What is amazing is that even the CNN poll shows that Romney clearly won the night:

Still, Romney won in other key areas:
*On who would better handle the economy: 58 percent Romney; 40 percent Obama.
*On who would better handle health care: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On taxes: 51 percent Romney; 44 percent Obama
*On who is a stronger leader: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
*On who is more likeable: 47 percent Obama: 41 percent Romney
*On who cares more about your life: 44 percent Obama; 40 percent Romney
*On who answered more directly: 45 percent Romney; 43 percent Obama

Look, if the economy IS the number one issue as basically everybody says it is, then who are people going to vote for: Obama because he wasn’t as miserable of a jackass in his second debate or Romney for having an eighteen point lead over Obama on the economy??? I’m guessing the second one.

On a side note, Limbaugh was right that Obama would win the debate as declared by the lame-stream media, regardless of whether he really won it or not. Of course, such a prediction does not take a genius.

The evilest mortgage bank of all – Goldman Sachs – was Obama’s SECOND LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR. And THREE of the top ten largest Obama donors are your banks owned by your idiot liberal friend’s bosses at mortgage banks.

When Obama came into office, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had made MILLIONS pimping himself out for Goldman Sachs.

So your relative’s problem is that her soul swims in a sea of lies.

But I mean like other than that I’m sure she’s swell.

Holy crap, Billy, I provide fact after fact to support what I am saying and then you proceed to offer false assertion after assertion without bothering to try to substantiate ANY of your crap.

It always amazes me how often you damn liberals worship your own opinions and seem to think whatever your opinion is must be true and there’s no reason to bother to offer any evidence for it.

You begin to spout total bullcrap in your very first sentence. But it is your second sentence’s idiocy that I want to point out: you say “Obama was taliking [sic] about the 2007 deficit when he said 500 million.” Well, kudos for you for correction your million to billion. But other than that you are still completely wrong. This isn’t Obama speaking; it is TOM BROKAW who is speaking and he’s telling us that Obama has a real problem:

I looked at that debate we that talked about a moment ago, it was playing last night on C-SPAN, and governor [sic], now President Obama was saying, “Look, we’ve got a deficit of half a trillion dollars. I’m going to get that under control.” Well, this week, that deficit is $1.1 trillion and it happened on his watch. He is going to have to answer for that.

Tom Brokaw most definitely does NOT say that Obama is talking about 2007. You are WRONG. Tom Brokaw says that when Obama came to office, this was the state of affairs and Obama promised that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Tom Brokaw flat-out states that the deficit was “half a trillion dollars” as Obama assumed office and Obama promised to cut it when instead he damn near quadrulpled it one year. And four years later Brokaw is pointing out that Obama turned that half trillion deficit into $1.1 trillion. I’m the one who is right on understanding what Brokaw said and you are the one who is wrong.

You are further wrong because I proceed to DOCUMENT that the deficit was $455 billion ACCORDING TO THE LIBERAL LOS ANGELES TIMES in late 2008. I quote the title of that Oct 15 article – “Federal deficit hits record $455 billion” – as well as four full paragraphs to prove what the deficit actually was as Obama was entering office. On October 15, 2008 – just a few months before Bush was GONE – the deficit was $455 billion. Not “over $1 trillion.” By the time October 15, 208 turned into January 20, 2009, Tom Brokaw is pointing out that deficit had grown from “$455 billion” to Brokaw’s “half a trillion dollars” (i.e., $500 billion).

I furthermore document and provide links to that documentation all of the OBAMA SPENDING that Obama added in to that “Bush deficit” to make it skyrocket. Add all that 2009 Obama spending UP, you dumbass.

You end by telling me “Perhaps fact checking your articles might improve your journalism” which is really pretty damn funny given that I have specific facts and cite those facts from major sources while you literally don’t do any fact checking of your own bullcrap. That makes you a hypocrite, and hypocrites piss me off to no end.

It also makes you somebody who just isn’t worth bothering to have a conversation with.

In other words if she refused or declined to do something immoral or unethical she would be disconnected from the teat. Any of you guys been in that boat? I have. Guess what? I quit with a resounding [bleep] you!

My relative was making big bucks misrepresenting that mortgage paper. Of course all “good” things must come to an end we lament.

Guess where she is working now. … The IRS.

These are the very people that are telling us that the economy failed because of tax cuts for the rich.

For all of you Christians, I just had a shooter of Scotch and a 25 ounce Foster’s Ale. Guys that know me, and even you guys that don’t know me say… you probably shouldn’t be drinking.

I been to 12 step recovery meetings. You want to know what is weird about that? There is a high preponderance of “47 percenters” in there. There are all these guys in there that are kind of like “oh, I got caught drinking and driving, eh, at work… but I got this really cool government job, and I am vested in a really cool retirement… so, you know, I can’t be fired. See, it is a disease, I can’t be held responsible for that. And well you know since I am a victim of a disease maybe I should be putting in for some disability. You know, to enhance my retirement”

So guys, here is my discovery. The recovery movement has a political preponderance.

hmm, This is a little too personal. Maybe I will change my name after this.