Give it a rest Ann. A vote for Newt is not a vote for Obama. Your crystal ball must be broken. I love ya, but you're wrong on this. Romney is only slightly right of McCain. I'm tired of the MSM picking our candidate and they obviously want Mitt. I want someone that will make Obama look like a fool in a debate and that ain't Mitt.

What a ridiculous issue to be upset about. Trump will probably wind up being far better than the other moderators we've seen in other debates. He'll probably ask pointed, substantive questions that we all care about. What, precisely, disqualifies him? And if he's not disqualified, then he is qualified by default. Another forum for us to hear from the candidates is never a bad thing and I'm kind of sick of some media clown being the moderator. Time to mix it up. I plan to watch BECAUSE Trump will be moderating. Sounds like a good thing to me. All the speculation about Trump's ulterior motives is sophomoric conjecture.

"6) Jesus taught that we should keep our acts of piety private. Tebow is being hypocritical by praying in public and always bringing up his faith." This is fallacious and shows the author has no concept of Christianity. Christ said to not be like the pharisees that pray in public only for the sake of being heard and appearing to be good while their heart is far from God. This was a common problem in Jewish society 2000 years ago. It took no courage to pray openly in that society. The intent of the lesson is to NOT be like the pharisees that were not REALLY praying to God, but were putting on a show. Tebow prays in public knowing he will be ridiculed and persecuted for his beliefs by the majority of Americans. Doubtful he is not sincere.

So are you going to rip your eyeballs out? I'd rather you chop off your fingers so you can't bore the rest of us with your ridiculous posts.

Sorry. Love your enthusiasm, but Romney is closer to a RINO than a true conservative republican. RomneyCare in MA shows his affinity for progressive ideals and his willingness to ignore reality. I don't trust him to truly cut the size of gov't. He strikes me as a progressive republican who simply wants to shift the focus of gov't from the liberal extreme to more centrist policies which would only shift budgetary spending, not cut it. We need someone with the guts to cut gov't across the board; draconian cuts that will get rid of the deficit and give us a fighting chance at reducing the debt. Few people in America truly understand the dire circumstances posed by our debt. The debt grows every year, thus the interest on the debt grows...

Robert you said "while unemployment was ALWAYS going DOWN when a dem left office to a republican. There are NO EXCEPTIONS". No exceptions...really. You seem old enough to remember Clinton. Right? The recession that was called in the March of 2000 happened BEFORE Bush submitted his FIRST budget. I guess you were one that blamed Bush even though he had not had the opportunity to cause this problem. And it wasn't just the dotcom bubble that caused it. Economic contraction had already begun...under Clinton. These things don't occur in a vacuum and take time to play out. Go ahead and look it up since you are so web savvy. I didn't read your entire post because you couldn't get past the first paragraph with the truth. As to your obvious...

The ignorance in your post is almost overwhelming. Bush's tax cuts allowed the economy to expand even in the face of 9/11 and 2 wars (whether you agree with the wars or not). It was Bush's SPENDING that was the problem. By trying to get along with Dems, he signed every bill that came along increasing spending beyond what the budget could sustain. Obama has continued this policy in spades and is responsible for the mess we're in. Progressives, whether democrat or republican, are to blame. Gov't is never the solution and cannot grow the economy as Obama has so desparately tried to get us to believe. Increasing taxes on the economic producers will put the final nail in the coffin.....comrade.

Ever considered doing a bit of your own research? If you did, you'd be less inclined to disagree with Mr. Sowell. The net effect of tax cuts is more money in the economy to spend on free market products. This creates more jobs which in turn increases revenue to the gov't. The net effect of increasing taxes is the opposite effect which is what happened when Clinton raised taxes. It stifled economic expansion, even though the Fed was creating the tech bubble and the net result was a recession that took hold when Bush became president. Bush decreased taxes and the economy grew even in the face of the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror. Had Bush kept spending under control and acted as a true conservative, Obama would have no one to blame...

"Whaaa! If you don't agree with me then you're just a republican puppet" Whaaaa, whaaa.