork and ID to the voter. And they should make sure they have a pen brought to the voter as well. Forcing someone to go out and buy a $0.39 Bic ballpoint could be considered a poll tax. Because it isn't right to make somebody make any kind of effort at all to excercise their right to vote.

So, we're expected to believe that prior to this past weekend you DID see Mitt Romney as Presidential material? Really? And the lack of bitterness in your posts is truly refreshing. /sarcasm

I. Sheesh, I'd've thought even a transplant Canuck could figure that one out.

That was clear. Post was meant to reply to post above yours. Because you can buy beer with a fake ID? Being in NY, it doesn't really matter who I vote for. If my vote ends up being the difference maker, then the President ABSOLUTELY isn't getting re-elected.

I disagree. I expect that he'll start rolling out statements about what he'd do right before the convention. The President gave him a big softball with the 'you didn't build that.' No point in returning the favor this far before the election. If we're into September and Romney is still only pointing out flaws with current policy and not highlighting any of his own, then he'll be messing up. While it would be good to have him talking now about what he'd do from a voter's standpoint, the President would love it so he can point out the 'see, he wants to take your ___ away' and then run the video in context.

Sooooo, you like the job President Obama's been doing? Yep. Why? He had a plan and it worked. It did?!?!? Yep. How do you know it worked? / Why do you think it worked well? He told me it did. Sooooo, you're planning on voting for President Obama? Depends. Depends on what? Whether I can get an ID in time. I've only got 3 months left to get one and I've heard it can take up to 10 years.

In a broad sense I would consider it a sitcom. Though I didn't consider SCTV to be a sitcom, even though it had a similar premise. It might not meet the technical qualification, but I'd maintain it does. The actors maintain the same character in each episode (unlike SCTV where actors would portray multiple roles, some of them completely non-recurring) and there is definitely a situation that lends to the comedy - lodge members to an obscure Canadian town's version of the Moose putting on a (public access) television show. Yes there were skits, but the characters in them were always playing the same character. Btw, did you know that Ranger Gord was Sam Malone's neighbor that bought his 'Vette and was married to kindergarden teacher Dana Delaney? Remember, I'm pulling for you; we're all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice.

Haven't seen anybody mention The Red Green Show. Somehow that one should have ended up on my list as well. Agree with those that liked Green Acres. And am absolutely in shock that I forgot to include Bundy's, oops Married, with Children. Bundy's have to knock something out of the top 10. Probably Sports Night.

Are you trying to imply that GM & Chrysler didn't file for bankruptcy? ( which btw - they did) Or are you trying to imply that Romney thought those 2 should have been liquidated? (which btw - he didn't) Going through a bankruptcy does not mean the company will be liquidated. If it did, there'd be no domestic airline industry.

How the !@#$ you go from the bolded above to "women adore him?" YOU apparently adore him and are projecting YOUR favoring of his stance on the issues you listed above into meaning that women will flock to him, apparently because he's dreamy. What job creation? If "women's rights" (code word for abortion) were the be all end all, then ALL women would be Democrats. Women as a bloc are far more divided than African Americans or other racial minority groups tend to be. The rest of the "quiver" of issues you've come up with are social issues which will not trump economic issues unless the economy takes a major upturn in the next 3 months. As much as you apparently desperately want the election to come down to social issues, it is not looking like that is what people are focused on currently. IF it does come down to social issues, the President will likely get re-elected. Right now, and for the past 45 or so months, it's looking like this election will be decided by the economy. Most of the women I know aren't too thrilled with the direction that's headed in currently. And on a separate note, you said yourself, the President has been on the attack for 6 months. There are still 3 more months to go before people go to the polling stations. People want to hear what's right with the country, not just how this new guy is the devil. Attacking the other guy doesn't LOOK presidential. The tactics used, by both sides, will likely change significantly throughout the next 3+ months. If the President doesn't take the high road himself, he will give Mr. Romney an opportunity to look more presidential than the current President. If that happens, President Obama's election chances are in deep trouble. Past Presidents have let their campaign staff do their dirty work, the current WH occupant might be wise to follow that tack.

And I would suspect the polls conducted by the 2 campaigns would be a bit different than those run by the independent orgs. Market research is a good thing; if you don't know what your customers want, you can't give it to them. But alot of the questions asked by the independent orgs tend to not tell a whole lot about the nuances that the campaigns themselves need. Though, on a slightly different topic, I not sure why TBC keeps claiming the President is "adored by women." He's polling about 12% ahead with them currently. That's not exactly 'let's build a statue to him' territory.

Pretty much. But without them the talking heads have got even less than the nothing they currently blather on.

Regarding the bold: we shall see in November. That is still more than 3 months, 2 conventions, and ~3 debates from now. Right now the polls are tight; something will eventually make them swing. I expect the polls to stay tight until ~mid-October and then one candidate will pull away from the other and the final result won't look close. I know you want Romney to lose, I don't know that you'll get your wish. Clearly statistics ain't your bag. You do realize that Carter was beating Reagan in most polls until the very end of the campaign, right? So, because he was leading in '79 and June of '80, he won the election, right? The only poll that counts is the one on November 6. The only ones that will tell us anything relevant will start to show up after the 1st debate.

Based on the posts in this thread up to this point, how the !@#$ are you coming to that conclusion? Just how stoned are you right now?

there won't many minds changed in this election, yours included, I gather. What exactly does that have to do with whether it will be easier or more difficult to elect the SECOND African American President? I am mildly curious how the "GOP Congress" is the Country's barrier to success, when the GOP only controls the House of Representatives, the Democrats STILL control the Senate (though not by the fillibuster-proof majority they had at the beginning of the current President's term), and the House was overwhelmingly Democrat during the 1st 2 years of this Presidency as well? Women are locked up for the Democrats? Really? How does any of this make it easier for another African American to become President? What if that next high quality candidate is a Republican? Does anything you just babbled have any relevance to that situation? As for your 2nd paragraph; Romney's team has proven itself dull? How? By being a Republican candidate winning the Massachusetts Governorship? By being the most central leaning major candidate of the Republican primary and still winning it going away? And this is relative to Obama's campaign proving itself sharp?

Regarding the 1st bolded: how much more difficult will it be for the next legitimate African American candidate to win election after the past 4 years of "amateur hour?" Regarding the 2nd bolded: what reason, other than the President has run effective campaigns in the past is there to believe he and his team are "two steps ahead of Romney?"

Most, if not all of these have already been mentioned, but here goes: Cheers WRRP in Cincinnati SOAP Police Squad The Dick Van Dyke Show Newhart It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Sports Night Taxi The Odd Couple Honorable Mentions: The Cosby Show Family Ties Night Court M*A*S*H Gilligan's Island The Addams Family The Munsters I Love Lucy The Honeymooners EDIT: The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis I forgot to include Arrested Development. Sorry Maynard. Nearly added Northern Exposure to the honorable mentions list, but it was an hour long and not really a true 'sit com' and it was only good the 1st 3 or so seasons; it then got REEEAAALY bad.

Only got $20 credit for 12 months and STM for $148, but that was their 1st offer and I didn't feel like spending another 30 minutes on the phone dickering to try to get the Ticket for free. Thanks to all for the reminder to make the call. Net result is I'll average ~$7.50/mo in savings over the year and have the ticket for free.

Don't know who will win. Expect the polls to be close until about 2-3 weeks before the election and then things will break hard towards one of them and the final result will resemble a landslide. If Romney wins, it'll be on the back of the economy and a strong debate performance. If the President wins, some of the **** he's been throwing at Romney will have finally stuck.

Not happening for at least another 10 years, probably more like 20 if ever. Even if the Navy dictates it, the technology simply isn't there. Don't really have an issue w/ the Navy looking for alternative fuels. Find it a bit silly the way they are implementing this one time exercise, but they'll waste a lot more money that this 'feel good' episode will waste.

What are you considering an 'acceptable cost for that fuel' and what are you considering 'giv(ing) it a chance to succeed?'

Not if the only source of demand is DoD - cost + contracts anyone?