Romney and Obama spar over Apple’s Mac, iPad, and iPhone manufacturing jobs

Apple Inc., iPad, Macintosh, and iPhone all made an appearance in the second 2012 U.S. Presidential debate, held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York last night.

From the transcript:

CANDY CROWLEY: iPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China. One of the major reasons is labor is so much cheaper here. How do you convince a great American company to bring that manufacturing back here?

MITT ROMNEY: The answer is very straightforward. We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China’s been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There’s even an Apple store in China that’s a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis, that’s number one.

Number two, we have to make America the most attractive place for entrepreneurs, for people who want to expand their business. That’s what brings jobs in. The president’s characterization of my tax plan…
ROMNEY: …is completely…is completely…
ROMNEY: …is completely false. Let me tell you…

CROWLEY: Let me to go the president here because we really are running out of time. And the question is can we ever get — we can’t get wages like that. It can’t be sustained.

BARACK OBAMA: Candy, there are some jobs that are not going to come back. Because they are low wage, low skill jobs. I want high wage, high skill jobs. That’s why we have to emphasize manufacturing. That’s why we have to invest in advanced manufacturing. That’s why we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got the best science and research in the world. And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them, and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race.

If we’re not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country. Then companies won’t come here. Those investments are what’s going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy, not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now.

CROWLEY: Thanks Mr. President.
CROWLEY: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs.

Our iCal [aka Calendar] icons are hopping up and down:

“When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president,” Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher reported for The New York Times on January 21, 2012. “But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States? Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. ‘Those jobs aren’t coming back,’ he said, according to another dinner guest.”

Additonally, Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports today for Fortune, “In his answer, the President was actually echoing Steve Jobs, who at a Silicon Valley dinner in early 2011 urged Obama to find a way to train more American engineers. Walter Isaacson begins the story in his Steve Jobs biography: Apple had 700,000 factory workers employed in China, [Jobs] said, and that was because it needed 30,000 engineers on-site to support those workers. “You can’t find that many in America to hire,” he said. These factory engineers did not have to be PhDs or geniuses; they simply needed to have basic engineering skills for manufacturing. Tech schools, community colleges, or trade schools could train them. “If you could educate these engineers,” he said, “we could move more manufacturing plants here.” (Steve Jobs, p. 546).”

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]


    1. Who cut your education?

      In the past few years I have been trying to figure out how “loose” has replaced LOSE.
      Only thing I can come up with… Laziness/ignorance. No auto correct will add another O.

      Even tried to see if it was some “pop culture” thing… Nope, just stupid people thinking they are spelling it right.

    2. No, you can actually cut the cost of schools by small or large amounts and be better off. Money does not educate nor will it provide better students. Waste of tax payer money and stubborn school systems that fail to provide monitoring of teacher results with the resulting improvements or decline of grades for students. If you look at the cost per student in the best schools, public or private, and learn what makes that happen then our public schools will improve. A schools system need involvement from business and overseen by the public which it represents. The flow of money will never correct the dducations system. Only improved standards and constant evaluation of students in the first six years of school using technology that teachers are resisting you need loads of statistical data to find the areas or people to fix. Money is not an answer and has contributed to the failing of the schools since it supports the core problems.

      1. Spoken like a GOP talking point robot, you have no clue what you are talking about, have no clue how education works and have NO solution what-so-ever.

        You just want to short change our kids and America’s future because you don’t want to open the wallet. Your greed is holding America back, face it, it’s true. We can have endless wars, record profit taking and bonuses from wall street and the banks WE bailed out, but we cannot properly fund our schools? Our national priorities are skewed.

        Kids are not widgets on an assembly line, what works for one fails another. The cookie cutter approach doesn’t work, it turns out automatons. Quality comfortable, working facilities help, hi tech tools and lower class sizes also work. All that takes money, schools are being run dry by state and federal governments and tea-bagger policy making.

        Quit blaming the teachers, they are facing epic numbers of children with one parent (who works multiple jobs) and children who are starving and poor. We bred this outside the school, and until we fix things outside the school those students are going to struggle.

        Why does a school administrator make a six-seven figure salary when a teacher starts at 20-30K facing 100K in student loans and growing, because the only way to get a raise is more education? Any bad teachers in the system are their because an administrator failed to properly document and remediate the deficiencies and have them tossed. The issue IS the government (funding, stupid mandates like NCLB) and poor administration.

          1. I suggest you go volunteer at a school full time for a week. Your questions lead me to believe that you are a believer in the nonsense political ideology that blames teachers (and I am sure: UNIONS) for the decline in American students output. I am going to tell you right now, that could not be FURTHER from the truth.

            I have worked in public and private schools as well as corporate and small business environments. (Educated IT pro) and let me tell you teachers work VERY hard. They also mostly do it with more tact and decorum than any work place I have ever been outside of schools. They MIGHT have a planning period to actually grade papers, work on lessons, explore new content to augment a lesson, but more often than not, that work goes home at the end of the day.

            Most get a 30 minute lunch. For every subordinate (student) that they have, there is usually one or more parents subverting their authority, not ensuring homework gets completed, not helping students study, not getting them to school on time, not addressing the behavior issues their kid displays in class DISTRACTING and INTERRUPTING the lessons. Not feeding the kids (hungry crabby kids do not make good students) complaining to the administration over grades, expecting special treatment, and on and on.

            It is a VERY demanding, often demeaning job. Regulations require constant ongoing education, the only way to get a raise is to take more college courses at night. Cannot easily move or go to another district if you have many years of experience, budgets are cut so much schools only want to hire fresh, inexperienced (NOT GOOD YET) teachers because they can get away with paying 18-25 K for them. Tell me one other job with masters and doctorate degrees where their performance is judged by welfare recipients, luddites and garbage men? Yes, they know they will not be getting rich, but c’mon, they face silly questions like your everyday.

            In answer to how teachers are accountable: You cannot. You cannot simply say here are 27 kids, if you want a raise or to keep your job they must all be at level X by the end of the year. IT JUST ISN’T POSSIBLE. Too many variables the teacher cannot control. She cannot make a kid want to learn, she cannot make him not day dream, she cannot make him come to school, she cannot control all the things working against her.

            What can and what do they do? Make innovative curriculum, use non-traditional techniques to engage students. Try to educate the parents, ASK the community for help.

            Go to some schools on reading night, see how few parents and students attend. usually around %25. The teacher is often mandated curriculum, they have state mandated testing, federally mandated testing. If the teacher is fulfilling those requirements she is doing her job, she deserves to be paid. It does not EVER guarantee the final outcome of the students. Budget cuts have led to skyrocketing classroom size, a single teacher in a room full of 27 kids has less time available for individualized instruction/remediation than a teacher with 15.

            The parent & students ACCOUNTABILITY is the issue, not most teacher. Americans no longer care for or value hard work, sacrifice, we want leisure and entertainment. Sure there will always be a few bad one, no matter the profession, that is the administrations role. The administration of EVERY school contains the highest paid people there, and often the least effective.

            Don’t even get me started on how very little we teach critical thinking skills. That needs to be changed at the state and federal level.

            1. I cannot see myself working in a school. I will admit there are wonderful teachers out there and also bored and mediocre teachers, and some that are just awful, but I do agree that there is a tend in the country to blame other people and chose leisure over hard work.

              That said we do have problems in this country with our education system where other countries do far better than we do. I think we should be willing to see what makes other countries work better and how can we improve. I feel there is resistance to progress largely institutionalized by unions.

              You are welcome to feel differently but you have given me a laundry list of excuses why teachers have problems. Excuses are never solutions.

  1. If Obama needs so much help from transparent and vapid left-leaning “moderators,” is he really fit to run the greatest nation on the face of the earth?

    The guy is an empty suit draped over an empty chair.

    Good thing the public can see what’s happening:

    “He’s been bullshitting the public with the media behind him.”

        1. According to Wikipedia, “Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into Völkisch nationalism. Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival.”
          And yet I thought you Uber-right wingers considered Obama a communist, or at a minimum a socialist. You guys really need to get your propaganda straight.

            1. If you’d bother doing a little reading on pre-WWII Germany, you’d learn that the name of the party had nothing to do with Hitler and his actions. Hitler wanted to find a weak party in which he could quickly purge rivals, consolidate support, and then use the party to drive his push to power. After he hijacked the NSDAP, the party was socialist in name only, and fascist in practice.

            2. You must hurt yourself getting out of the way of your own ignorance. Socialist has nothing to do with anything. The Nazi’s were on the right, the “Communists” were on the left. The American “Democrats” as in party, stifled the growth of “Communism” by advocating more equity in the Capitalist system by its own citizens. It prevented the USA from falling to extremists on either side of the political spectrum and made us the strongest nation of the era.

        2. And the PR machine from the right who convinces everyone that the way to make money is to let “Captains of Industry” control fiscal and tax policy? Where in the history of the world has that ever been true. Go stick your Ayn Rand up your ass.

          1. You are in a global economy. You can actually tax American businesses out of business. A foreign business with a 10 to 15% tax at home can eat American businesses alive.

            That’s the message the American businessmen keep trying to get into your thick Democratic heads.

            1. And Mitt said last night he wants to broaden “free trade agreements” with central and south America. more NAFTA, more job drain, more offshore facilities.

              That is his specialty, OFFSHORING, he will support it, promote it, and unemployment will not improve.

              Believe him, he is good at “business” and by business he means profiting by reduction and offshoring. It is his bread and butter, it could not be any plainer to see, why do you fools not get it?

            2. I am afraid you simply don’t understand.

              You can’t blockade or legislate penalties on business to keep them in the US (besides being immoral (do you think you are better or more deserving than Canadians or south americans? I don’t) Besides it just don’t work (as is evidenced by current migrations)

              Why would I build something in the US and pay a minimum 35% of my earnings to the government in tax when I could build it in canada and pay 15%? (not to mention enduring five to tenfold the regulation and red tape)

              The way to keep business in the US is to lower the cost of doing business, and stop limit all the federal (most of it nearly useless) legislation and regulations. This would simultaneously make them (US businesses) more competitive in the export markets. Simply erecting walls to limit ability to source the most efficient manufacturing tend to raise prices and make us less competitive in export markets.

              Obama has over taxed and over regulated business (to the point where it costs significantly more to manufacture here in the US) His method to offset this is government subsidies.
              He truly believes big business and “profits” are evil.
              Obama even said (in the debate) that he wanted to tax the money US companies made overseas (which would simply force international companies to move their home offices to a place like Canada) We currently have an over taxed, over regulated and downright hostile environment to attempt to do business in. That needs to stop now. The last thing we need to do is to erect more barriers, more laws, more red tape, and levy even more penalties on businesses. (like outsourcing penalties)

              Rather, what the US needs to to, is make the US a competitive place to conduct you business (with other countries (like Canada)).

            3. I didn’t advocate any blockade, I didn’t talk about Obama. I specifically pointed out what Mittens is rich from:

              Buying a company, raiding it’s assets, firing middle management, raiding the pension funds, offshoring the labor, laying off the American Labor, sell it, profit obscenely.

              That IS what Mitt and Bain DO, it is indisputable.

              Legal? YES Moral? Not in my world.

              He will be friendly to this industry, it will continue, this business model is antithetical to US job growth, bottom line. Don’t stand in front of me and tell me you are for American workers and jobs when you have a twenty year history that is the opposite of your narrative.

              Gloss over it all you want, make excuses all you want. It doesn’t make it not true, it means you don’t care.

              One doesn’t have to beleive Obama is going to be great for this land to think Mittens is going to be horrible. Worse than Ford, Worse than Bush, more crooked than Nixon. Mark my words, part of me hopes he wins, so everyday I can point out to people like you what a huge mistake you are making.

              The guy makes my skin crawl, every time his mouth opens he lies. He is phony, stiff, heartless and cruel. I think his religion is a cult and quite frankly we do not need cultists and religion extremists running this country IMO.

              I also do not think BO has done enough, but I also know that over 200 pieces of legislation were shot down by the GOP, whose stated goal was to be uncooperative and see to it he had one term. I do not find that approach or mindset to be acceptable, so I am willing to see if he starts swinging hammers as a second termer.

              I am more comfortable with the thought of him continuing than Mitt coming in, it is that simple.

    1. I saw that guy last night, laughed so hard that it got out there on live TV.

      I bet Fox is going to get in some FCC trouble for that. But it was cable TV.. So they might be able to get away with it.

    2. It’s very upsetting that all Presidential debates are hosted by liberal media wonks, and last night’s debate was the worst with Candy Crowley was the most transparently biassed of them all, covering for Obama on the Libya question. Quite disgusting.

      Why aren’t there a mix of conservative and liberal moderators? Why is the country being held hostage by only 1 side having a chance to moderate?

        1. I’m not paranoid at all, just offended that one side completely dominates the discussion and people that are not leftist democrats have to work hard to get real information that’s not filtered through liberal bias.

          1. This simply isn’t true. You just don’t like that truth has a liberal bias.

            Your news shouldn’t be filtered through ANY political ideology nor should it be vetted by government or industry. Once any of that happens it ceases to be news and becomes instead propoganda.

            This is the very simple reason I do not watch Fox News. I mean have you ever listened to Ann Coulter or Hannity. More hate and BS wrapped in the flag than any sane person should ever be subjected too, all spewed for partisan hacks so they will buy the book. It is disgusting.

            1. “The guy makes my skin crawl, every time his mouth opens he lies. He is phony, stiff, heartless and cruel. I think his religion is a cult and quite frankly we do not need cultists and religion extremists running this country IMO.”

              Is this the liberal bias you were talking about? This is exactly the kind of narrow minded bigoted hate speech that I have become used to hearing from the left. Ignore Fox News all you want, but there is no justification for religious bigotry. None.

              Romney has lead a life where he has shown live and compassion for others. Like Steve Jobs, Romney didn’t go around bragging about his acts of compassion.

              Sometimes political bias can be so bad you can’t even see the human behind people you disagree with politically. You have this problem.

      1. So by your logic, Bush is to blame for 911 right? He should have just quit then and there? Why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill?

        She fact checked the FALSEHOOD that came from Romneys mouth, on the fly. It’s called journalism folks. No more softballs, call it like it is. Mitt lied.

        1. No the moderator and Obama lied. He did mention terrorism but he absolutely did not say the Libya attack was a terrorist attack right away or even within the first several weeks.

          Bush bears some responsibility for Sept 11, as does Clinton who let Obama go several times and idiotically tried to deal with international terrorism through the woefully inadequate criminal courts.

          The problem with the assassination in Libya of our ambassador is that it was preventable and it was predictable that there would be an attack on Sept 11 on an embassy in an unstable country with known and active al Quada cells, and Obama or someone under him refused to adequately secure the consulate there, for reasons that still haven’t been explained.

          1. And… what I want to know… is where did the story about it being a protest over a video tape come from?

            If that story was thought up by Obama’s campaign spinmeisters and not actually “bad intel” as was claimed and
            then told to the american people AND the UN by obama (and his cabinet) they we have a extremely serious situation here.

            But of course the media, normally charged with being the watchdogs of political crimes and misdoing, are nothing more than the lapdogs of this president. And so aren’t even asking “excuse Mr President where did the “story” you told in the rose garden the morning after the attack come from… specifically?”

          2. The other problem with the Libya was that Obama was feeding us and the world misinformation for two weeks.

            Why? Well, a couple weeks earlier, Obama was at the Democratic Convention spiking the football for killing Osama bin Laden and telling us that he had al Qaida on the run.

            Then, we had the first successful terrorist attack on U.S. sovereign territory since 9/11, and on the very anniversary and by al-Qaida-linked killers.

            This was not helpful to the Obama narrative. He had to convince us it wasn’t al Qaida. So, he sent the US Ambassador to the UN on the Sunday talk show circuit to tell everybody it was merely movie demonstration that went out of control. She appeared on five different shows to spin the yarn. Obama, too, went around telling the tale. He even said it at the UN.

            Obama lied. People died. It’s a fact.

    3. So now you guys need to blame the moderators for your guy’s fuck ups?? At most, all the moderator did was draw additional attention to your guy’s fuck up. As you say, it’s a good thing the public can see what’s happening. Who says the left and the right can’t agree?

      1. This moderator went after the Tea Party claiming they were racist. She’s a well known liberal media hack. But unlike the previous moderators who were willing to let the debates take place between the candidates she interjected herself and lied on Obamas behalf and let the matter drop.

        We still hear about Watergate where no one died because the president was a republican. Obama is democrat so 4 Americans can be assassinated under his watch with almost no security while there’s a marine detachment in Paris. No one gets to question why, nor ask why it took 3 weeks to arrive at the location to gather what little evidence there was still left, nor why they had to beg for security and it was denied. All because Obama is a democrat, and this is why a bias leftist lying moderator is a serious problem.

        This is not paranoia. Watergate wasn’t paranoia it was a crime. This is even worse since people died. That people on the left are not outraged shows how little integrity liberals and democrats have: none.

        1. Don’t forget Fast and Furious. This was a program supported (and now hidden) by the Obama administration that provided guns to Mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Americans and hundreds of Mexicans.

          What was Obama’s response to the Fast and Furious question at the debate? Oh, that’s right. He wouldn’t answer it.

    4. “Obama voter” tells Fox focus group… yet another example of “fair and balanced” news.

      You aren’t worth the trouble, F10T12. If you actually influence anyone with your posts, then they are likely beyond help or hope, anyway.

      1. Instead of bagging on F10F12 or me for that matter make your own points. It’s easy to tear someone else down for what they say, what do you have to add to the discussion?

        I can respect that you disagree with me but at least have something to say.

    5. I have to assume you are thinking along some party dogma. If you think the solution is money, maybe you can double your contribution blindly to the cause. But, by giving teacher more time and reducing cost per sstudent allows more supplies. We are well aware the school system will blindly spend money with actually helping the students. Maybe by allowing systems to provide constant checks of class work and automac my provide feedback to which students need help would help they would not ask for or hide in embarrassment. But, get off the political crap and look for solutions. Throwing money at a broken machine hurts the students and teachers. You, my weak minded friend, are the problem. Look at our major networks and see what information is gathered and how it ” helps” them provide more precise help or services with results. I hate you political hacks. A lot of words with little thought. And yes, we need to rid the school system of the deadwood and lazy of teachers. If they are so brilliant, they should have no problem changing careers… Right? Protect a bad teacher and how many innocent students do you harm? Think a little!

    6. If Mitt Romney becomes president we’re all in trouble. Obama is no saint but I would hate to think what sort of havoc Romney would wreak. Not only on the USA but also on the entire world. He has already admitted to not caring about almost half the population.

  2. Romney is a clueless idiot if he thinks cheap Chinese manufacturing jobs can come back to the US. It displays a remarkable lack of knowledge about a serious issue for what could be the most powerful man on the planet.

        1. You know I saw that on twitter and thought how sad.
          Romney said he wasn’t satisfied that the only candidates for his cabinet were men (which was what he was given) so he went out and looking and came back with a binder full of women. It was a pretty obvious shortening of “a binder full of potential women applicant’s resumes”
          How inane and desperate do the Obama supporters have to be to attempt to clutch at something like that as a faux pax.

          Breeze, you just dropped about 3 notches in my estimation (and I would think most of the sane people on this forum) for repeating such stupidity.

          1. Let’s start with a concept you don’t seam to get, to dislike Romney does not automagically make you an “Obama supporter”. I’m no such thing, he is a moderate republican from where I sit. I am a long way from being his supporter. That is the problem with you partisans, you do not listen to anyone except your chosen party and adopt this inflexible us vs. them mentality full of hyperbole and stupidity. Is it any wonder nothing gets done or fixed in Wash? I call BS, it is by design. We NEED a third, fourth, fifth party in this country to break up the grid lock and endless policy flip-flopping. We need a government accountable to we the people, not we the corporations.

            That said I can NOT stand Mitt Romney, he is a liar first and foremost, a misogynist second, and has not one original idea, NOT ONE. his positions flip flop daily. Also he is a Mormon bishop, sorry but the convicted con-man turned prophet that started that cult doesn’t convince me. Might as well be scientology, kooky BS is what you get. You are telling me you want a religious cultist running the free world? I DON’T. If that offends you TOO BAD.

            Now on to the topic at hand, the Romney Binder.. Ask yourself why he did it, admirable on face value it may appear, but I content it was for political points only. Why do I think that? 1984-2001 the Romney Bain years, ZERO women advanced to partner level. So clearly it isn’t a core belief of his to advance women. I would argue that Mormonism itself is incredibly unbalanced toward women and any religion that supports polygamy isn’t trying to see women and men equal.

            Lets look at his answer to the lilly-ledbetter asp?) act question last not. Not only did he not answer it directly, he didn’t voice support for it AT ALL. he rambled about flexible scheduling so women can work and still cook dinner and take care of the kids. WOW, if that isn’t a sexist misogynistic view of the issue, I don’t know what is. The question was about employment oppurtunity and pay, and Romneys plan is making work hours more flexible so the women can cook us some damn dinner.. Back in the kitchen ladies, Romneys in charge..

            1. Anyone who calls Obama a “moderate Republican” does not have an opinion worth listening to. I appreciate that you did the me the courtesy of writing that first so I didn’t have to be subjected to the rest of whatever you typed out.


            2. The statement “he is a moderate republican” is ambiguous but it seems to line up with Obama as he is the most recently mentioned individual to the ambiguous pronoun.

            3. His cognitive function seems to be impaired.

              I said: “he is a moderate republican from where I sit.”

              Let me break that down for him:




          2. Too hard for the rabid Libs to figure out Romney meant a binder full of women applicant’s resume’s. The rest of the logical thinking world got it and moved on. Pot smoke must’ve clouded the Lib’s thought processes too much last night.

          3. And you miss the point completely, Tessellator. The GOP has been ardently anti-affirmative action since affirmative action was invented. That is, until Romney suddenly decided he was for it. He now says he turned away rooms full of well qualified men who had applied for the jobs, and instead told his staff to find him some women. The GOP leadership must be cringing at what Romney is saying to try to make himself appealing to women voters.

            1. No I am afraid it is you who don’t understand

              Affirmative action≠non-discriminatory

              Affirmative action=quotas
              (which should be illegal based on non-discriminatory law.)

              It has been shown to you by example (that Romney on his own thought they might not be giving woman a fair chance that is non-discriminatory not affirmative action) and DID something about it, and then idiots like breeze attempt to mock him for it. I’m sorry you (and breeze) are just clueless
              You are eyes wide shut my friend

            1. Kingmel it is obvious (to me) that you have never build a business.

              He DID say that. Furthermore It illuminates his (socialist) way of looking at things (To each according to need. From each according to ability. Sound like a good idea to you kingmel)

            2. That’s interesting, twilight. Because Romney made the exact same point that Obama did, not one week later. From Romney’s July 18 speech in Ohio: “I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There’s no question your mom and dad, your school teachers, the people that provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help.”

              Tell me how that message is any different from Obama’s point that the person who built a business didn’t build the infrastructure that is essential for that business to succeed.

            3. You are an ugly old hag and that dress makes you look like a fat ugly old hag.

              You know that dress doesn’t flatter your curvy figure as much as some of your other dresses.

              Are both of those statements the same just because they make similar points?

              Does the attitude and the tone and delivery of the message count, or is the general idea behind a message the only thing that matters?

        2. Your trite and facile bullshit will do nothing to hide the fact that Obama pays his female staff less than he pays his male staff:

          The 2011 annual report on White House staff revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees.

          In 2008, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock noted that as in Obama’s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.

          Gov. Romney’s staff in Massachusetts had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America. Romney’s Lieutenant Governor during the four year term from 2002-2006 was a woman, Kerry Healey.

          Gotta go, I’m headed to Planned Parenthood for my mammogram!

      1. Regardless of his stance on jobs, and, yes, he thought those manufacturing jobs could be relocated here, he’s still a clueless idiot. OTOH, I look forward to a day when these right wingers take over the country and drive it further into the pile of dogs hit. Then, you won’t have any targets for your apologist fantasies. Read a history book, moron.

    1. America is great at creating jobs where we have a competitive advantage. Just look at the staff and family of the new reality TV show, “Honey Boo Boo”. This show created jobs that, as Americans, can make us proud. And think of the spinoff jobs that come from such a small show. To borrow from SNL, we will employee many more doctors and healthcare workers to fight the Diabetes epidemic that is sure to follow.

      Oh… and no way the Chinese could steal these jobs from us. They have way too much class!!

      1. are you willing to work for $1 an hour? i am highly trained, have a degree and masters and i earn over 400k a year. i wouldnt work for $2000 a year. america works for me cause i work hard and am highly skilled. i guess if i had no skills and too lazy to get some i would blame the govt as well.

        1. There you go letting your pride get in the way of your brain.

          The laziness VS. success argument is intellectually lazy.

          Interesting that Romney gets up and says America can compete if we only had a level playing field. The social programs he would cut and economic policy he would pursue will do much to skew the playing field against the poor and middle class.

          1. Social programs that cost the rest of the country a huge and mounting debt in the hands of the Chinese. We need to stop spending more than we take in, and we need to grow this economy again. It is completely broken under Barak Obama.

            1. No they do not, they are a drop in the bucket of money spent by the US government.

              So STOP hawking more endless wars. Stop out of control defense spending. Stop the ineffective, expensive war on drugs. End the TSA boondoggle. Reduce foreign aid, except in instances of natural disaster.

              I could come up with dozens more, it isn’t hard. Stop propping up business and lets prop up the PEOPLE of this country.

            2. I don’t agree with you on a lot of things but I agree that the war on drugs is a disaster (though I’m not sure if ending it would really save much money). I agree that we should cut way back on foreign aid and especially to hostile countries like Egypt and Palistan. I am not against some cuts in the military but I’d want to be careful there. I hate the TSA probably more than you do but I doubt shutting them down would save much money. The only other war I’d consider important or necessary would be to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Other than that I would favor less military action and focus on full energy independence.

              One thing I never hear anyone talk about regarding independence is hydrogen. There’s an abundant supply in the vast oceans that could be collected and it could entirely replace gasoline in less than 20 years if we put converted effort behind it. That would be cheaper in the long run and better for the environment.

        2. If the cost of living was less we could all make $1 and live. My grandparents made that, but then cars weren’t over $20,000 and houses weren’t $100,000+, and a loaf of bread was probably 5 cents. It’s all relative. I have read that the Foxconn wages in China are some of the highest factory wages for the cost of living there. Just like a salary in NY City always sounds huge but isn’t if you have to LIVE IN New York City because a teeny weeny apartment’s rent on Long Island costs well over $1,000 a month, as are restaurants more expensive. All relative.

    1. if you think the democrat party in the usa are socialist, you better look at what real socialist govts look like. in aus for example your democrat party would be considered as a party leaning to the right.

      1. Read obamas plans he proposed in 2007/2008 and the wording of some he passed in 2009/2010 before he lost the house.

        Then read Karl Marx. Note that the same ideas are lifted directly from the communist manifesto… That’s why Obama gets the “socialist” attacks.

      2. The Democrat party is being over run by many socialists and communists. Frank Marshall Davis did a great job of indoctrinating a young Obama with communism. You can see it with Obama’s redistribution of wealth (social justice) and selling a bunch of naive people on hope and change. If you can’t see real socialism in this government and this president, than you are still blind waiting for Obama to level the playing field (another communist idea).

        Looking at others and claiming we are not as bad is a terrible way to see our problems.

        1. Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.

          if you think the usa meets that description, i would say the usa isnt stuffed cause of politicians, but the fact the average person here is stupid.

          1. Wikipedia’s definition of Socialism sounds so utopian but has never worked like it is written.

            Socialism always points to Communism, because the leaders run out of other peoples money.

            Its true that many in the U.S. are stupid and do not think for themselves. Thats why hope and change was so easy to sell four years ago!

          2. Yeah, because Obama didn’t use tax payer money to bail out GM and pay for overpriced union pensions. Oh, wait.. he did.

            This is money that the tax payer will never see again.

            You were saying?

            1. Wait I thought the bailout was a combined republican and democrat policy. But you are a typical republican – don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

              You really are a tool.

        2. Umm. Hate to break it to you, wmd4, but Romney is all in favor of social based wealth redistribution. Just on September 23 this year he said his Medicare plan revolved around giving higher benefits to low income people and lower benefits to high income people.
          Socialism at its core!!

    2. +1 BLN

      For those that actually listened last night, Romney does give details and he said govt does not create jobs. He is right on. The govt, if it does anything, depresses jobs and the human spirit (just look at any postal worker to see how much happiness a govt job brings).

      1. Very few details, hoofbegone. Still no concrete information on how the “revenue-neutral” aspect of the tax cut will be achieved. My advice, demand that these hundreds of $B of mysterious “loop holes” and “deductions” be closed *first*. Then we can talk about the tax cuts. Because it is far too easy to tax cut first and then spend, anyway. Just ask Bush…

        1. I’m no fan of Bush’s huge deficits, but we were attacked and we did have to respond to that which costs money. Even with 2 wars we did not have half the deficits we have under Obama. Loopholes need to be cut at the same time as the tax cuts, not before.

          Why only focus on taxes and loopholes and no mention of cutting spending?

          1. Twilightmoon: The non partisan economists all agree that the biggest components of the Federal deficit are the Bush tax cuts.

            “Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent—despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.”

            1. In my opinion the Federal government is too big, too intrusive, and too powerful. I don’t know how to fix it and I’m not sure it is fixable. I don’t mind the rich paying a lot of taxes, but I’m against income taxes because they are so invasive of our privacy. I don’t have a good idea what to replace them with.

              I do think that cutting Federal spending and lowering taxes is a good idea, but not if dont think lowering taxes and not cutting spending, or not raising taxes and increasing spending massively is a good idea. Fighting a war is somewhat understandable the deficit would go up, but really need to look how we treat future generation of Americans with this huge debt.

    3. “#1 Socialists do not create jobs, they create welfare dependents.
      #2 Socialists create jobs by creating government bloat.
      #3 Socialists want to spend your money.”

      Obviously you have no idea what socialism is. To you it is just a word you through around to get people’s attention. Socialism is a type of political and economic ideology where the state owns and controls manufacturing to meet the needs of society.

      1. That’s 1 definition. Certainly not the only one. The government taking over healthcare under Obama is a form of socialism, even by your definition.

        I would put demagoguing success and fomenting class warfare as socialist as well. Obama’s “You didn’t build that” is a classic example.

        1. So if we divided the USA in half and put the Democrats living in one half and Republicans living in the other what do you think would happen? If the college prof and movie star rabid Liberals took their Welfare and poverty immigrant voting base with them they would be broke in no time without benefit of the Republican middle working class supporting the poor with their taxes, supporting the movie stars with their extra entertainment money, and paying prof salaries with tuition. The whole Lib nation would go under real fast.

    4. @BLN (and the other Republicans). But particular @ BLN’s 3 points against socialists. Nice soundbites, BLN. But totally wrong. The hard facts are that the states that voted republican in the 2008 elections take vastly more Federal entitlements per capitita than the states that voted Democrat. And it’s not just at state level. Within each state, the counties that voted Republican take massively more Federal entitlements per capita than the counties that voted Democrat.
      So it turns out that Republicans are the leeches on society. It’s a bitch when the facts have such a liberal bias, isn’t it?
      (The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan educational institute.)

      1. I hope we never have to find out what your version of a socialist is. I despise the version that we call socialist enough. I’m willing to believe in this vast world that there are far worse versions of human misery and corruption, America is a great country because we won’t tolerate it here.

        1. Corruption knows NO political party. Our version of a socialist is what you would call a communist. Only God knows what you would call out communist…

          ANyway, Obama is what we consider to be a red conservative, basically dead center. I find it funny that anyone would call him a ‘liberal’ unless the reason for the label is ONLY pro-choice and in favour of gay rights (which I doubt).

          1. Center is relative. America is very much different than Europe. The way I see it, America was born as a wild and rugged frontier where there was open space and opportunity. Individuals could make their own way and make their own success. Even today there are many parts of the country with wild and open spaces. Europe is far more densely populated and has been more densely populated for a long time with a history of kings and fuedal communities. It would be hard to find a period in Europe where individual achievement was esteemed over community.

            A completely different history and consequently completely different philosophy. Americans do not see things like Europe and likely will never want to.

            If Europe wants to look at America through a European lens and completely misunderstand what exactly America is and what makes it uniquely great, go ahead. That doesn’t necessarily mean what Europe does is wrong, only that it doesn’t translate over here.

            Obama is extremely liberal for what Ameruca is and what we stand for. And no, not just on gay rights or abortion rights, although clearly he’s in the left of those two issues. To me what makes him liberal is his insistence that America should apologize for what we are, and that we are nothing special, and rich and successful people are products of society and did not build their success for themselves. An apologetic and class division based world view.

            His government take over of healthcare is just another example of this.

    5. #socialists – you idiots don’t know WHAT you’re talking about.

      But … You right wing honkies seem to have more in common with the Taliban than people who live in a modern democracy.

      1. People that believe in the power of the individual to prosper, for the human spirit to be unleashed and unchained to government, people that believe in the American Dream to work hard and build a life for yourself, and people who think America represents the greatest achievement of mankind and is exceptional and special are Republicans and you are saying that we are exactly the same as a group that forces women to cower under black sheets in the hot sun or be executed, a group that brags about shooting a 14 year old girl in the head because she dared speak up for women being able to learn and be educated.

        You are far more despicable than the average clueless liberal brainwashed idiot.

        You know someone has no salient point when they bring up Hitler. The Taliban is the new Hitler. I doubt you have studied much history, you are beyond ignorant, repulsive and offensive.

        The fact that “Truth” agreed with you pretty much confirms that he is just as ignorant, bigoted and repulsive.

        1. If you say things like ‘average clueless liberal brainwashed idiot.’, don’t you lose credibility right then and there? You segregate and indicate they are all the same in a particular group.
          Are you the type of person that says all chines people look alike and are all named Wong?

          1. I have said some harsh things in here and I’ll own my words. I could be more delicate but I get very offended by the general holier than thou tone of liberal elitists standing in their lofty ivory towers pointing down at the rest of us.

            I do not think it takes great intellectual dept to be a liberal political hack. There are many intellectually shallow conservatives, but on the other hand I know there are many very intelligent conservatives.

            There are some liberals I respect, Steve Jobs was one but even he fought against teachers unions which are ruining California and he was very fiscally conservative with Apple.

            I have been to China, and as a westerner I will admit I have difficulty telling the difference between many different Asian groups.

            If my harsh words negate the credibility of my points then that’s my failing. However consider the tide of liberalism I swim against where the media destroys Nixon while it protects Clinton and Obama. On this board I read how terrible Romney and the Republicabs are and how flawless Obama is.

            It just gets last my point if tolerance. If I particularly said anything that offended you I’m sorry.

  3. What both candidates missed was the fact that Apple and the products they have created (regardless of where they are assembled) have driven tremendous job growth here in the US. Jobs in technology, sales, construction, transportation, software, etc – I think I saw one estimate that jobs related to Apple but not Apple employees are over 600,000 now (??). Not to mention Apple itself who has been hiring folks all over the country to work for them as they continue to grow, folks who get great training and often go to work for other companies etc.

  4. Also – several key components of many Apple products are actually manufactured here in the US, and shipped overseas for assembly. Some are chips made in Texas, or processors made in California, etc… Gorilla glass made in New York (?) etc.

  5. the president and steve jobs are right. those jobs arent coming back. how can we compete with countries who pay $1 an hour. we cant. and we shouldnt. this isnt an democrat or republican problem (though romneys answer is usual polictical spin – considering he made alot of money sending jobs overseas) but i digress, this has been happening for at least 20 years. its a structural change… this thats what capitalism is about – we should be allocating our resources to where we have a competitive advantage.

    1. in addition apple employs many highly skilled staff in the usa, not to mention the multiplyer effect apple has on other industries within the us. that is always overlooked in the discussions when low skilled manufacturing work overseas.

        1. Our “high standard” of living and out of control consumption is part of the reason those jobs left. Can’t produce cheap baubles and pay living wages, AND take big profits.

            1. What a rational response, typical knucklehead mentality. God forbid you own any responsibility for your lifestyle and it’s effect on the world.

              “Don’t like it, move to: ”

              The reality is that this is supposed to be a country of shared ideas and democracy, your totalitarian outlook on differing viewpoints speaks volumes for your lack of intellect.

              Some highly skilled $400K man you are. Just what is it you do for a living?

            2. Oh blow it out your pie hole. You want to tell other people what to do with their lives by your political ideology. Spare us the histrionics and the judgementalism. You brim with it. Go check out the mirror sometime.

            3. Different viewpoints are great, as long as they are intelligent ones and not just pie in the sky wishful thinking that everyone will be the same and no one will suffer by trying to make that socialism sameness so. There is good reason my Grandfather left Russia to come HERE for a better life in the early 1900’s. Lucky he’s dead so he can’t witness the USA becoming the old USSR.

            4. I am financial analyst. I am 100% sure I have a higher intellect than you. These jobs aren’t coming back. You can ignore economic reality and post stupid posts all days, but they still won’t come back.

              The high standard of living isn’t consumption driven. But you wouldn’t know that. America is a great country and highly innovative.

              I have total responsibility for my life. I don’t blame govt for my life. I have 100% control in my destiny. I believe regardless who is elected these jobs won’t come back. Your response insulting me is the typical response of a person who doesn’t have a credible argument.

        2. 4 more years of socialist experiments will level the standard of living sooner than you think.

          Like what Bill Clinton did was pretty effective… and caused the greatest worldwide depression in recent history…

          At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

          The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
          The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

          “The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the document warned financial institutions.
          So this is where it all started. In 1994. When the government pressured lenders to qualify the unqualified. To put people into houses they couldn’t afford. Or else.

          1. Thank you for bringing this up. Everyone wants to blame Bush singularly for the mortgage crisis in 2008, no one seems to realize there was a lot more behind it than policies Bush implemented.

            1. The Clinton News Network CNN, or any of the other Obama boot licking networks will never tell you that it was Clinton that defunded and crippled the CIA and FBI to enable 9/11 to happen.

              Clinton with one executive order destroyed the banking sector by forcing them to lend billions into black ghettos, causing the greatest depression in modern times.

            2. It was a Democrat that established the wall that prevented the CIA and FBI to share intelligence.

              It was under the Clinton administration that the 9/11 pilots trained to fly.

              Clinton destroyed the CIA, which would take decades to rebuild that kind of intel network to get good intel.

            3. I don’t let Bush off the hook but it is a fact that Clinton let him go more than once, and gutted the CIA and crippled our ability to share intelligence between agencies.

              I’m willing to bet it is also a fact that you are incapable of rational thought or blaming Clinton or any democrat for his role in Sept 11 attack.

            4. @twilightmoon: You accuse me of being “incapable of rational thought.” You may disagree with my thoughts and in particular my politics, but no honest and reasonable person could look at my posts just on this particular board and say they are all irrational. That means you are either dishonest, unreasonable, or both. Which is it?
              As for Clinton’s attempts to get bin Laden, I suggest you educate yourself here.

            5. I guess I could have misjudged you. Do you feel you are fairly critical of both Democrats and Republicabs? Do you blame both Bush and Clinton for their roles in Sept 11 and the banking crisis or do you only blame Republicans when there are problems and only credit Democrats when things go well?

              I will check out the link you sent also.

    2. Agreed, M. Well said! Romney is just saying what people wish about,taking jobs from China or any foreign country back to the US. Hellnows it can’t be done and is just blowing smoke. He’s plain and simple a deceiving liar and what’s the worst about politicians Vote for Obama!!!

      1. So much for Hope and Change. Obama was very clear last night when he said jobs aren’t coming back to America. I am so depressed.

        I think I’ll vote for someone that at least gives me some hope. I’ll vote for Romney. If his plan does not work then what’s the difference? At least he loves America.

        1. romney loves america? do you know this cause you know him personally??. i dont. so i could never say what he truly likes or hate. except for that 47 percent of people he doesnt like. he also seems to love the top 1percent who ironically enough maybe in the 47 percent who dont pay taxes!!

        2. @hoffbegone: There you go again, selectively quoting. Obama said THOSE [low paying manufacturing] jobs aren’t coming back to America. Instead, he wants high paying tech and skilled manufacturing jobs. Which requires education. Which requires teachers. Romney is on the record as saying he will cut the number of teachers. That is, until he said at the first debate that he loves teachers.
          So many Republicans haven’t yet worked out that Romney will say what he thinks his audience wants to hear. The 47% remark? At first he defended it. 17 days later he said it was totally wrong. At the first debate he said his health plan will cover pre-existing conditions. That was walked back only 1 day later. He was “severely conservative” in the primaries. Now he’s a moderate republican. He’s against bailouts. Except when Bain Capital got one (and blackmailed the government to accepting only 10cents on the dollar repayment). He was going to cut taxes for everyone; now his cuts are not for the rich. His policies would have resulted in the complete collapse and breakup of GM and Chrysler. But now he takes credit for their rescue. In the primaries he said he was against contraception. Until yesterday, when all of a sudden he’s for it. He was pro-choice, then pro-life, then pro-choice, now pro-life again. He was never a hunter except he was always a hunter. He supported the assault weapons ban until he wanted the NRA’s vote, when he claimed he doesn’t support any gun legislation. He criticized a cut in capital gains tax as “a tax cut for fat cats.” Then he said it should be reduced to zero. He says he’s against the health care personal mandate except he introduced one in MA and praised Israel’s only a couple of months ago. In 1994 he said it was not his desire to join the military and go to Vietnam. In the primaries this year he said that he longed to have been in Vietnam serving his country.
          There has never been in this country a presidential candidate who has changed so many positions so many times. And that’s BEFORE he gets elected. Think how much he’ll flip flop when he’s facing the pressure of actually making a difficult decision.

      2. Because Obama said he’d cut the deficit in 1/2 by which he meant he’d double it. He said that more oil was being pumped out but he didn’t bother to mention that production is down on Federal land, and the pipeline around the world? Try Oklahoma to Texas. Some pipeline around the world! Obama wants Canadian oil pumped over to China.

        And don’t even get me started on LIbya the worst cover up in US history. Makes Watergate seem like a Sunday picnic. No one died at Watergate.

        Vote for truth? Romney has that in spades over Obama.

        1. @twimoon1 – you’re aware that all the non-partisan economists agree that the biggest component of the federal deficit is the Bush tax cuts? Followed in second place by two unfunded wars started by Bush. The economist differ about exact percentages, but agree that those are the two biggest components.

 (updated 10/10/12)

          1. Tax cuts need to be balanced, if less revenues come in less needs to be spent. That’s hard when you are fighting a war to answer to an attack on our soil. But there’s no good excuse for the size of the deficits we ran under Bush. Obama was right to criticize him. Obama had 2 years with no opposing Republicans in the house or the senate who could stop him and he chose to use that time to double the deficit and fundamentally change healthcare in the country in a way that doctors do not like, Americans are angry about to the point if a blood letting in the house, and a historic shift in the legislature. He did not even propose a fix to immigration in 730 days.

            Bush deserves blame for the mistakes he made as well as credit for the things he did right. Obama deserves some credit, but he needs to man up and stop crying snout Bush, and own his presidency.

        2. Wrong as usual..

          Romney wants Keystone Pipeline, last night he tried tying it to American Refineries and lower fuel prices. The facts are it is an EXPORT pipeline to move canadian product to the gulf for EXPORT. IE NOT for North America. This will undercut American exports and likely RAISE the price of gas.

          Turn off your tv, do a little research. Want a link?

    3. So what was the president and Steve Jobs saying? The president said we need to have more advanced manufacturing. Steve Jobs said he needs 30,000 engineers to support 700,000 workers. President says we need more education (I wonder how many using students with loans are actually studying sciennce and engineering).

      The net result is advance manufacturing == more automation. Automation means 700,000 are out of work and no menial jobs for Americans. Automation in America means 30,000 engineers to support the robots? I think when the dust settles we’ll probably end up with 3,000 technicians running robots to replace 730,000 jobs in China.

      That’s the presidents plan.

      BTW, I’ve said this before, the killer of our economy is automation.

      1. the presidents plan is to let capitalism work – invest in things that we have a competitive advantage. this is the usa. we arent a communist country. if these jobs go, people will reallocate their capital. its a structural change that america is going through.

      2. Automation frees people for more rewarding pursuits and yields reliable service and peace of mind. Repetitive, mind-numbing and debilitating toil should be the domain of robots until they rise up.

  6. …”CANDY CROWLEY: iPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China.”

    This is incorrect. Many of the components are manufactured (made) in various countries, including. The iPad, Macs and iPhones are ASSEMBLED in China. And assembly is a relatively minor cost component of the iPhone, amounting to only about $8 per iPhone. In addition, it was not mentioned that China’s assembly “quality” is higher than that of American workers.

  7. Obama states:
    “And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them, and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race.”

    Uh….. I thought it was 3 guys in a garage that started apple… not ‘investments in research and science”…..


    1. Obama also stated that Google and Intel were started by immigrants..

      one of the 4 were born outside the US. (Sergey (Google) in USSR, immigrated legally with his family in 79 at age 6)
      the other 3, 2 Intel, 1 Google are all US born.

      Facts….who needs em.

  8. I want to comment, but it’s hard to feel like you would be heard after all this drivel.

    What was proven last night, was that Obama, however good or evil you may think he is, was listening and has taken to heart some of the thoughts and passion brought to his attention by Steve Jobs.

    And what was said, was correct, no matter who said it.

  9. “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

    -Czech President Václav Klaus

    1. Mr. Klaus, the conservative banker turned politico, science denier, bigot,
      adulterer, and all around nutty neo-con said something negative about Obama? Say it isn’t so…

      In other news obvious is still obvious and you are still oblivious.

      1. conservatie banker = good.

        science denier? He said that “environmentalism belongs to the social sciences, and that it is a religion. He was 100% correct.
        He also said that ambitious environmentalism is “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, market economy and prosperity”
        I could not agree more. I would go further and say that Environmentalism is the new communism.

        bigot? democrats and liberals win that one in spades, along with racism. Look how liberals treated Clarence Thomas, or the horribly racist political cartoons of Condoleezza Rice. Liberals do not get to label anyone racists or bigots. You guys own those 2 terms.

        adulterer? Well I don’t agree with doing that, but no group of humans can claim to have a cure for that.

        “all around nutty neo-con” … I would say the same about you, but I’d use the liberal version. In short, blow it out your pie hole.

    1. Try the dictionary in your Widget Carlos. Apple gives you a free one just for these such occasions:

      lose |loōz|
      verb ( past and past part. lost |lôst; läst|) [ trans. ]
      1 be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something) : I’ve lost my appetite | Linda was very upset about losing her job | the company may find itself losing customers to cheaper rivals.
      • cause (someone) to fail to gain or retain (something) : you lost me my appointment at the university.
      • be deprived of (a close relative or friend) through their death or as a result of the breaking off of a relationship : she lost her husband in the fire.
      • (of a pregnant woman) miscarry (a baby) or suffer the death of (a baby) during childbirth.
      • ( be lost) be destroyed or killed, esp. through accident or as a result of military action : a fishing disaster in which 19 local men were lost.
      • decrease in (body weight); undergo a reduction of (a specified amount of weight) : she couldn’t eat and began to lose weight.
      • waste or fail to take advantage of (time or an opportunity) : they lost every chance to score in the first inning | he lost no time in attacking his opponent’s tax proposals.
      • (of a watch or clock) become slow by (a specified amount of time) : this clock will neither gain nor lose a second.
      • ( lose it) informal lose control of one’s temper or emotions : in the end I completely lost it—I was screaming at them.
      2 become unable to find (something or someone) : I’ve lost the car keys.
      • cease or become unable to follow (the right route) : the clouds came down, and we lost the path.
      • evade or shake off (a pursuer) : he came after me waving his revolver, but I easily lost him.
      • informal get rid of (an undesirable person or thing) : lose that creep!
      • informal cause (someone) to be unable to follow an argument or explanation : sorry, Tim, you’ve lost me there.
      • ( lose oneself in/be lost in) be or become deeply absorbed in (something) : he had been lost in thought.
      3 fail to win (a game or contest) : the Bears lost the final game of the series | [ intrans. ] they lost by one vote | [as adj. ] ( losing) the losing side.
      • cause (someone) to fail to win (a game or contest) : that shot lost him the championship.
      4 earn less (money) than one is spending or has spent : the paper is losing $500,000 a month | [ intrans. ] he lost heavily on box-office flops.
      loose |loōs|
      1 not firmly or tightly fixed in place : a loose tooth | the truck’s trailer came loose.
      • detached or able to be detached : a loose board.
      • not held or tied together; not packaged or placed in a container : wear your hair loose | pockets bulging with loose change.
      • (of a person or animal) free from confinement; not bound or tethered : the bull was loose with cattle in the field | the tethered horses broke loose.
      • not strict or exact : a loose interpretation.
      • not close or compact in structure : a loose weave | figurative a loose federation of political and industrial groups.
      • typical of diarrhea : many patients report loose bowel movements.
      2 (of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely : she slipped into a loose T-shirt and shorts.
      3 relaxed; physically slack : she swung back into her easy, loose stride | a loose-limbed walk.
      • careless and indiscreet in what is said : there is too much loose talk about the situation.
      • dated promiscuous; immoral : she ran the risk of being called a loose woman.
      • (of the ball in a game) in play but not in any player’s possession.
      verb [ trans. ]
      set free; release : the hounds have been loosed.
      • untie; unfasten : the ropes were loosed.
      • relax (one’s grip) : he loosed his grip suddenly.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.