I hate to call them morons, but when God gave you the power to think and to determine truth from fiction and you willfully and purposely avoid thinking and buy the talking points and the party line, then you are the ideal Democrat useful idiot. Moron is a stage higher than idiot.

You can present the facts, you can point out the logic, but at the end of the day, if people want to believe stupid, they’ll believe stupid.

You didn’t really think the liberals destroyed the public education system by accident, did you?

You can present the facts, you can point out the logic, but at the end of the day, if people want to believe stupid, they’ll believe stupid.

The only thing that will ultimately break these people is realizing that Obama lied to them — which is why the media has so desperately tried to cover anything up that would make that obvious.

But a sizable number of voters did.

You would have thought we would have known better. Think of the crap that Levi believes.

One woman said: on election night he cried and said that he knows half of us don’t really want him; that shows he might still change His heart and pull us together, wouldn’t it be great if He brought Romney into His cabinet? Another said he knows Obama is printing too much money and wants to tax and control too much, but he couldn’t see voting for the Republicans because of the war on women.

These are paraphrases, not exact words. But as you and I know, the Republicans had no war on women; it was a fiction, even given the out-of-context remarks of two nobodies. I can only guess that these people still feel that voting for Obama proves how wonderful they are, then they look for any little excuse to do it.

Campaign Finance Reform: More Government Regulation.
Health Care Reform: Higher taxes and more Government Regulation.
Financial Industry Reform: Higher taxes and more Goverment Regulation.

To a Democrat, “Reform” means only one thing: Increased taxes and regulations.

I call them morons, because if they are truly vacillating between Obama and Romney, what are their “litmus tests” for candidate selection based on?

And “moderates” also have some ‘splainin’ to do. If I were a “moderate” I would still be hot under the collar about the lies told about funding Obamacare and the whole process of jamming Obamacare, unread, unwritten, unavailable down our collective throats. Was it a case of “moderate” rape in which we got “moderately” infected with a “moderately permanent” unfunded entitlement?

Just how does one “cooperate” with a union in state with no right to work law? How does one “cooperate” with a flood of government regulations? How does the little guy “cooperate” with higher taxes on his employer that costs him his job?

Easy, everyone needs to “moderate” his life style until being unemployed is no more than trading in a paycheck for the public dole.

When you are on the public dole, you can be far more sensible about fervently protecting your source of income.

So, now we have the “fiscal cliff” looming. Great. Thelma and Louise. Over we go. Pump up the inheritance taxes, pump up the capital gains, pump up the income tax rates, slap a federal sales tax on everything, tax fuel, electricity, and especially every instance of use of the internet. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room; stop letting people text, phone message or use the internet for free. Run that IPO address through a government meter for a rolling transaction tax on every little contact, search, etc. Make clicking links a taxable event. Put a juicy tax on every item sold on the internet. Enact a credit card use and PayPal use tax. And on and on and on.

Let’s get this thing about undecided and moderate resolved.

Since the Democrats will not and can not run a “moderate” we will just have to all become Democrats and force the issue. That is, of course, unless the liberals have such a tight control of the government dependency vote that there is no way to outnumber them. Thank you, Cloward and Piven.

what are your thoughts on reforming tax deductions or other actions intended to raise revenue without raising tax rates?

I favor reducing loopholes, they create perverse incentives that distort the economy. But as I said: Job A is to get real spending cuts, including entitlement reform.

And that is another thing Democrats seem to fail to understand. Big business LOVES the Democrats and all of their regulations because those regulations act as a barrier of competition in the market. They also force smaller players to either go out of business or merge with the larger companies.

The Democrats have a very interesting con game going here where on one hand they claim to be about being against “big” business and the disparity between richest and poorest while at the very same time doing everything they can to make big business bigger, force the little guy under, prevent new startups and competition, and INCREASE the disparity of wealth.

Maybe one of these days people will catch on but it’s too late right now for it to have any impact for a couple of year. The GOP is the party of the small family business, the Democrats are the party of “huge megacorp” while at the same time pretending to be the party against “huge magacorp”. Very strange.

That’s nuts. The Democrats are. Everything Obama did in His first term, was to protect Big Banking, GM, Big Insurance, and the like. The GOP isn’t perfect, but is somewhat more the party of small business (and jobs / the middle class). Yet Democrats are able to perpetuate these myths.

But Milton Friedman said, the “real” (in an economic sense) level of taxation is the spending level. Because if the government has low taxes, but high spending, then it is borrowing (and likely printing) a ton of money. And that creates inflation, a regressive tax wherein poor and middle class people must pay more and more for food, gas and rent. And again see their jobs killed, because of that.

If we want a healthy economy, the solution is a small government… period. Less taxes, less regulation, and less spending. Whenever it’s been tried, it has created greater prosperity.

(Perhaps Mitt Romney would have won last week had he been better at articulating the bigger picture.)

Frank Luntz says Romney should have talked more about the fiscal crisis and the need for spending cuts: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/viewers-ought-to-be-outraged-pollster-frank-luntz-explains-where-republicans-failed-in-2012/

Noting that many Americans don’t want a tax increase, but would consider it if Washington actually implemented drastic spending cuts, Luntz concluded: “To fight over the taxes is to miss the bigger issue for the vast majority of the American people that Washington spends too much, it wastes too much, and [you've] got to stop it.”