PastaJoe

If the debate audience was filled with undecided voters, then allowing for clapping or booing would be acceptable. But these debates are filled with partisan supporters of the various candidates who will cheer their choice and boo the others regardless of what they say. So in that situation it just wastes time and gives the viewing audience a false impression of who's giving the best argument.

Blaming the media is just an excuse that conservatives use because they know that myth is red meat for their constituents. "It's the media's fault why people don't like our ideas". It couldn't be that the ideas are bad or benefit a select few. No that couldn't be it.

He's a hypocrite for opposing saving GM and Chrysler. If he could have directly profited from it, he would have supported it. So much for standing up for the middle class, Mr .001%.

The more I hear from Willard, the more I'm confident that Obama is assured of a second term. By the time the Republicans are done exposing him as the poster child of corporate greed at the expense of middle class workers, it will be easy for Obama to deliver the knockout punch. It won't matter if he picks Rubio, Palin, or Christie for his VP, by the time the general election campaign begins, he'll be defined. And wait until there's more of a call for him to release his tax records. You can't go on offense when you're on defense. Just look at all the posts here trying to defend him. And this doesn't even take into consideration how Obama's commander-in-chief record on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Bin Laden and al Queda's leadership compares to Romney.

That's what he advocated when the auto companies were bailed out. And then if it happened he would have blamed Obama for all the auto workers and suppliers that lost their jobs. What a hypocrite. Or should I say, flip-flopper.

What a crock, blaming Obama for "uncertainty". He's put forth numerous specific proposals, if the Republicans in Congress would get off their duffs and vote them in, or at least compromise to reach agreement, there would be "certainty". But given their priority of defeating Obama over trying to help the middle class and the jobs situation, businesses don't know what if anything they will ever compromise on and vote for.

The land around Dodger Stadium has been discussed as a possible site for a new football stadium. He buys the Dodgers and the land, builds a stadium, and buys and moves the Bills to the new "Pixar Studios - Ralph Wilson Memorial Stadium at Chavez Ravine".

"Smart talk trumps tough talk". Zero American soldiers killed, $1 billion cost, and NATO operations winding down, vs Iraq with over 4000 killed, $700 billion cost, and 8 more years of involvement after "Mission Accomplished". No comparison. The U.S. lead this operation behind the scenes by organizing a response that included NATO involvement, logistical support and supplies, and the tactical use of drones. This action could never have occurred without the U.S., but it was smartly accomplished by getting the Libyans themselves to handle the ground battles instead of American boots on the ground, so that this wouldn't be viewed as another American invasion like Iraq. If this had failed, just as if the Bin Laden mission, or any of the other military successes sanctioned by Obama over the past 3 years had failed, Obama haters would have been screaming about his failures as commander-in-chief. And you know that's the truth.

Once again, Obama's policy of appealing to the people of the Middle East to stand up for themselves and take the lead in forcing change in their countries, with support from Western democracies, has succeeded. And I'm sure that just bugs the hell out of the neo-cons who want the U.S. to force change like was done in Iraq, with the U.S. taking all the risk, casualties, and cost. Smart talk trumps tough talk.

I supported his decision to go into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and al-Quada. That was a policy we could all agree on. He lost me when he decided invading Iraq was more important. And I can't imagine some of you complaining about the drone attack if it was a Republican in office.

All valid comments. I was wondering all game what happened to our LBs. No outside contain, no consistent tackling, and no blitzing. You would think that the game plan would have been to blitz more against a rookie QB and keep him rattled. Or at least adjust during the game after the front 4 was giving him too much time. But that's on the coaches. But it wouldn't surprise me if the 1st pick next year is another DB, based on how the current crop has been performing.

The ACLU plays an important role in providing a check on government actions, and I am glad that they are advocates for citizen's rights. Having said that, in this case Anwar al-Awlaki has publicly advocated violence against Americans and actively took a lead in trying to plan such activity, while hiding in foreign countries to avoid American justice. The action to take him out when given the opportunity was appropriate and should be applauded. He was the biggest terrorist target after Bin Laden. The Obama administration has done a superb job of moving our assets away from Iraq, and refocusing them on the terrorist networks that attacked us and want to attack again, putting them on the run in Afghanistan, and taking the war to them in Pakistan and Yemen with human intelligence, special ops, and a dramatic increase in the use of Predator drones.

Jerry tells it like it is, he's not a homer who is afraid to criticize team management, and for that he's a refreshing realist. For those who think the current management isn't part of the problem, consider who they drafted last year compared to who they could have drafted. Round 1 CJ Spiller. Players drafted after him in the 1st round at offensive line, a need position, included Anthony Davis, Maurkice Pouncey, Bryan Bulaga, and Roger Saffold; all starters this year. Instead Nix drafts a RB when we already had 2 starting RBs. Round 2 Torell Troup. TE Rob Gronkowski was drafted after him. They haven't had a solid TE since Metzalaars. Round 3 Alex Carrington. QB Colt McCoy was drafted after him. So ask yourself, going into this season would you rather have Spiller, Troup, and Carrington, or one of those linemen, Gronkowski, and McCoy (which all play need positions). That would be a solid trio of offensive players who could all be starting this year, and instead they have 3 backups / underachievers.

For someone to say they expect the Bills to win the Super Bowl shows that they are either clueless or a liar. You can say your goal is to win, but to expect to win with this roster is delusional.

My vote is on Newt, his face looked like he was pinching a loaf. Huntsman sounds the most reasonable of the bunch, so he has no chance of getting the nomination. To summarize the debate; Obamacare, Ronald Reagan, corporate tax cuts, deregulation, questionable climate science, border fence.

You obviously didn't watch his speech; you're one of the people he talked about, those who try to demonize unions instead of recognizing that they played a vital role in the growth of the middle class. Unions didn't make the bad business decisions to continue to build gas-guzzling cars when consumer demand was switching to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars; management made those decisions.

It's part of their master plan; keep a thin O-line, which means Fitz will likely be injured by mid-season, and then they can use that as the excuse for not offering him a contract with starter salary, but will offer a lesser amount to keep him around to mentor the QB pick next year.

The GOP doesn't need any help, they paint themselves into the far right social corner. They always include an anti-abortion plank at the convention, and probably will have some defense of marriage plank this time. And let's not forget the opposition to building Mosques, because they're just havens for domestic terrorists.

Joe Scarborough's prediction on what will happen the day after the Tea Party gets its way and doesn't raise the debt ceiling: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59827.html

Obama is calling out Boehner right now for caving to the Tea Party, who are threatening our economy with their extremist willingness to let the government default on our debt. There was a reasonable compromise on the table that cut trillions, including programs that Democrats support, not raise the tax rates, and close tax loopholes. And once again Boehner has backed away because of pressure from the extremists in the House. Clearly Boehner doesn't have the balls to take on the Tea Party for the good of the country. McConnell seems reasonable and willing to compromise on this crisis, but he's not getting any help from his fellow Republicans in the House.

Boo-hoo, we must protect the wealthy at all costs, they're doing such a great job of creating jobs with the tax cuts Republicans said we had to have to create jobs. The top 1 percent of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth — roughly the same amount as the bottom 90 percent. And that gap has gotten far bigger in the past 25 years. In the past decade alone, the wealthiest percentile has seen its income grow by 17 percent, while the middle class has seen its real income fall. The 400 Americans with the highest adjusted gross income saw their effective tax rates plummet from 30 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2007. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112386/poll-best-way-to-fight-deficits.html

Given that Obama's health reform is current law, it does factor in cuts. Like they say, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Feel free to find a more non-partisan assessment than the CBO.

And boom goes the dynamite! Looks like it's official. There's no comparison between what Obamacare does to Medicare compared to Ryancare, according to the CBO. "Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows. For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they would pay under current law, CBO said. The GOP budget proposal also would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program – and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by Congress last year." http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/April/06/CBO-Seniors-Pay-More-Medicare-Ryan-Plan.aspx

I think it's still too early to call, since the more conservative rural areas still need to report. But regardless, the Republicans will either have to backtrack on privatizing Medicare or face the backlash from the older voters throughout the country. I guess the Republicans should have read the Ryan plan before they gave it a blanket endorsement.

I know some here can't stand Obama's success, and would have been all over him if it had failed, but you're spending more time on wacky conspiracy theories than you did questioning where the WMD in Iraq was. When the Republican wanna-be's in 2012 question Obama's commander-in-chief qualifications, he can say, "Why don't you ask Osama? Oh, that's right, he's dead!".