In response to:

The Multitudinous Mitt

John C6 Wrote: Oct 07, 2012 8:01 PM
Dear UNS, Your post presumes that the reason for U.S. engagement in that region is to protect oil supplies to the U.S.. That's not true. We're protecting oil lanes to keep them open for our friends and allies who both produce and import the oil, to maintain our rights of navigation globally, meet our UN Security Council obligation, our Treaty committments to our allies, and to stabilize the region. Should the Iranians get atomic weapons, and instability led to their use, it could lead to a Global Thermonuclear War. A Nuclear War would ruin your entire day. You post idiocy. You base argument on facts not in evidence, and that are frankly, obviously, untrue. You must be a Progressive. - John Lepant

In Wednesday's debate, Mitt Romney said he will "stop the subsidy" to public broadcasting. That's good to know, because Mitt Romney's campaign website says he will merely "reduce subsidies for ... the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

Kill Big Bird or just pluck some of his feathers? Or neither, in keeping with what often happens to promises made by politicians? As Ted Kennedy once said of Romney's abortion policy, "I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice."

Barack Obama had a tough time in the debate because he was told he would be debating Mitt Romney, a self-described "severely conservative"...