His responses are nothing special, and for good reason.

The only task Obama has at hand right now is to not make a stupid remark. He only needs to play it close to the vest, and he will come out in better condition than he is in now. 

Romney, however, will come out in a worse condition if he plays it close to the vest. He needs to wow the audience tonight to gain any ground. Both candidates seem to be doing well in their goals thus far.

Hey, let’s all take a look at this link! PolitiFact closes its article on this chain e-mail with this:

A few of the sentiments have some link to reality – Obama did order the raid to kill bin Laden, and he did oppose Guantanamo, even though he ultimately failed to carry through on his promise to close it. The critics may have wished Obama had made these statements, but appears the statements have no basis in reality. It’s clear from our research that all six quotes are fabrications. Once again a widely circulated chain e-mail is spreading ridiculous falsehoods about Obama. We rate this e-mail Pants on Fire.

Fact check these things, everyone. Obama is a hypocrite and a warmonger, but there’s no need to lie in order to prove that point. It’s counterproductive, to say the least.

letterstomycountry:

That’s the number of American soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since the inception of the war.  The New York Times has an excellent infographic that breaks down the numbers further by branch, province, age, and so forth.

Most telling, in my view, is the graph which demonstrates that the most violent years come after 2008, when we of course saw a policy shift from the Obama administration away from Iraq and focused on “winning” the war in the Afghanistan.  As you can see from the graph, the 2009 troop surge was consonant with the heaviest period of American casualties in the history of our involvement in Afghanistan:

More at the link.

The Treasury has decided to market its first new product in 15 years: Floating-Rate Notes. The newly conceived-of notes are described as both a haven and an investment, as the interest paid on these notes will reset periodically to match prevailing rates measured by a market index; the notes will also supposedly have a maturity of two years. This move comes as one hoping to bring more demand back to buying government bonds.

In the later 2000’s, it became evident that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries had fallen greatly; investors were staying away from the long-term bonds and, therefor, the U.S. Dollar. The Federal Reserve temporarily remedied the situation by buying long-term bonds from the Treasury (and a lot of them) with the Quantitative Easing programs. The Treasury has now come to a point where they are trying to figure out how to mitigate such a problem in the future by attracting investors again, but the financial condition of the U.S. Government may have reached a point of no return. The current U.S. bond bubble will burst, and when it does the government will print its way out of matured obligations, will monetize the debt further, and hyperinflate the economy.

Even if the crisis at hand is avoided, there is a major downside to these new Treasuries: it could leave more of a burden for taxpayers. Given the unlikely circumstance that the U.S. Economy makes a long-term recovery, the interest to be paid on these notes will be on the rise. Already the government is having trouble raising the money to pay off its current obligations (and ultimately it will fail unless debt is liquidated immediately), but it will now be required to gain more in revenues to pay off its investors.

It’s just not going to happen. That was determined months ago. He’s out. It’s done. The Republicans, unfortunately, chose Mitt Romney.

That’s how it happened, so please stop giving our community a bad name with this delusion of Ron Paul possibly pulling an upset at the RNC. There is no chance for that. Acknowledge this. Continue to support our cause, but don’t do it by upholding unrealistic hopes like this one.

communismkills:

thecommonsenselibertarian:

You’re a fucking moron.

… Why are you sounding just like the “libertarians” who say things like “I’d refuse to ever vote Republican ever because they’re all dsfksdjklfklsdj”?

Libertarians differ pretty staunchly with much of the Republican worldview. You can’t deny that at all. Albeit, Republicans are more closely related to the Libertarian mindset than the Democrats are, but the differences are not negligible. 

I’d say it’s pretty understandable for Libertarians to refuse to vote for anyone within the Republican party. I don’t necessarily hold that view, but I’d also vote for a Democrat depending on their specific views and goals. Is that more pragmatic than sticking to just voting Libertarian? Yes. Is it anymore logical though? No. It’s just a different mindset.

Republicans, in the eyes of the Libertarian community, can be equally as morally abject as the Democrats. Purporting that they are the money-savers while most Republicans would continue foreign aid, military and security spending, and subsidies is dishonest.

I’m not sure I would ever throw my support behind someone who touts that government is too big while concurrently stating that our relationship with Iran requires more aggressiveness on our part. Why does that make me a “libertarian” as opposed to a Libertarian?

If anything, the self-titled Libertarians who do vote for these interventionist candidates are less genuine libertarians than the ones who wouldn’t.

CommunismKills, I’m the first one to defend you against people who wrongly insult you or “call you out” on ideas, but your view on Libertarianism is, in my opinion, misguided.

I’m interested to see if people can still believe Caucasians or non-Muslims are never terrorists. Wade Michael Page, an Army veteran, shot up a temple as a “revenge for 9/11.” He’s been cited as being a vocal part of white supremacist groups.

Let me tell those who deem only Arabs or Muslims as terrorists: you’re wrong. Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Joseph Stack, Wade Michael Page, the list continues. Please stop perpetuating the ignorance that is the catalyst for terrorism in the first place. Anyone who has a political end in sight and violent means to achieve that end is a terrorist. There is no denying that.

So please, give up being bigots now.

Nothing will happen with this. Ronald Machen decides what happens to Eric Holder and if charges will be pressed. Yeah, I wish charges were pressed; I think executive privilege is a sham. Nixon tried to use it to avoid a subpoena and he had to resign. Holder does the same thing and he gets off free? Give me a break.

But Machen and Eric Holder were nominated by President Obama. So to think that one would screw over the other is naivety at best.

A CNN article lays out a few more reasons of why nothing will really happen to Eric Holder:

[Most legal observers] note that President George W. Bush’s Justice Department refused to take any action after a Democratic-controlled House voted in early 2008 to hold then-White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for actions relating to the controversial dismissal of several U.S. prosecutors.

They also note Obama’s use of executive privilege to prevent the release of certain documents in the Fast and Furious case — a move which typically makes executive branch officials immune from criminal prosecution.

Though maybe something will come of the House’s pursuit of civil action against Holder.

talkstraight:

…So maybe one of you smart people can explain this to me.

Since, theoretically, everyone is now going to be required to purchase health insurance, but there hasn’t been an increase in health insurance providers to cover the soon-to-be huge surge in customers, what’s to prevent the insurance providers from raising their rates exorbitantly?

I mean, isn’t that what supply and demand is all about?  We’re about to have a ginormous demand for health insurance but a limited amount of suppliers sooooo…massive price raising?

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know.

Think about when states required all drivers to purchase car insurance before getting on the road? It’s obviously not as widespread (not everyone drives) but premiums did go up.

So you’re exactly right: Health insurance companies will make a lot more money thanks to this Act. Now the argument against this point would be to point out the fact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act stipulates that insurers spend 80% of premiums on medical care.

The problem with that, as an argument, is that now that everyone will be required to have health insurance, chances are the demand for medical supplies will greatly increase, as will the demand for doctors. The demand for everything in the medical industry will be on the rise, therefore pushing up premiums and allowing for the insurer’s 20% to grow probably significantly. 

More and more money is going to be tied up in the medical industry (just like when Medicare/Medicaid were introduced to the market) which will unfortunately effect the rest of the economy poorly and leave the middle-class more strapped for cash.