Fox News has commentators from the left & right, including some that are radicals. Sally Kohn, the author of this opinion piece, is a self described radial. Go to http://sallykohn.com/ to see for yourself. No one would consider her or Hannity's opinions "Fair & Balanced".

Leave his religion out of it. There's so much to criticize Mitt Romney for, from his policy positions that harm the 99% in order to benefit the 1%, to his non-stop lying about his past and about the President, that his faith should be irrelevant.

Keep the focus on what he would actually do as President, or what he is doing in his attempt to become President, but faith and family should be off limits.

Brandt, I have to agree with Jordan. Romney is such a target rich candidate, I do believe we should focus on that, and not his religion. Mormonism is not on the ballot, and within a political debate should be avoided.

Now, I hope Romney doesn't say something tonight that puts his religion front and center. His religiosity, fine.

Of course, détente isn't something the GOP has earned.

After the horrid and oft repeated lies about President Obama's religion, I wonder if GOP will go dark on religion, or start the whole mess back up? Will the leaders of the GOP stand up and reject the attacks on President Obama's religion?

If not, a 2012 détente on religion attacks just might evaporate faster than you can say Kolob.

What will you say after Mitt wins the election Brandt ? Look forward to hearing from you on Nov 7th !

If you had watched the Convention tonight you would not say such a ignorant things.

Ok, TaterSpam - Romney's nomination too boring for you. Got it.

THANK YOU! I almost forgot that Barack hates half his family! Or not. FYA.

appreciate your enthusiasm scoobydoo (?!)---now how about a substantive discussion?
you're doing your candidate a disservice with the juvenile banter....

why is Romney promising 12mm new jobs in 4 years when the right has been clear in their belief that government can't create jobs?

"Why is Romney promising 12mm new jobs in 4 years when the right has been clear in their belief that government can't create jobs?"

Er, great point dan.

I'll promise you this 'Doo 'Doo, I'll treat President Romney with the same respect the right treated President Obama. Lets starts with his religion...

Can you explain to me specifically what Obama did to make the economy worse, and what specifically Mitt will do to make it better? Thank you.

hartland eagle what do you mean what has Obama done to make the economy worse. Lets start with 5 trillion in new debt. Who do you think is going to pay that off? Oh wait your going to say lets take the rich. I get it. But wait, if we taxed the rich at 100% of their income, guess how long the government would run for, about 30-60 days. So we are going to have to tax a lot more people to pay off his 5 trillion, not to mention, Bush's 4, and then there is the 7 trillion before that, thanks to Reagon, Bush 41, and Clinton. Mitt hired people who made money, they went out and bought things that people made and then they went out and bought things that other people made. The real problem is that everything we buy is being made by the Chinese, so when someone like Mitt creates a company and hires workers, when those workers go out to buy a new TV, instead of that money going to a company here in the US that hired workers to build the TV. The money goes to China to a worker over there who buys Chinese products made in Chinese by his neighbor.

R Gibson: how does your 401k look today compared to the day W left office? Answer honestly now.

Obama is turning a big ship that W took head-on into a glacier. As for Romney, his stance on the GM and Chrysler rescues alone guarantee he's not getting my vote.

R Gibson: what company did Romney "create"?

Uh, most of the debt incurred during Obama's term has been from two wars he didn't start, tax cuts he didn't impose, and an unpaid for Medicare prescription drug benefit he didn't sign.

You're right though, that a major part of the problem is our manufacturing jobs have shifted overseas. Which Mitt was actively engaged in doing when he ran Bain Capital.

Ray you are absolutely right Mitch McConnell did say that. Right after Obama said "I Won". Come one Ray, at least to honest with yourself, it isn't all the dems fault or the repubs fault, there is good, bad, and the ugly on both sides. As for investmens in infrastructure, I would remind you that Obama himself came out and said that those "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,"

100% factual Ray! I agree.

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan. The GOP came in, thinking its policies should dominate, and probably expected this young upstar (you know what I mean) to roll over and take it. His reminder: "I won", meaning the debate about approach had been decided on Nov 4, 2008.

Backbone. That's why he was able to take the huge political gamble and ok the move on UBL.

You don't walk into the Oval Office 3 days after a new President takes office and start telling him what he has to do. Just saying ...

George W. Bush started two wars and no way to pay for them. When he started two wars it was reported that this would be left to the next president to clean up and it was.

DT I agree about the Afghan and Iraq wars.

But that was 4 years ago, when does Obama own his own Presidency?

DT, you're right on. And nobody on the right had any problem with huge deficits as long as they were financing bombs being dropped on the Middle East (check out the military's own figures on how many innocents have been killed or maimed in Iraq-istan). But deficit spend to feed poor kids in LA and the Tea Party sprouts up like a weed.

Detox, I think if you read some of my other blogs on this site you will see that I am equally critical of the repubs for some of their actions. The fact that the founding fathers had the wisdom, to provide for the filibuster is absolute genious. The founding fathers wanted to be able to slow government down, to do specifically what is happening now. Not allowing one party to gain control of both houses and the presidency and totally shut out the other party. It was complete genious. And frankly I am happy to have it on for both sides. Cause I don't like it when the freaks on the super right get in power either. Those people scare me just as much as those on the left.

Now onto your 2nd question. What is your point? If gun control is so popular, as you suggest, then why was the weapons ban put in place by Bill Clinton allowed to expire, and why has Obama not picked it up again. Another failure. From the day he took office until the day Scott Brown took the oath of office, Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a Majority in the House. He could have put forth viturally any legislation he wanted and gotten it passed. Instead, he put all his chips in Obamacare and the stimulus. Then allowed Nancy Pelosi to run the legislative agenda and he got the crap kicked out of him. The will of the people was totally ignored and in 2010 Scott Brown was elected to stop him from going any further.

The filibuster is, ah, not in the Constitution. Duh. Its a senate rule.

Detox, the housing crisis was Clinton's fault and Barney Frank's fault. Yes it happened on Bush's watch, but the origins are clearly from the liberal lending practices implemented under the Clinton administration. Check the facts. You liberals seem to ingnore that whole part of it, isn't that interesting. See folks just another typical Obama hired blogger.

I agree. W was too stupid to stop the "liberal lending practices implemented under the Clinton administration" even though he had two terms and GOP control of the Congress at various times.

But not a filibuster proof majority so the Dems would have stopped him from doing it. Ok, but then why didn't the democrats stop it 2 years earlier when Nancy Pelosi took over the house in 2006? If Dubya knew it, as you suggest, and was to stupid to do anything about it, then Nancy Pelosi is just as culpable as Dubya. Certainly, Barney Frank knew it and saw it coming. Why didn't the dems warn all of us about it. Is it because they were muzzled because they got us into this mess and didn't want their fingerprints on it. Or was it because maybe they were getting some on the side?

R Gibson: "fault" is the wrong word to use in describing the Clinton economy...how about "way to go!" i'd gladly take 8 more years of that.

And W knew a thing or two about drunks.

I think this whole thing with his Birth Certificate is kind of stupid. His mother was an American Citizen, he is her child, that is all it took for me. Do I think he was born on US soil, that I am not so sure about. Frankly, he could have made the whole thing go away the day he took office, but handing the Chief Justice a original copy of his Birth Certificate. Instead they let it hang out there and allowed those people to make a big deal about it. As for his religion, I don't think anyway has ever said anything about his religion. Other than the outrageous statements by his pastor.

R Gibson: nothing has been said about his religion?

March 23, 2012, POrt Fourchon, LA: Gingrich suggests it's Obama's fault people think he's Muslim. Says it's fair game because the Dems will try to show Romney's Mormonism is an issue (waiting to see any evidence of that)
July 26, 2012: Pew Form on Religion and Public Life poll shows 30 of Republicans believe POTUS is a Muslim
and there's more...

***Frankly, he could have made the whole thing go away the day he took office, but handing the Chief Justice a original copy of his Birth Certificate.***

Gibby, just finished reading my copy of the US Constitution, and, uh, I don't see this clause about handing that birth certificate thingy to The Chief Justice.

Maybe, it's in the footnotes.

For many of us DT, that is the real concern. It took WWII to get us outta the Great Depression. I am 47, my dad was born in 1919. He lived the GP and fought in WWII. I know from my dad, first hand, the challenges that were faced in during those years. Using history as a guide, I would suggest that you look at Japan and the lost decade. I think that is a far more relevant example of what we could be facing going forward. Slow to No Growth, Massive Spending that produces no results. Obama and his economic team, have done very little to suggest that they have any real solutions. Other than lip service. Continued deficit spending is not the answer.

Our economy is much more dynamic than the economy after the Great Depression. It should not take this long. Instead of focusing on the economy, this President spent all his time and effort on (1) a health care law that does little to nothing to control costs and sets the stage for the eventual government takeover of healthcare, and (2) unnecessarily burdensome regulations that put in place a future full of Washington-based-rule-writing and the hoards of lobbyists that will be there to help. His vision for an economy based on alternative energy (most certainly our long term future) lacked the obvious need to tap proven domestic resources during what any leader (with business experience) would have appreciated to be a longer transition period. Add to this "Krugman Economics" which equate to Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. He's a decent guy, truly, but he's a bad president.

DT, I am sorry, but what you are saying doesn't make any sense. There is a Budget Deficit or Surplus and then there is the National Debt. Yes, Clinton had a budget surplus when he left office, primarily because of the largest tax increase in History. When RR took office our national debt is 900 Billion, when he left, 2.8 Trillion, pretty bad path. By the time Clinton left office, after 8 years, our national debt had risen to almost 6 Trillion. Bush added 4 more because of 2 wars and Medicare Part D in 8 years. Obama has added 5 more in 3 years. Yes, Clinton had a budget surplus, but so what, he didn’t use one dime of it to pay off the national debt.

And Gibson, do note that the deficit to which you refer was blown up by Reagan, who increased the deficit by over 180%.

The 2007 deficit was $168b based on increased tax revenues to the government and slower spending. And then the bubble burst. It's fair to point out that this President inherited the banking crisis, much in the same way Bush inherited the bursting of the tech bubble (and then shortly thereafter 911). I'm not overly critical of President Obama in this sense, just as I was understanding of the hand President Bush was dealt in 2001. It's the way a President responds that interests me. A President sets the course and the priorities. This Presidents course is clearly anti-business ...more government and more spending. As stated so simply by the CBO, current spending will "cause federal debt to grow to unsustainable levels". The choice is simple, if you believe this President is more likely to correct the budget situation vote for him and you will have anti-business Krugman Economics and everything that comes with it. If you think Romney and Ryan are more likely to fix the budget, vote for them.

PV: "I'm not overly critical of President Obama in this sense, just as I was understanding of the hand President Bush was dealt in 2001."

That is a false equivalency: Bush inherited a slowing economy and a cause to go to war. President Obama inherited an existential thret to the world's economic system, not just our own. It was the WORSE economic downturn in 70 years! The real estate market was in shambles, credit could not be obtained to buy much of anything.

No, Bush's challenges were no where near that of President Obama's!

The GOP tactic is to minimize the depth of the crisis we were in. Don't fall for it.

PV: "It's the way a President responds that interests me. A President sets the course and the priorities. This Presidents course is clearly anti-business ...more government and more spending."

Hum. Did you wail vigorously at Bush's inattention to the war in Afghanistan and abandoning of the promise to bring UBL to justice? Instead of completing one war, he used the vengefulness of the country to create an "axis of evil" to justify his personal war of choice.

President Obama finished the job in Iraq, and is on a path to extracting our troops from Afghanistan. Oh, and completing the destruction of alQuida's upper leadership.

For small business, check out http://www.barackobama.com/small-business-owners/
...

...
PV continued: 'As stated so simply by the CBO, current spending will "cause federal debt to grow to unsustainable levels".'

Really, where? The report is accessible here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43295 It does not say that. It does say keeping the Bush tax cuts is the road to disaster.

The choice: President Obama who brought the country back from the brink, or the empty promise of a person who in his last governing opportunity left behind a $1 BILLION budget deficit for the next governor and saddled Massechusettes tax payers with more debt per person than in any other state.

Since we heard nothing of a new economic plan from the bishop last night, why assume he will do better on the bigger stage? Because the recovery hasn't been as fast as everyone would like?

Romney leads a party clasping to a sense of victimhood, where everything bad that has happened to you over the last few years is the fault of the government. While wallowing in this victimhood, it attempts to create a sense of lost entitlement and a false sense that "everyone else is getting your money". With the Republicans back in the front office, we are on the way to completing our descent into plutocracy.

Instead, I say protect democracy and our blended economic system to make both better. Obama/Biden 2012

Guessing you are aware of the fact that Nancy Reagan became the first woman President. Ron Reagan contends his father showed signs of Alzheimer's Disease three years into his first term. He said he noticed it in the president's performance in the Oct.7, 1984, campaign debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. He writes, "My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered."

When asked a question that he could not or would not answer, Reagan would sometimes say, "they [his staff] haven't told me what I'm doing yet."

At a photo-op, reporters asked about the perceived the lack of progress on arms control talks with the Soviet Union. As the president pondered the query, Nancy Reagan whispered, "Doing the best we can." Taking the cue, Ronald Reagan repeated, "We're doing the best we can."

I have to give it to her. She got him through it. Of course, we're still paying the cost of believing the myths of Reagan, but she got him through.

His full name is Willard Mitt Romney. He is a former Mormon Bishop, full time candidate now. Willard was born in Michigan. His father, who became governor of Michigan, was born in Mexico. George Romney's place of birth was not discussed during his run for president. Ironically, his reversal of his position on the Vietnam war (supported, then didn't) became a pattern for his son.

That's Just SIlly!

Please. Why criticize a person for not using their name or real name? Who is to say which name is real anyway. Perhaps it is the content of their posting. For those postings that are attacks on other posters or unfounded and ridicules comments, there obvious and need to be ignored. But to accuse someone of HIDING because of their posting name is unfair.

What's the point of posting your opinion if you're not willing to put your name on it? Both of you helped prove the point I was making. The Patch is just looking the other way because they get all this stupid chatter by what could be one or two people with a bunch of different aliases. They lose a lot of credibility as a news source by doing this. It's too bad too because they didn't start out this way.

I still stand behind my request to close off this article to new posts as its gotten way out of hand!

Why not come up with your own post? Why rely on just regurgitating other articles? Guess that comes from not knowing your own identity.

Did you get reincarnated?

Why refer to TaterSalad as Tater? That's not their name, it's TaterSalad. Be respectful.

Good analysis Bryce, the war in Iraq was won by Bush troop surge that most Dems were against. By winning we are now able to withdraw, so actually Obama has less to deal with than Bush. Notice you never see a body count for Afghanistan like you did when Bush was in office. Never see TV reporters pointing at gas station signs showing the price of gas. For the libs it was $1.80 gal when Bush left. Obama no hope and most of the change is gone from your pocket. 2012 we start to transform this country back from the vision of Hugo Fidel Obama to Reagan. Romney/Ryan "believe in America"

"The CBO predicts that provisions of the ACA will cost an additional 110 Billion dollars in 2015."

Please provide a cite for that claim. From everything I've heard, the CBO estimates say that the ACA lowers the deficit.

Or is it that you're cherrypicking one year in the estimates that show a net increase in the deficit, while the overall timeframe is a net decrease in the deficit?

President George W. Bush and the republican party created the deficit when he was in office. That is a fact. President George Washinton warned of party loyalty. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% was supposed to make the economy stronger, it obviously was not true. So why is it still in effect and the republicans insist on keeping it. Come on people look at the facts.

Jordan:

Information available at the CBO-Gov website. 2015, the first year ACA takes full and complete effect, is in fact the lowest year cost wise, the cost of the insurance coverage provisions contained in the ACA go up each year to a high of 169 Billion in 2022. Keep in mind also that the number cited assumes additional revenue that the new "Health Care Tax" generates. (so much for campaign pledges on "No new taxes on the middle class".)

From the CBO website:

What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?

Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

Bryce,

So you admit that the CBO estimates that the ACA will lower the deficit, but you accuse President Obama's policies (specifically identifying the ACA) of creating a "spending problem". That's the same tactic of intentionally misrepresenting reality that Paul Ryan utilized in his speech on Wednesday.

Why do you have to misrepresent the impact of the ACA? Is it that you know your position is too weak if presented in an objective manner?

Also, since you are now accusing the President of increasing taxes on the middle class, please provide a cite that backs up that claim. From my understanding, the only tax increases in the ACA apply to people in the top tax bracket.

Jordan:

The OCB's position that the ACA will be deficit positive is based upon assumptions. Medicare expenditures would have to decline drastically, (not likely with our aging population) and tax revenue would have to increase. These assumptions may or may not happen. The expenditures are there none the less.

Yes, a tax increase on the middle class. I guess it depends on your definition of middle class. Would someone making 45,000.00 per year qualify? Would someone making 125,000.00 per year qualify? If either of these individuals decline to purchase health care coverage, under ACA, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, they will be forced to pay a health care TAX. Yes, TAX, your supreme leaders attorney's argued that point in front of the Supreme Court. That is why the ACA was allowed to stand. Congress has the power to tax, but not the power to force someone to buy something they don't want or don't need.

Bryce: Yep, the war in Iraq is over. But the bills are far from paid. A $2 Trillion deficit legacy. His tax cuts continue to deprive our government from paying the bills. Obama may have added to the total indebtedness, but faced with the uniquely bleak economic situation and realizing the folly of doing nothing, he spent where it was needed to attempt to turn things around. While the budget deficit we currently see was 20 years in the making, the stimulus helped stem the downslide and the economy is actually moving forward, in fits and starts, in less than 4 years. So far, the Republicans have been almost completely absent of actual plans to do better, and instead focus on the demonization of the guy who holds the job they so dearly want. What a waste of time, energy and other resources. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they laid out a concrete plan for us to analyze. So far, bupkis.

Hey Bryce - Gov Romney himself called for the same mechanism; people he used to create Romneycare worked with the administration for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The concept was originally floated by the right wing Heritage Foundation.

Same old game: if someone told you Barack Obama likes vanilla ice cream, you'd throw out your bowl of vanilla ice cream and declare a jihad against vanilla ice cream.

Bryce: "Bush does indeed own the Iraq war. It's over." No, Bush owns the Iraq War. President Obama ended it and brought the troops home. However, we still suffer from the effects of Bush's war on the Hussein family. Bush took troops out of the battle in Afghanistan, setting our progress there back by years. He fought this additional war off budget so that it would not be so apparent that his tax cut in the face of increased expenses was ludicrous, and that ballooned the deficit we have to still deal with today. Dismissing the impact of Bush's folly is folly.

Bryce: "Afghanistan is a different story." Yes, it is. And the fact that Bush hampered success in Afghanistan meant it took more effort to get it done. That is undeniable fact. Of course, your crew is unconstrained by facts, so I don't expect you to agree. However, the state of the war in Afghanistan, the degradation of the forces that were there and the negative impact that had, is firmly in the lap of Bush.

No, Bryce, it was not merely Bush's mishandling of the wars that blew up the deficit, but he did mishandle them, and we continue to suffer.

Are you the weasel zippers? You certainly like their website. Must be trying to advertize your site.

Guess what, TaterSpam, spam is spam and few care for your posts. They demonstrate the concentration, focus, and commentary of a 5 year old: "what about this? what about that?". Talk about creepy!

You weasel zipper you!

Can you talk to people in the after life?

YOU ARE CONFUSING:

"Bush tax cuts were decreases for all taxpayers, if you work for it what is wrong with keeping more. ... I think the reason he didn't end them was he wants to hurt the little people and reward the millionaires and billionaires or he doesn't have the courage"

WTF??? He didn't end tax cuts because he wants to hurt the little people? So tax hikes on the little people would help? WTF?

JWB..If the debt has always been around then dont worry about it. JMB you dont need to be so hostile toward a person that posts. I never accused one party I stated FACTS, that the republican party would not agree to ending the tax break for the wealthist 1% that was suppose to improve the economy, which it has not.. President Obama agreed to keeping the tax break for the 1% because the Republican congress would not extend unemployment. Forty years ago the difference between a CEO of a company and a laborer was 25%, it is now 400%. Look at the salaries and bonus of CEO of companys wether the company fails or suceedes, in the multi-millions.

Hey, JMB, here is YOUR lesson for the day:

While the Democrats held majorities in both the Senate and the House, the rules of the Senate can be - and were - abused by the GOP to force one to have a super-majority, requiring 60 votes to force an issue and actually be able to do "whatever you want".

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from Sep 24, 2009 thru Feb 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.

Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.

Read a detailed explanation and timetable here: http://goo.gl/nuons and here: http://goo.gl/isp4X, and then don't evah come back here posting "If Obama wanted to end them he could have, he complete control of house and Senate. So you need to ask Our Dear Leader why he didn't end them."

And just for grins, read why re-electing President Obama is the only way we protect our democracy (hint: 'cause if Romney were to win we'd get more judges like Scalia and the odds of getting Citizens United reversed in our lifetimes would be, well, low - unless you are under 5 right now - and no one, save the plutocrats and oligarchs want that - not even the Tea Party folks).

See my response to WJMB below. You should be ashamed of your comment.

(What's with so many commenters having "JMB" in their handle?)

That's what happens when posters don't user their real names.

The Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire for all Americans at the end of 2010. President Obama's position is that those tax cuts were helping working families and the middle class, but the tax cuts are designed in a way that provides the largest cuts to the top tax bracket, and the tax cut on income above $250,000 does not provide enough benefit to the country as a whole to justify the decrease in revenue.

So President Obama wanted to extend the cuts for all income under $250,000. The wealthy would still get a tax cut on their first $250,000 of income, but there is not sufficient reason to tax income above $250,000 at the decreased rate. The Tea Party Republicans refused to allow an extension for some of the cuts unless the inefficient part of the cuts were extended as well. They held everyone's tax cuts hostage (and were willing to "kill" the hostage) in order to get additional tax cuts for the wealthy.

Because President Obama knew the Tea Party Republicans were willing to "kill" the hostage (a preview of what would happen during the debt ceiling debate only 8 months later), he had to give in to their demands and extend all of the cuts. If he hadn't, the Tea Party Republicans would not have allowed any of the cuts to be extended, and that would've hurt the economic recovery (something the GOP was willing to accept, but the President wasn't).

When negotiating with someone willing to "kill" the hostage, it will often look like you lack backbone when you save the hostage.

That is a rather ignorant statement to make, WJMB. To think that the rich are a homogenous group to which a blanket label of "evil" can apply to... you're just as prejudiced as some of the conservatives I fight against (and I am acknowledging that were I to say "conservatives are evil" as a blanket statement, I would be just as ignorant).

There are evil rich people. There are virtuous rich people. It's no different than any other group of people.

Regardless, your argument is irrational even if your accusation was true. Tax policy should not be designed based on whether the person getting a tax cut is "evil" or "good", but based on the effect of the tax cut on economic growth and sustainability. That's why the tax cut on income above $250,000 is bad- it's inefficient economic policy. It is not because the individuals benefitting from it are "undeserving" (or anything along those lines).

XOXOXOX!

Why don't you change your alias to WeaselZippers already?

Come up with that on your own?

Hey JMB, posting lies so early on Sunday morning? Well, what's new, eh?

Are you really that ignorant, or just willing to post any lie that sounds plausible and says something "bad" about President Obama?

#1 - The stimulus worked. That is backed up by economists in the private sector. Watch and learn: http://youtu.be/zgG0WHxnMqw

#2 - The OMB says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, built along the lines suggested by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and modeled after Romneycare in Massechusetts (which has already demonstrated success) using as consultants who helped craft the Romney bill, will slow the growth of medial costs.

#3 - SS is not "going broke". Tsk, tsk - blatant lie on Sunday?

#4 - Ryan's plan and Romney's "concept paper" (no real plan yet) does nothing to strengthen Medicare, primarily because they want to destroy it. The President's plan added 8 years to the fiscal solvency of Medicare.

#5 - I'd rather Obamacare then Romney-I-don't-care any day of the week. You'll get the same sentiment from seniors who were caught in the "donut hole" and now whose drug costs have been reduced, the parents whose child is no longer going to be denied coverage for pre-existing medical condition, and from families with recent college grads who have not yet found an independent source of medical insurance able to stay on theirs.

#6 - President Obama did not create the Fed. In your ignorance, you include throwing in a comment about the quantitative easing as if it was bad and it was President Obama's fault. That is so baseless and ridiculous that it would almost be funny, save for the fact that there may be someone else out there reading it and thinking it "true". No President controls the Fed. However, one of the duties of the Fed is to address unemployment. Including "the Fed" in some list of "negative things" is like accusing President Obama because water is wet. Really grasping at straws there. You're close to making one believe JMB is an acronym for Just Mush for Brains.

#7 - "OBAMACARE , raiding Medicare to pay for it" Lie, lie, lie. Great explanation of the truth here: http://goo.gl/R5b7r (Note - this is a good source for any who want to understand the truth, as well as any who want to defend it.) It says "In fact, the law brings more money into the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund -- an estimated $318 billion over 10 years.", and Ryan "can't honestly say the law steals anything from the Medicare trust funds". Of course, there is the rub: Ryan doesn't care if what he says is honest. He just wants to win, and if being a serial liar, and getting his minions (you know who you are) to repeat serial lies helps, he will continue.

Fight plutocracy and oligarchy. Protect democracy. Obama/Biden 2012

Fancy a statement like that coming from a cartoon character!

It's not the articles that make for a nasty atmosphere. It's the trolls who intentionally try to turn the atmosphere nasty.

The solution is to strictly police trolling.

Intelligent discussion among disagreeing parties is possible, but only if the site is willing to ban those who try to spoil the community. I strongly support the 1st Amendment, but Patch is under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone that wants to troll.

Unfortunately that takes away from the credibility of what you post. You let the crazies bully you into hiding behind an alias. Why even bother wasting your time writing these posts if you're that worried? Move on to something else then.

Geoff: Why are you so intent on knowing a poster's "real" name? What does that have to do with anything? What, are you planning to do a background check on these people? Maybe insert their names in a partisan blog or smear campaign? It's just a name, and has no significance in terms of commenting on posts. Put down the red herring, and concentrate on the content of what you read, not finding out who it "really" is. BTW, we don't even know that your "real" name is what you say it is - are you planning to publish your home address and phone number? Otherwise...who knows?

Jim, the benefit of requiring posters to use their real name is that people would be less likely to write much of the rubbish that gets posted here if it was attached to their real name and not a pseudonym.

But, I do understand the security concerns. And for that reason, I think heavy moderation is the best solution, where anonymous posters have a shorter leash than those who are open with their identity.

What would you suggest is the solution to preventing the pitfalls we're witnessing?

It's too easy to just post any controversial BS just to debate what others post. Takes away from the article that started the mess in the first place as so many get way off topic. I'll bet once you've read down less than a third of the way through these posts you don't even remember what the article was about. Anonymous posters tend to do this and change the subject to whatever they want to debate. Maybe the Patch could do more checking to make sure the posts actually relate to the article and not whatever new subject someone wants to throw in.

JMB & Jim, I agree 100%, the people that critize a posters name and accuse them of hiding I just dont get it. I have been told to never use your real name on the internet ,especially in an open forum. You never know the mentally stability of others. Many cases of i.d theft, violence, etc. Nobody can verify that those claimming to use their REAL names are infact real names. Stay on subject and dont attack the poster.

Most of what is posted by the right is someone else's ideas. I don't think it takes away from my credibility, you and other's haven't addressed my facts. I post because I want the moderates to realize there is an alternative view. Your logic makes no sense, I shouldn't voice my opinion because I don't use my name. I will move on when I want to.

@JMB, Agree fully with comments toward FH Voice but don't let the fact that he is a paid leftist blogger cause you to get so upset to name call. When he states as fact that the "stimulus worked" and then uses made up facts ( lies) to try and support his position, we don't need to resort to name calling do we ? I like you, am sick of the out of control spending by Obama. Entitlements now have more than 50% of the populace getting money from the government. We are doomed as a nation if this continues. The democrat leaders are a bunch of drug pushers pushing entitlement to the masses. It it time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils which is what I do when I vote Republican. Both the dems and the repubs are for big government, I call them "republicats". Certainly the repubs are less evil than the dems but it is time for some of us to start voting Libertarian, the real party of less goverment.

Another link? Can't you come up with your own comments? Or don't you have any original thoughts?