what would really be great is to see elected officials and their supporters set a better example of personal intergrity and accept defeat. Al Gore was the first sore loser I can remember and that opened the flood gates to many more.

Al Gore was the opposite of a sore loser. Many of his supporters including me were hoping he wouldn't accept the theft by the supreme court and call for a street revolution.

Al Gore was the opposite of a sore loser. Many of his supporters including me were hoping he wouldn't accept the theft by the supreme court and call for a street revolution.

Al Gore was the opposite of a sore loser. Many of his supporters including me were hoping he wouldn't accept the theft by the supreme court and call for a street revolution.

Your honor i rest my case

A rather interesting article from a battleground state, Colorado.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COLORADO OBSERVER

Real Unemployment Reaches 20% In 7 Colorado Counties

September 28, 2012

By Tyler Sandberg

DENVER — The slowest economic recovery since World War II is going especially slow for sections of Colorado, according to a letter from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) obtained by The Colorado Observer.

In seven counties in Colorado unemployed individuals are close to or exceeding 20% of the population, a letter from the Chief Economist of CDLE to the U.S. Department of Agriculture says.

The letter, obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act, was sent August 29 as required by federal law. According to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, the Colorado Labor Department is required to certify counties where the “Not Employed Rate” surpasses 19.5%.

Read more here: http://thecoloradoob...orado-counties/

The woman has her camera turned on while she is pushing her cart through the store. We all do that, right? So she sees this young girl apparently registering voters on her way into the store. OK, got that. Then as she's coming out, she just so happens to have her phone on well before when the girl asks her a polling questions - which turns out to surprise her!

Perhaps the lady saw what was going on when entering the store, perhaps someone told her that this was going on. If this is going on with either party it should be exposed should it not?

You're right, taxpayers shouldn't be paying this girl to register voters for any one party. But if Obama can use millions of taxpayers' money to finance his campaign speeches, if people in his Admin can illegally use their positions to campaign for him, I'm not going to lose sleep over a single student caught outside a supermarket who isn't sure who is paying her (sounds like she was trying to make herself look legit and didn't realize it would be illegal). I am interested in seeing what comes from this. If there is any semi-truth behind it, I'm sure it'll be all over the news for a week and the NY Times' front page until election day.

Al Gore was the opposite of a sore loser. Many of his supporters including me were hoping he wouldn't accept the theft by the supreme court and call for a street revolution.

I get it now. When Romney loses, the diehards will say Obama stole the election and he isn't a legitimate president. Whatever!

Wait until a week before the election and the Super Pacs make Obama's sexual orientation an October Surprise. That'll be interesting.

Why, it's almost as disgraceful as the SEIU paying $11 an hour for demonstrators to protest against Romney.

What I found most disconcerting about that is not that these people were getting free Obamaphones and $11/hour to protest, what bothered me was later in the video every time one of them stopped to talk to the reporter, they were pulled away by their white, male handlers. So, here it is, you have a group of blacks, protesting against Romney, for Obama, and honestly believing in what they are doing regardless of the pay. That's cool. They believe so much that they were more than willing to tell the man with the microphone why they are there and what they believe but the white men in power pull them away like guards running a 1930's chain gang, "no talking on the line, [CRACK]!". I can see where some people might find that offensive.

I get it now. When Romney loses, the diehards will say Obama stole the election and he isn't a legitimate president. Whatever!

I would not say that he stole it. I would say that he conducted the most dishonest campaign in my lifetime and that the mainstream media was totally unethical and enabled it. I blame the media more than him.

I get it now. When Romney loses, the diehards will say Obama stole the election and he isn't a legitimate president. Whatever!

I would not say that he stole it. I would say that he conducted the most dishonest campaign in my lifetime and that the mainstream media was totally unethical and enabled it. I blame the media more than him.

Here is what Democratic pollster Par Caddell had to say in a speech about the media has abandoned its role as protecting the people from government, and instead, has joined sides with one political party. It's an interesting read. While he shows that Dems predictably think the media is doing a great job, and - also predictably - that Republicans think it is doing a bad job, what is most telling is that Independents agree with the Republicans that the media is untrustworthy.

Mainstream media is threatening our country's future

The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/#ixzz283WCxSFh

That's hilarious - and sad at the same time that some people think their souls will suffer eternal damnation if they vote for Obama when the only thing that will go to hell will be the country in a hand basket.

I find this action taken by the Obama administration outrageous. It is another instance of this administration's complete disregard for the laws of the land and the revolting use of government power to sway this election.

It is clearly an abuse of Executive privilege to direct a government contractor to disregard Federal law and then tell them any fines that result from the company's breaking of Federal law will be a reimbursable cost, to be paid by the Federal government.

It seems Lockheed has already knuckled under to this directive. They have said they will not issue possible lay off notices to some 123,000 employees as required by law.

However I do wonder what will happen to Lockheed and other contractors if Romney wins the election and follows his oath of office by enforcing the laws of the land, unlike Obama. Suddenly all those fines and litigation costs will no longer be a reimbursable cost.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House to contractors: Hold off on layoff warnings

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney September 28, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The White House on Friday told government contractors worried about fiscal cliff spending cuts to hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs. The government said it would cover legal costs if contractors are forced to slash their payrolls because of the looming $109 billion in automatic cuts next year and are alleged to have violated the WARN Act.

The federal WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. Some states require more notice.

"Any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome) would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable," the Office of Management and Budget said in its guidance.

http://money.cnn.com...liff/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least one Senator agrees with me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Graham: Obama move on defense layoff notices 'patently illegal'

By Jeremy Herb - 10/01/12 02:45 PM ET

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that he will do anything he can to block the Obama administration from reimbursing defense contractors for severance costs if the firms don’t send layoff notices to employees.

...from the article...

Graham and other Republicans were livid after the Obama administration issued the guidance on Friday telling contractors that their legal costs would be covered due to canceled contracts under sequestration, but only if they did not issue layoff notices before sequestration occurs — and before the November election.

“I will do everything in my power to make sure not one taxpayer dollar is spent reimbursing companies for failure to comply with WARN Act,” Graham told The Hill in a phone interview Monday. “That is so beyond the pale — I think it’s patently illegal.”

Read more outrage here: http://thehill.com/b...ff-notice-fight

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this action taken by the Obama administration outrageous. It is another instance of this administration's complete disregard for the laws of the land and the revolting use of government power to sway this election.

It is clearly an abuse of Executive privilege to direct a government contractor to disregard Federal law and then tell them any fines that result from the company's breaking of Federal law will be a reimbursable cost, to be paid by the Federal government.

It seems Lockheed has already knuckled under to this directive. They have said they will not issue possible lay off notices to some 123,000 employees as required by law.

However I do wonder what will happen to Lockheed and other contractors if Romney wins the election and follows his oath of office by enforcing the laws of the land, unlike Obama. Suddenly all those fines and litigation costs will no longer be a reimbursable cost.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House to contractors: Hold off on layoff warnings

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney September 28, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The White House on Friday told government contractors worried about fiscal cliff spending cuts to hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs. The government said it would cover legal costs if contractors are forced to slash their payrolls because of the looming $109 billion in automatic cuts next year and are alleged to have violated the WARN Act.

The federal WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. Some states require more notice.

"Any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome) would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable," the Office of Management and Budget said in its guidance.

http://money.cnn.com...liff/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least one Senator agrees with me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Graham: Obama move on defense layoff notices 'patently illegal'

By Jeremy Herb - 10/01/12 02:45 PM ET

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that he will do anything he can to block the Obama administration from reimbursing defense contractors for severance costs if the firms don’t send layoff notices to employees.

...from the article...

Graham and other Republicans were livid after the Obama administration issued the guidance on Friday telling contractors that their legal costs would be covered due to canceled contracts under sequestration, but only if they did not issue layoff notices before sequestration occurs — and before the November election.

“I will do everything in my power to make sure not one taxpayer dollar is spent reimbursing companies for failure to comply with WARN Act,” Graham told The Hill in a phone interview Monday. “That is so beyond the pale — I think it’s patently illegal.”

Read more outrage here: http://thehill.com/b...ff-notice-fight

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama is just a 70's throwback of a president, isn't he? Failing foreign and economic policies like Jimmy Carter, showing disregard for the law like Nixon and he looked like Ford that time he walked into one of the windows at the White House thinking it was a door.

I find this action taken by the Obama administration outrageous. It is another instance of this administration's complete disregard for the laws of the land and the revolting use of government power to sway this election.

It is clearly an abuse of Executive privilege to direct a government contractor to disregard Federal law and then tell them any fines that result from the company's breaking of Federal law will be a reimbursable cost, to be paid by the Federal government.

It seems Lockheed has already knuckled under to this directive. They have said they will not issue possible lay off notices to some 123,000 employees as required by law.

However I do wonder what will happen to Lockheed and other contractors if Romney wins the election and follows his oath of office by enforcing the laws of the land, unlike Obama. Suddenly all those fines and litigation costs will no longer be a reimbursable cost.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House to contractors: Hold off on layoff warnings

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney September 28, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The White House on Friday told government contractors worried about fiscal cliff spending cuts to hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs. The government said it would cover legal costs if contractors are forced to slash their payrolls because of the looming $109 billion in automatic cuts next year and are alleged to have violated the WARN Act.

The federal WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. Some states require more notice.

"Any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome) would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable," the Office of Management and Budget said in its guidance.

http://money.cnn.com...liff/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least one Senator agrees with me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Graham: Obama move on defense layoff notices 'patently illegal'

By Jeremy Herb - 10/01/12 02:45 PM ET

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that he will do anything he can to block the Obama administration from reimbursing defense contractors for severance costs if the firms don’t send layoff notices to employees.

...from the article...

Graham and other Republicans were livid after the Obama administration issued the guidance on Friday telling contractors that their legal costs would be covered due to canceled contracts under sequestration, but only if they did not issue layoff notices before sequestration occurs — and before the November election.

“I will do everything in my power to make sure not one taxpayer dollar is spent reimbursing companies for failure to comply with WARN Act,” Graham told The Hill in a phone interview Monday. “That is so beyond the pale — I think it’s patently illegal.”

Read more outrage here: http://thehill.com/b...ff-notice-fight

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama is just a 70's throwback of a president, isn't he? Failing foreign and economic policies like Jimmy Carter, showing disregard for the law like Nixon and he looked like Ford that time he walked into one of the windows at the White House thinking it was a door.

you left out pot smoking, high fiving/flying pimp

I find this action taken by the Obama administration outrageous. It is another instance of this administration's complete disregard for the laws of the land and the revolting use of government power to sway this election.

It is clearly an abuse of Executive privilege to direct a government contractor to disregard Federal law and then tell them any fines that result from the company's breaking of Federal law will be a reimbursable cost, to be paid by the Federal government.

Obama is just a 70's throwback of a president, isn't he? Failing foreign and economic policies like Jimmy Carter, showing disregard for the law like Nixon and he looked like Ford that time he walked into one of the windows at the White House thinking it was a door.

you left out pot smoking, high fiving/flying pimp

A real jive turkey.

Al Gore was the opposite of a sore loser. Many of his supporters including me were hoping he wouldn't accept the theft by the supreme court and call for a street revolution.

A street revolution, eh? Kinda like a coup you mean? Where the legimately elected government is overthrown by a bunch of street thugs?

...won't work. Got the National Guard, remember?

Al Gore was the opposite of a sore loser. Many of his supporters including me were hoping he wouldn't accept the theft by the supreme court and call for a street revolution.

A street revolution, eh? Kinda like a coup you mean? Where the legimately elected government is overthrown by a bunch of street thugs?

...won't work. Got the National Guard, remember?

Aren't they still in Afghanistan?

Pretty weak debate for the President I'd say. Romney looked well prepared and the next one ought to be interesting.

I've been back in the states a couple of months now and here in Washington state only Obama ads, no Romney at all. Not sure what the strategy there is as Obama is already polling to win this state with a wide margin.

Easy to see why Obama's theme is "Forward". Not much success to dwell on looking backward at these past 4 years.

Washington state is Obama definite. No need for ads.

Watching the news channels this morning in the UK.

All agree that Romney was outstanding in the debate, which is surprising, considering that no one over here gives him any chance of winning. Many comments that Obama was tired, lacking in credibility, lacking in policy.

Washington state is Obama definite. No need for ads.

sadly i have to agree with JT washington state is almost like the carolinas; one part is blue and the other red the blues occupy a small portion but have a large mass. tacoma, and spokane are red for sure but seattle with its sub culture and university controls the state although if the inmates in prison are not allowed to have their votes counted and the military votes are coounted there could be a swing.

Watching the news channels this morning in the UK.

All agree that Romney was outstanding in the debate, which is surprising, considering that no one over here gives him any chance of winning. Many comments that Obama was tired, lacking in credibility, lacking in policy.

This fella is spot on

Obama is just not a debate person so I didn't expect much really. What I do expect however is for him to pull Romney up when he tells bare in your face lies which the video maker TTA pointed out to some extent. It reminds me of corruption in Thailand, sure there is corruption in every country but in Thailand it is directly in your face, no effort is put into trying to cover it up.

Watch out. Now everyone thinks Obama is crap at debating. He now has two more debates to be somewhat above crap. He will meet that mark easily and come out smelling like roses for his second term.

Watch out. Now everyone thinks Obama is crap at debating. He now has two more debates to be somewhat above crap. He will meet that mark easily and come out smelling like roses for his second term.

Of course. He was just rope-a-doping Romney and now he has Romney right where he wants him. Brilliant strategy.

MSNBC has been doing damage control for the last 24 hours too, so it should all turn out well. Apparently the biggest issue, aside from Romney lying about everything, was the he was rude to president of the United States, perhaps even as rude as that long-forgotten candidate who in a debate said to Jimmy Carter "Well, there you go again". And of course we know what a success Carter's 2nd term would have been.

Watching the news channels this morning in the UK.

All agree that Romney was outstanding in the debate, which is surprising, considering that no one over here gives him any chance of winning. Many comments that Obama was tired, lacking in credibility, lacking in policy.

This fella is spot on

I would suggest that the video is even more damaging to Obama than his live performance.

Who would think that this idiot is an impartial observer? He comes across as a left-wing fanatic, bad-mouthing the opposition.

I have no particular brief for Romney, I think that there are probably hundreds of better candidates if they had the money to run. But Obama is not just driving the US down the hill to bankruptcy, he's dragging the Western world down with him.

Obama is just not a debate person so I didn't expect much really.

He was in 2008 before he had a record to run on that is truly pathetic. We won't get fooled again.

Obama is just not a debate person so I didn't expect much really.

He was in 2008 before he had a record to run on that is truly pathetic. We won't get fooled again.

No, he did poorly in the McCain debatetoo. A truly good debater can prosecute either side of an argument equally well regardless of what they believe in. Romney's a little bit like that, but most politicians can only argue their party line.

Obama is just not a debate person so I didn't expect much really.

He was in 2008 before he had a record to run on that is truly pathetic. We won't get fooled again.

Sorry, perhaps I should rephrase. Obama has never shown himself to be good in debates.

As for fooled again! the Republicans are offering exactly the same thing that failed in the past but with a new picture on the box. Albert Einstein said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" and this is what Romney and the Republicans are offering. A Romney government is JUST what the world does not need, if it was bad before and/or now then it will make things worse in the end. Obama wants to pay off the debt slowly by reduced spending but Romney wants to pay off the debt with a credit card which in the end you have to pay back while even more in debt. Even the most myopic can see this is less than a good idea.

Watch out. Now everyone thinks Obama is crap at debating. He now has two more debates to be somewhat above crap. He will meet that mark easily and come out smelling like roses for his second term.

I agree, he can't do any worse that's for sure.