Mitt Romney's campaign

Not true. Obama went to prep school in Indonesia, then Hawaii, then Colombia. There are no hard knocks in the story of Obama's life.

I should know better, ok, I'll play along, how is Mr Obama beating the constitution? And in fairness I will answer your questions:

1. No problem with his success. You would be equally successful if you had his connections (Later Day Saints) and inheritance.

2. "Sweetheart", why thank you.

3. English, sorry, American English. No offense your text was so awkward...sorry. Oh and the tone combative. Tea Party eh?

4. My point is I would like to exchange ideas with you but I got nuttin but "get a grip on reality" and I thought the treatments were working...

If you have ideas about reality, let's get started. I pay for my medical treatment, by the way.

My question please, how is Obama beating the Constitution?

Try reading something for starters.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/16/obama-tears-up-the-const...

The Washington Times is practically a Republican party mouthpiece founded and owned by Moon Sun-myung, the founder of the highly eccentric but powerful Unification Church in Korea. The Church is an outgrowth of the wilder varieties of Korean Protestantism, which among many things have incorporated vituperative anti-Communism and extreme right-wing stance as their article of faith.

Can you answer a simple question? Have you read the US Constitution or the Federalist Papers, or are you just continuing to spew more idiotic propaganda?

Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools reported on Obama’s college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called “Aristocracy Reborn,” and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:
“… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”
That’s quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate. I wonder if the prof–and I’d like to know who the prof was–made an appropriate marginal comment, something about historical context, about the Constitution’s revolutionary status in the history of freedom, and about the separation of powers in order to make the creation of any “shackles” as difficult as possible.
Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write. Maybe he’d like to parse “the so-called Founders,” for example. I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?

First of all, what I said about the Washington Times and its connection to the Unification Church of South Korea is not 'idiotic propaganda', but pure facts. If you cannot handle the truth that your favourite journalistic piece probably ranks very low on the scale of objectivity, that's your problem - but please don't call facts propaganda.

Secondly, your little information about Obama's thesis at Columbia intrigued me, so I did a little search. Here's what I found.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbiathesis.asp

It appears that your claims about Obama making such harsh indictments about the US Constitution in his graduate thesis are based on a satirical hoax, as the thesis in question is about international relations (what Obama actually studied in Columbia). Are you trying to tell me that Obama did a paper on the American Constitution when studying for international relations?

Thirdly, you are a fool and a knave.

Now the liberal appears. Name calling. Who cares about who owns the Washington times. It's a voice of conservatism created to combat communist influence, and you say that's bad or somehow evil? Who is George Soros?

Obama's thesis is fact, ahole. There are, if you care to google/wiki some more, over 500 pieces of research on his thesis. He is a radical liberal ascribing to Jewish, Chicago brother Saul Alinsky's principles.

Why so insistent in protecting policies and systems that don't, have never worked? Are you daft?

You're a true wonderment of nature. Capitalism is a reality that will crush you!

I thought I laid out, fairly clearly, that his Columbia thesis was NOT an inane complaint on how the US Constitution does not allow for a redistribution of wealth, but on international relations. And your comeback to that is that there are 500 'pieces of research' on his thesis? What the hell does that even mean? Do you mean that there are 500 more idiots like yourself who got duped by the hoax? Is that what you are saying? How about you learn to acknowledge fault when you get things wrong, how about that?

And your ability to get off topic is truly astounding. How does George Soros and capitalism even figure into this? Now, I realize that in your little mind, you have a neat system set up, in which Obama is a godless commie, and anyone who even appears to be coming to his defense must be another by association. Well, the world is not so simple, young one, and you couldn't even provide a tangible support for your claim that Obama is a 'radical liberal'. A single evidence that you trotted out was crushed by a ten-second research on Google. His policies were solidly centre-right, and you should know that if you have been listening to some sane sources of information.

I usually don't waste time debating with idiots, but this time I made an exception. Watching you talk, it just appears that you run from one thought to another without any strong logical support, and you just speak the tidbits that someone else has put into your mind. It's alarming how dumb you sound. You say capitalism is a reality that will crush me? I am sorry, but capitalism more often crushes people with delayed cognitive development such as yourself - unless you happen to be very lucky.

My, what an effite ass you've become. You. Know. Nothing of capitalism or the republic of American states. Attempting conversation with such an indoctrinated Euro nit is a bore.

"I pay for my medical treatment, by the way."

I think you should demand more value for your payments.

So sorry for your illness. With your condition payment must be difficult.

Obama is attempting to beat the US "puppy" called the Constitution. That's what concerns me. You have a problem with the reality of Mr. Romney's success?

Who are your "people in the know," sweetheart? You seem to have some invalid (pun) sources. Just what is your Mother Tongue? Mine came from Brits who left the "Isle" in 1623 and came to the US. Do you have a point to make?

We knew this liberal attack was coming to demonize Romney's religion, and here you are! He's an American who made it, and you can't stand his religion? Anything else you're jealous of that we can redistribute to you? Obama is done.

Pako123,

Are you accusing me of being a liberal or a progressive? They are two different things, do you know the difference. In any case you don't know my politics, and by what I wrote before, Obama would be disqualified as well. I believe that politicians should serve the people and not some mythological creation of human imagination.

Except to very conservative religious zealots..the religion issue is way down on the concerns of the electorate!
Mr. romney's versatile values and moving opinions show a lack of core foundation in anything not connected to personal PROFIT!

His disconnected and effete stance on every issue affecting the US population other than the 1%ers is startlingly elitist and unknowing!

The republicans have turned from romney 7+ times in this primary..Perhaps, on this, we should trust them..They neither want nor trust Mitt! We should not either!

OK. So, for you there is no prime mover in the universe, and religious belief is some "mythological creation of human imagination." Man must, therefore, be all powerful. If that's your intellectual analysis, you've sorely missed the mark. Core values ring a bell?

President Obama is intelligent and charming –- but not wise. The Constitution only authorizes the president to be the chief executive of the federal government and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, ample challenges to the most skilled person, but the president is not the sole leader of the federal government, the American nation, or the free world. Based on his inaugural address, President Obama has no apparent sense of the limits of what he can and should do –- and that will reduce his effectiveness in addressing those issues within his clear authority.

You don't have to be a believer in a god to have core values. Unitarian Universalists accept all, even atheists, into their "church" and even have courses on core values not tied to any particular mythology.

All the elements in the Universe are the same and inorganic chemistry tells us that carbon bonds four times and sulfur bonds five times. Thus all possible forms of life in the universe will function based upon aerobic or anaerobic metabolism, unless you count boron which bonds three times, but can bond four times under certain conditions. Life works out efficiencies through evolution and in that sense we truly are created in the image of "god", that is the greater whole of the laws underpinning the nature of the universe.

If Obama donated more to the NAACP then he paid in taxes would you question his "allegiance"? Questioning someone's character based upon personal giving vs. statutory, not to mention legal, requirements is beyond shallow and misguided. That said, I'll go out on a limb, and breach your shallowness, with a guess that your "personal giving" is a direct deposit to the 4yr disaster Super PAC that is Barack Obama's unwillingness to address the real issues of debt and entitlements. The left can hide behind "fairness", but there comes a time when the President of the US has to tell the truth and address the real issues that confront us. Playing to the populist sentiment and tinkering at the margins of the tax code may make for a compelling 4 more years in the doldrums, but does not confront the issues of a nation or several generations of Americans.

And who/what created the compound bonding mechanism and the underpinning of the nature of the universe, which you so rightly quote?

Politically, have you ever read the US Constitution? Or, The Federalist Papers?

I avoid the lunatic fringe at all cost. The LDS strikes me as belonging to one of those camps, hence my concerns. Many years ago mind you, I had a 17 year old friend who started to question the LDS. I was amazed at the rancor this caused and the coercion that resulted. Eventually he left his family and was excommunicated. Same culture that bred Mr Romney so again my concerns are legitimate. Read up on the LDS and get back to me. Let me know if it sounds logical, inclusive, unbiased, non-controlling, and if you want your president to come from this camp. Take Care!

G-I, I sincerely hope that my fellow countrymen are not as small-minded as you describe. If Americans have finally reached the point where they believe that giving more to their government is more acceptable than giving to a church, charity, or anything else, then we deserve the socialism that will naturally follow.

While others in both parties talk a good game about the nobleness of government forcibly taking funds from one group and distributing them to others, Romney "walks the walk" by donating to the charity/faith-based organization of HIS choice. If this is what he has learned throughout his life from his commitment to his religion, it has apparently done him some good. When added to his commitments to family, education, and hard work, it appears there may be some value to what his faith has taught him (since we are only dealing with facts and not fears here, right?).

Perhaps it's time to focus on the value one's faith brings to their life in the present instead of rehashing events from more than 200 years ago. Science has gone through many strange notions in the past also. It would appear that ideas formed in one period of history do not rest well in the present. Shall we then abandon the many valuable aspects of science because we do not understand the historical and social context wherein past ideas were formed? Of course not. We keep studying, asking questions, and searching for answers.

As far as allegiance is concerned, a long-held LDS belief is that all citizens owe an allegiance to whatever country they live in. But then, you knew that already, right?

I used to be close to small business, owned one myself. I consulted with them. I used to ask myself, "What are these people thinking?" The business models were atrocious. Turn over has always been high. In tight financial times maybe the banks decided to trim their loses. Besides no way can "Mom and Pop" compete with Wal-Mart. So the candle store implodes, Wal-Mart opens another store, net gain in employment. Hey I didn't say I was happy about it, its reality on the ground. No small business, no small business banks?

Hah, to add insult to injury, large banks are able to write -losses- as profit. The banks and credit unions that didnt cause the problems are caught in the net of capital requirements the large banks can basically finesse meeting.

A Chinese disinformationist tells us we should dump President Obama in favor of Mit Romney [who, presumably, will let the wealthy keep weakening the US with more outsourcing to China and allowing China to grab our tech]. This means everyone who loves America and wants the country strong MUST vote for Obama and against Romney.