He seems to be back. And, for the record, I don't want coal, oil and natural gas. I want solar, wind and alternative fuels. Thanks.

Gas at 1.86/ gal is a sign of an economy about to head over the edge of the cliff and crash? Well, that is a new one to me...

Are we watching the same debates? Because to me, it sounds like Obama is repeating the same lies about Romney that he did 2 weeks ago that Romney had to accuse him of repeating a lie enough times so that hopefully the public will eventually accept it as fact. Fact is, more jobs = more tax paying citizens = more income.

I like coal, oil, and natural gas. I also like solar and wind. But cars that go twice as far on a gallon of gas doesn't mean squat when gas is more than twice as expensive as it once was - outpacing the increase of inflation.

*thumbs up*

In the summer of 2008, gas went over $4.00 for the first time and reached the highest average ever. Yes, it went back down after the election.

More jobs does = more tax paying citizens = more income, however, the way they think jobs should be created are very different and Romney's method has been tried before and failed.

The only way to bring gas prices down is to eliminate dependence on the middle east. The only way to to do that without doing serious damage to the environment is to significantly reduce our dependence on oil. How soon we forget the BP oil spill?

But it's still not the governments job to "create jobs." It's small businesses who create jobs. Unfortunately, small businesses can't create those jobs because they have too many hoops to jump through for taxes. So in that regard, I wish Romney would stop talking about creating jobs too, but I guess he has to say those things because that's what people want to hear. Obama's way hasn't worked either.

Very hard to reduce oil dependence when the alternative options out there are too expensive to enforce. I would love to make my house a solar house. But I read somewhere (I'll look for my source and come back to update if I can find it) that the upfront cost to get it going would take 20 years to break even on the savings. 20 years is way too long. 5 years to break even (if I'm in my forever home), okay. 20 years, not okay. So those alternatives also need to be affordable.

I disagree. Jobs can be created in many arenas. GM is creating thousands of jobs. If Romney had his way with GM, there would be an additional 2 million people unemployed.

Obama's way is working. Look at unemployment rates. They are trending downward.

If those alternatives were more widespread, they would be more affordable.

I don't think I could have possibly heard him right, but I think Romney said that women should have access to contraception and employers shouldn't be able to deny them that, but that is part of the Obamacare, which he wants to repeal.

Anybody who has any understanding of insurance risk pools will understand that there is an inverse correlation between the number of people insured and the cost of the insurance. It is the basic premise of insurance risk pools. The more people who are insured, the cheaper insurance will be. Period. How can Romney say that isn't true?

So... women don't have equal pay because they don't have access to birth control?

A large part of the reason that women are held back in the work place is because they take time off of work to stay home with children or go on maternity leave. They don't get promotions because of that. So yes, it is more difficult for a woman with children to make what her co-workers make.

And don't forget.. they have to have flexible hours so they can be home to make dinner... WTF???

Petty little thought.... the mother of the groom checks with the mother of the bride, so they don't wear the same color to the wedding. Wouldn't you think the candidates wives' could do the same?

OK, back to politics.....

I normally don't debate politics but even I was like WTF at that comment. :rolleyes:

it should be a 4 way debate between Obama, Romney, Johnson and Stein.

I honestly didn't think I heard it right until people started making comments about it on Facebook!

It may be true that women in the workplace are making less because of maternity leave and taking time off to be with their children, etc., but how many of those children are the result unplanned/unwanted pregnancies due to lack of available contraception?

I think pay should be equal for equal work, and I think contraception should be available and affordable, but I don't think the two are as heavily related as the President implied. If contraception and abortions were all made free and accessible, I don't think this would make a even a small dent in the pay gap. They are two separate issues, and they need to be addressed with separate plans.

All of this.