I was once given a pamphlet, accompanying the Book of Mormon, which listed "10 ways to know that the book of Mormon is true".

(At least - it was quite a while ago)1 of the ways was found - you critical thinkers prabably have already guessed it - inside the Book of Mormon. If you don't know why this is so funny to me, please pray on it.

Have your belief, but if you want to use logic to defend it, then make sure it is actual logic.

To borrow a line I heard recently (wish I could credit the source, someone here certainly will be able to).

"Most people are atheists when it comes to most gods ever conceived, I just take it 1 god further."

Every problem looks like a nail.

What does it say about a person who, when encountering a word (or a word candidate) that they do not know, does not think, "hey, a new word", but instead thinks that it must not be a word, assumes a definition, and bothers to post a response about the use of said word without even bothering to look it up. Ignorance and arogance are an ugly combination.

Thank god that small children do not take follow that path.

I am reading a novel in Spanish (my second language), and it is just full of made up words on each page!

It is easy and natural to feel lost and to feel that one's logical mind fails to handle all of the economic theory and analysis when intering a discussion like this one. I'm sure that there are many like me in this regard.

So I propose each of us do 2 things:

1) Ask yourself who benefits when the majority of the populace feels that they cannot possibly understand the implications of one economic plan over another (follow the money).

2) Step out of the box and look at a bigger view. While the relative benefit of one theory over another has been debated, the very richest have gotten richer, and the very poor and middle class get poorer. No need to understand the way a tree grows to see that the forest is getting thinner in some areas and denser in others.

If we have to choose between growing the debt by helping those less fortunate or growing the debt while helping the uber rich, I choose the former

I am happy with either lable. I am progressive, I am liberal. Most of the people I know are not so easily swayed by obvious use of language to frame debates, which the republican party excels at. But this is mainly because it is targetted at those who are susceptible to such manipulation - i.e. their base. Of course, the Democratic party has abbetted them by modifying their actions in response to this crap.

The article mentions the phrase "tax and spend liberal". This is a good example of the right's manipulation. Both parties spend, so taxing is actually fiscally responsible. I'd like to hear people say "borrow and spend republican" whenever they say republican (well, actually, I hate to see level of discourse drop even further than 5th grade level but "They started it!").

Relatively informed people hear commentators talking about flag pins and "support the troops" and wish that we could hear about real issues. Low information voters, on whom the Republican party relies, are actually swayed.

So, the borrow and spend, 6th commandment violating ("Thou shalt not kill"), government expanding, fiscally irresponsible republicans can call me whatever they want.

1) Yes, everything had to come together just perfectly -

A black man from a mixed marriage with a strange semitic name who looks nothing like any other president before him, battling in the primaries against an establishment candidate with huge name recognition who started the primary process with 100s of special delegate already lined up, with the MSM unwilling to question McCain's maverick claim etc.

2) Chicago is named the 2nd city because (among other things) the first city of Chicago burnt down, and was rebuilt as the second city (of Chicago).

If you can stand the winters here, few fail to recognize that it is a fine city.

There are some issues, the destruction of the bill of rights as an example, which should not be viewed as right v left issues. Democrats, and Obama in particular need to make the argument that being for the constitution and the bill of rights is not a left position, but a patriotic position.

Governing from the center need not lead to "compromise" positions meaning we only lose some of our rights.

Obama can do so much good, as many have stated, with closing Gitmo, ending the illegal war, restoring the role of the DOJ, mending relations with our former allies (most of whom will not miss the chance to respond to our positive action - the election) and numerous other actions that are not left, but reasonable, just and way past due.

Many of these pundits hold thier jobs for one simple reason. They can predict that what they want to happen is what "will" happen with a straight face and as if they were using logic and reason to come to their conclusion. Look at the skill set required to be white house press secretary during the last 8 years (especially). Of course those of us with a strong enough bullshit detector see it from the start, but there are still lots of people who want to believe something so much that they eat this shit up.

A shout out to all of those PUMAs out there! Bite me too.