JaneAusten

Oh I actually thought this evenings episode was my fave so far. I'm not much on the gore. I think the Govenor is a pretty interesting character and I'm getting the sense he has almost a Jesus / Julius Ceasar complex. Good to see Merle again. I'm a tad disappointed with Michonnes character, but I'm guessing we are going to see more focus and flushing out of her character as the season progresses.

I don't like Lori but I think she serves or served a purpose and was the catalyst to Rick and Shane's animosity, which was a huge motivating factor for Shanes turn in particular. I think her character will die because she will have outlived her usefulness as a character. I like the show is not afraid to kill off folks, even if they are well liked. They seem to stick to story and the show is better for it. Dale really wasn't needed once Hershel became a more prominent character and Shane isn't needed for conflict, as there is plenty without him and the Govenor will be showing up as the new antagonist.

Obama won the debate because he was aggressive and actually addressed a lot of the BS the GOP are spewing.i won't say it was a knockdown. Romney held his own to a great extent. I'm just pleased to see that Obama came out more forceful this time. Romney just continues to stick his foot in his mouth and no one cares.

And Mix It Up day in schools should be boycotted or shut down because it encourages kids to interact with homosexuals. The AFA is a sick organization.

I'm not absolving Clinton, the CIA,and a multitude of others for responsibility. What I don't like is that she's stepping forward one day before the debate. It smells of an attempt to take the heat off the president because of the upcoming debate and election. I don't care for the appearance of Obama hiding behind the culpability of others or at least appearing to.

It's crap. As President the buck stops with him. Perhaps it was the state dept that denied the embassy in Libya's plea's for beefed up security, which is Hilary's domain, but he is the president. The presidential thing to have done would have been for him to step up and accept some responsibility or at least talk directly to the American people about what happened. I hate this because it seems like its being done to deflect attacks on Obama. For the record I'm not enamored with either candidate.

The series has veered off the comic book series some. Dale , Sophia, at this point would still be alive and Carol would have had the comic book been followed. In Lori's case I think I read in the comic They might end up doing that who knows but I don't think Lori is making it past this season.

That's higher than last year I think and that's without Dish customers also. Amazing.

The whole birther issue is about racism. Do folks really believe if Obama's skin color was not black that anyone would have even touched that issue? It's insulting that the President of the United States is forced into a situation where to refute the idiocy of the claim, proof of his birth had to be shown, even knowing he's been a public figure for years, went through a ton of background checks over the years , and was likely again subjected to a more intensive check when he ran for President. And that was all driven by no more than his race, I don't care what anyone says or claims. And I want those folks who are supporting Romney to tell me what more tax cuts for the rich are going to do. Aren't Bush's tax cuts still in place and I don't see that stimulating any job growth so of course the answer is more cuts for the wealthy. People like Romney who have benefitted from these Bush tax cuts invest their money where? Not in the US it seems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/the-walking-dead-glen-mazzara-season-3_n_1949236.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

I just love how some feel they can judge certain,populations and,feel they are somehow disposable just because they need a little extra help. Maybe we should adopt Hitlers principles,and just kill off the millions certain segments of our population feel are such a drain on,our country. How do all those who feel we are somehow failing Israel in this thread feel about that.? Didn't Hitlers propaganda machine capitalize on the fact that anti-Semitism existed at the time? What's the difference here? I mean if those needy folks are so,repulsive and hinder us so so much let's just dispose of them. There are folks on both sides that take advantage and use and abuse the system. What about the billions of dollars in handouts the government gave to the bankingindustry, money they can't even tell anyone how it's been used. And it hasn't saved anything or altered the behavior of you know,the smart guys. At least the auto industry has tangible improvements. I also can't stand how extremists on both sides can't discuss reasonably. Them when you try to discuss something rationally, you're then accused of covering up how you really feel, hiding the fact you really love Obama. And so why does loving someone (if thats the case) mean you have to have blind faith. Listen don't tell me about California. Come,to,Illinois another state that is broke. I know how corruptive democrats can be just as well as republicans. We have a lengthy trail of corrupt and unethical democratic leadership in this state, and a history of some, fairly decent moderate effective republican politicians. Men and women who are moderates who have been disenfranchised by the current republican Leadership. Men and women who were good public servants and did well for,our state. I admit to leaning more democratic than republican these days but that's got a,lot to do with the party alienating me because they seem to detest and abhor what I believe in now and have disenfranchised me.

But where is the evidence Americans do less. When Roosevelt instituted the WPA, there werea multitude of reasons, one very important one was idleness leads to hopelessness. People don't work and lose hope. The WPA didn't turn around the depression but it helped the moral of our citizens and kept up hope. That's part of what the stimulus package was supposed to do, was to help our infrastructure while putting people to work. The American people overall are generous and giving. We give and give and give to many and seem to have no issue giving billions to other countries but when it comes to helping our own, it's all selfishness and bitterness. If we expect all our own citizens to be able to pick up and help themselves, why our our expectations for countries around the world whom we give to protect so much different. As for people taking and using the system and being lazy, I don't believe it. In the mid to late 90s we had unemployment of between 3 and 4 percent. And it's a fact that in this country we will always have a percentage of our population that will never work, which is estimated to be between 2 and 3 percent of the population. So the point is when there were jobs and our economy was relatively healthy, people wanted to work and those who wanted to did. One of the few things Ron Paul is right about is stop giving away to other countries what you don't have and take care of your own business.

Frankly I don't know what he was trying to say other than pander to the elitists and millionaires he was speaking to. And he did go back and sort of quantify what he meant by the tax statement. It doesn't mean he explained it well or what he said made sense or was even correct. This is a guy who's stuck his foot in his mouth multiple times. I guess I've just become immune to his hiccups because he's done it so much it's just almost in one ear out the other.

Well when you have a mentality that health insurance is some sort of gift and it's ok when 28 percent of the population is not insured what do you expect. The government also provides grants to businesses, how about that grant that Prospect Park supposedly got from the federal government to help fund the startup of an Internet channel. They provide grants to help incent entrepreneurs to venture into areas that are viewed to be potential growth areas or underserved. Green technology and business startups are also entitled to government grants as another example. And when did we become a country not willing to help their own. All these folks who want to cut benefits to our own citizen ship, seem to have no issue continuing to send troops overseas, increase our defense budget, and continue to send billions of dollars to Israel, Pakistan, India, etc.

In all fairness to Romney, his comments were geared to the audience he was addressing and who knew they'd get out. And I do think some of its taken out of context. On the flip side, in today's world with social media and such, nothing is a secret or kept mum so you need to be careful what you say to anyone. Those numbers don't include payroll taxes and if you listen to Romney, his opinion is that social security and Medicare are not taxes as Americans receive both contributions back in later years as retirement benefits

I think the only thing that wasn't factual that Romney said was that the 47percent of the population that don't pay federal income tax are Obama supporters and that in not paying federal income tax, they are in some sense considered to be receiving handouts from the government. The 47 percent is made up of 1. 52 percent are folks who are employed that make 50,000 dollars a year or less. 2. 32 percent are folks who are on social security or disability 3. 16 percent are folks that are actually folks who are unemployed so I guess forget the blue and red states, he's assuming that the list of folks above will not vote for him period And yes I do believe more is being made out of this than should but I do think it's just another indication that he appears to be out of touch. But then consider the people he was addressing and then put his statement in the proper context, right or wrong.

Im not excusing Romney I just have a hard time believing he understands anything he says. And I don't mean that in any way complementary or in an way as justification. Besides running a terrible campaign and not agreeing with some of the fundamentals he believes in, I just don't understand WHY he wants to be president. I understood why Obama, Clinton, Bush, McCain, etc. did. I just don't think he gets it. The Kennedy family grew up with silver spoons, but I always felt that they really believed in public service and I believe people like Obama, Clinton, McCain, yes even Bush do. Romney seems to shudder at it. He and his father seem miles apart in that respect. Romney also made comments in that speech about Hispanics which were very, well how can I say, derogatory, and I don't think he meant it to be. Hes just a very out of touch clueless man. He needs to go back to running Bain and sheltering his millions offshore.

Every president from Richard Nixon on has failed to develop and implement a decent energy policy. I'm not excusing Obama, but gasoline consumption is down in the United States . i guess we could attribute that to the economy but it hasn't stopped gasoline prices from going up.

Remember that folks who are on social security pay no income tax unless their income is greater than I think 25,000 a year.My brother is on permanent disability and receives some additional income from his part time at home job and some investment income and he still takes in less than 25,000 a year and believe it or not, lives comfortably. Those states don't shock me as I think aside from New Mexico, the rest are relatively inexpensive states to live in in terms of state , property, sales taxes so it would kind of make sense that some lower income Americans might gravitate to the southern states In particular. Isn't that , aside from the climate, one of the reasons seniors have gravitated to Florida is that it has a lower cost of living?

Ok I don't want to defend Romney but there was an article in the local paper this morning and it talked about Americans paying taxes. In 2009 and 2010, 47 and 46 percent of Americans did not pay federal income tax. Now that doesn't mean they didn't pay other taxes, they still payed into social security, payed sales taxes, state taxes, county taxes where applicable. All it says is in those years that a percentage of the population didn't have to pay federal income tax, whether it was due to income level or tax incentives. Now I have no idea, Romney might have been referring to that statistic in general I have no clue, and we really don't know what the entire context was of what he said. As for unemployment, it's a given that there will always be a certain percentage of the population that will never work for a variety of reasons, I think that number is somewhere between 3 and 4 percent. So when unemployment is at 4 percent, it's assumed that anyone who wants to work or is capable of it, is working.

Im going based on stats, and in the US for example, women still struggle to get recognition over men, examples, look at how many women are CEOs or executives across the workforce, to who has influence in the entertainment industry, etc. Women represent over 50 percent of the population but when you look at leadership in various facets of our society, it's no where near equal. I'd call that as great an imbalance as any minority has had to deal with to date. I don't know where anyone is saying Obama didn't run a better campaign and that the time wasn't ripe for his candidacy. Not everything is about hating the opposition, sometimes someone just does a better job. And I still say if Hilary was a man the rules wold have been completely different for her.

I want to know who said democrats hated either Hilary or Obama. That's like saying folks hated Elizabeth Dole because she wasn't nominated as a republican nominee when she ran.. All it says is our society is less ready to have a woman as a leader than an African American male. And perhaps if Hilary didn't come across as polarizing(and I like her) and the Clinton baggage had passed, she might have been a more fominitable opponent. Time heals all wounds as is evidenced by the fact the democratic party are back to embracing the Clintons, which hasn't been the case for a long time.

d

I think as the election has gotten closer, emotions on both sides have been heightened. But aside from a few posts now and then, the dialogue for the most part has been pretty respectful in this thread and good debates. I think the nicknames on both sides are childish and serve no purpose and I frankly don't see the point as it just heightens the stereotypes each candidate has been labeled with. As for race being a factor in Obama winning, I still don't believe it or at least not to the same degree. the Washington Post in 2008 did an article that was picked up by a lot of the media across the country outlining why being a woman was a greater hindrance than being an AA man and that there is much more to overcome for a woman than there is for an African American in terms of a presidential election. Hilary may have been the most electable woman of that time and may still be but that doesn't mean she would have ever been elected president at that time. I believe taking away JUST his color, Obama still would have beat her in the primaries. All the same things that attracted voters to him, his freshness, message of hope, relative inexperience in Washington, the appearance of non partisanship, still applied. I'll always like Hilary, but all the worst of the Clinton years got absorbed by her and unlike this year, there was still a lot of vitriol. The media hates Romney? Well not to me but the media definitely hated Hilary and it was guilt by association at the time. But time heals all wounds and now all those things the public hated the Clinton's for are forgotten. Bill is now the elder statesman and Hilary doing diplomatic work, in a role that tends to rise above partisanship.

Max I thought you were above this. And you know what for every vote he may have gotten in 2008 because he was African American, there was at least one person for each one of those who voted against him because he was African American. He won because of voter turnout and because younger people in particular were energized by his freshness and message and turned out in record droves. He attracted voters that are normally complacent and don't vote. Republicans it seems are the only ones who seem to care about younger people voting or not voting and want voter turnout low because they know it favors them. Do you recall what voter tour out was in 2008? That's why Obama won. I don't need to defend Marceline, but have you read her posts? She's not an Obama cheerleader and seems IMO to be pretty objective. I myself have voted republican in our state elections in Illinois. The last 2 decent governors we had, Edgar and Thompson were republican while the democratic party in this state tends to be partisan. But I will tell you both of those gentleman are no longer involved in politics or the party because they are moderates and have both gone on the record saying they feel disenfranchised by the republican party of today. Don't blame those of us who may support the democratic candidate this go around because the current republican party is a mess and they've lost good people because of it, like the 2 I've mentioned.