Obama calls Romney a "bulls***ter" in Rolling Stone interview

It's not that 47% will vote for Obama no matter what. It's that he said 47% think they're victims and are habitually dependent on government.

Yes qouting the percentile that is suposedly voting for Obama may have been bad for him but, a good percentage of people who will vote for Obama seem to think the government needs to pay out more in welfare. Which I don't think is right simply stating that our infrastucture is out of date. Not to mention our failing schools. All i'm trying to say is that we should be spending our time and money elsewhere instead of on people who want more welfare.

The welfare people can TRY for a smarter welfare disposition of capital. SO we vote for Obama that way as to develop leaders from the ranks of the unemployed. And job creation takes care of itself.

You're speaking as if Obama's plan is no more money for education and infrastructure but more money for welfare. That's nonsensical.

You're setting up a pure straw man. Who are these "good percentage of people" who want more welfare spending and no more money on roads and schools?

People don't want to move around the country in such motivation. Money is distrusted at the federal level for original thinking. Money must take care of itself by shear scarcity either for communicated ideas OR for marketed big business for the small business's. Obamacare must appeal to big business. No?

That isn't exactly what I meant, but to me Obama supporters or demacrats seem to want more government control with such plans as obama care. I prefer a privatized social sector. What is a straw man?

Schools and infrastructure are state level issues, not federal ones.. Conservatives always want the feds to stay out of their business, unless that business is going to cost money, then they blame the feds for staying out of their business..

Same deal with personal freedoms.. As long as the personal freedoms are aligned with "christian values", they're all for them.. otherwise those freedoms aren't actually freedoms, they're "special rights".

Only makes sense if he did not tie Obama supporters as lazy & non-taxpaying cheats. Other than that.... well, no, still did not make any sense.

Than by all means vote for Romney. He plans to give more to the wealthiest.

"Personal opinion vs documented fact" would be a more accurate comparison.

I would have to ask, can you provide some factual proof of your statements?

Are American politicians so incapable of eloquence, logical thought or rational exposition, that calling an opponent a "bulls***ter" is now considered "epic".

God bless America.

Ordinarily this wouldn't be an admirable thing to say. But Romney is rather extraordinary in how much he lies (even for a politician! Lol). It was something that needed to be acknowledged.

Fair enough. I would have thought lying is mandatory in politics if one wishes to succeed. I know next to nothing about Romney apart from the fact he is a Mormon... (if that is correct). That makes him 'interesting' in my eyes - they certainly appear to have on or two controversial beliefs from what I know.

I have little interest in US politics, but think Obama is a bit of a snake - his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in places like Egypt show that, at best, he is an idiot with no idea of what Islam is (or at least, no idea of what the Muslim Brotherhood version of Islam is). At worst, he is an accomplice of those whose mission statement involves the destruction of the west. (For an account of links between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood's mission statement calling for the destruction of the "miserable house of the west" see https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/25/Pentagon-Islamic-Adviser-Reappears-as-Political-Leader-for-Syrian-Muslim-Brotherhood-Dominated-Group ).

There is no way Obama could not know of the existence of this document, so his endorsement of Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is 'interesting' to my mind.

What are your thoughts on recent revelations that Obama allegedly knew that the Libyan embassy was in danger, but did not intervene, and that the CIA refused to offer any assistance to the Ambassador even though the threat was imminent and known to be genuine? And, the alleged lie of Obama that he knew the attack on the Embassy was *not* linked to the film "Innocence of Muslims," but rather, had been planned months in advance?

This kind of thing intrigues me.

It's epic because Presidents are rarely that blunt.