How much time have you taken to get to know the candidates? There is a substantial difference between how these two candidates see America and their vision for our future. One believes in individual accountability and less government interference to allow you to achieve to your capabilities. The other believes that “class struggle” and a larger government are needed to get you what you deserve. All you have to do is read their books and materials. This election will decide the America's future direction.

How much have you studied Obama’s view of America and the world? Unlike Harry Truman and our previous Democrat Presidents Obama does not believe the “buck stops” here. He may read it off the teleprompter but it is for political purposes only and does not reveal who he is. Individual accountability is not part of his philosophy. He believes that we are all victims of our “station in life.” This allows him to divide and exploit every group in society very effectively and pledge to use government to “make things right.” The reality is quite different ---- as a lot of people are finding out.

I recommend you research the facts before you accept any political party's talking points. Political parties effectively use these talking points (lite on facts) to exploit the uninformed. I recommend you take a look at "Masters of Audacity and Deceit" by a local author William E. Been. In his book he explains "the mess" with the facts, including over 25 pages of footnotes.

You must'nt have been born during the years of the last republican administration that created this godawful mess. Had you a memory, you would realize that the same misguided policies of George Dumbya Bush are those touted by Romney and Ryan, with Ryan's determination to foist peculiar Roman Catholic Sexual Dogma on everyone despite the First Amendment's statement that 'Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion'--and that included religious beliefs and dogmas.

No, that movie is a hate him. It's not education, the movie rallies the base. It make does not back itself up with facts.

I really do hope you are right, for the sake of our country!

The film is like Nazi propaganda. Obama 2012!

"the sins of colonialism be set right and America be downsized..."

Um...Yes. Colonialism, neocolonialsim, monopoly capitalism has caused a world (literally) of hurt. Read any recent book on African history. Europe and then the USA did not industrialize or set up manufacturing. They took raw resources to be processed elsewhere and at most would give maybe one politically leading family in the country some financial reward (and this was later). In some countries the devastation, torture, mutilation, etc was horrendous. I mean these are facts. Google King Leopold II or for a more recent example Patrice Lumumba (both Congo incidents). Really bad stuff has happened and is happening there and elsewhere. It is about getting out of countries where we are just stealing resources/destroying economies and either empowering them to take control of their own resources and participate as equals in international trade (which we will never ever do) or get out completely. It is not that cut and dry but that statement, when not made into a hyperbolic ridden, fear mongering rant, is a good thing.

This is really just very basic history of colonialism.

I have been reading Madison's notes and Jefferson's letters for weeks now and have yet to see anything about our founding fathers have any concept of "america must grow so liberty can grow." that is nonsense and that movie is garbage.

How does down sizing America for the "sins of colonialism" improve the plight of the rest of the world?

Let me ask a question first. What do you think "downsizing America" means?

Like I said before, colonialism did a lot of really bad things. If you study African history, every country on that continent has a reason to be really pissed off at the Western world. The western world has actively kept these countries from participating as equals in international trade or developing their own industry for _centuries_.

So how does "downsizing" improve the rest of the world? Centuries worth of harm has devastated these nations. Downsizing to me means, we take our economic interests out of these countries. This means we can only altruistically assist which will benefit every other nation's economies eventually. right now we give money to a corrupt leader that we put in place (usually over a leader that did not want to hand over all of their countries raw resources for a single payout because that does not sustain an economy).

This is not an easy subject and there is no good answer. But this movie states O wants to downsize america and repair damages from colonialism like it's an evil, unpatriotic catastrophe. It is not blasphemy to say that this country should be equal to others, and if we don't get on board with international equality, we will overextend and go down in flames. This country has never been able to own up to the damages it has done in the name of resource domination and multinational interests blending with govt interests.

My main point is that bc of past historical tragedies a lot of African countries try to work on socialistic government or trust Russia and Cuba (cuba was the only country that would help S. Africa/Zimbabwe/Namibia/Angola militarily during Apartheid while ppl were just getting massacred). You have to remember that our idea of socialism comes from the Red Scare and commies and nukes and cold war, et al. Africans often see socialism really as more of a democracy independent of international control...We just call it socialism for whatever reason. (Lumumba in Cuba again is a good example).

So Obama, and anyone with a minor education in history, understands this and are not afraid of Socialistic threats that are often no more commie than we are. Political systems are constantly redefined anyways. So this movie can take a brief statement or support of an African with socialistic ideals in an economically devastated country that is so devastated largely bc of the western world, and turn it into flag burning and covert commie activity from within the white house.

Does that make sense? Just a little contextual perspective is needed, and if you don't have it, this movie will exploit that misunderstanding to a shameful degree.

Anyways, imagine if Cuba came knocking on our door and said "I am here to liberate you." We would tell that person to go to heck bc it isn't the American way. Do you think justifiable nationalism does not exist in any other country?

Erin, I like and appreciate your statement that “just a little contextual perspective is needed, and if you don't have it, this movie will exploit that misunderstanding to a shameful degree.” I could not agree more. However, when you then suggest that “... this country (America) should be equal to others, .....” are you telling me that Western civilization and the American experiment in individual freedom should be judged as equal with tribalism and its repulsive treatment of its enemies, women, and children? Only with the rise of Western Civilization and especially the Judeo-Christian philosophy have children and women been valued. Prior to its rise children were routinely “exposed” and especially the female gender. Prior to the rise of Western Civilization women where “owned” by tyrants and enslaved by the victors for the rest of their lives. This does not mean that the execution of this philosophy has been without error but to equate the rise of Western Civilization and the American experiment to rest of the world seems to lack more than a little contextual perspective. America has had to build fences to keep people out. It is very difficult to discuss and reset three thousand years of history in this discussion. For some perspective I would suggest “The Five Thousand Year Leap” , “7 Tipping Points that Saved the World” by Chris Stewart and Ted Stewart, and read of Exodus, Samuel, Job, and the Gospel of Mark. Good luck. I enjoyed the conversation.

Oh absolutely not. I really do not mean to offend, but that is the opposite of contextual information and international perspective. That kind of statement about the Western world is very ethnocentric and has been disproved over and over again.

There have been examples of the legal fair treatment of women since...what is the furthest example that I can think of...Hammurabi's Code in Ancient Babylon...That is a Middle Eastern civilization. Ancient Egypt (obviously N. Africa).

Man...Thanks for appreciating what I had to say, but you have floored me with your comment, and unfortunately I am super busy right now and cannot respond fully, which is probably for the best because I disagree 100% with everything that you said and with the sources that you offered up as being appropriate for gaining international perspective and contextual knowledge.

Oh goodness. You hurt my heart with that one. :) Good luck to you as well though, and I fully recommend picking up any books on African history written in the last decade. (Apartheid only ended in 1994 and before that there was a lot of government interference in texts concerning the colonization of africa for political purposes).

Are you aware of how we treated women, minorities, and children early on in this experiment? Genocide? & I believe it was 1840 that we slowly roasted african american slaves in the middle of new york city because of a _rumor_ of an uprising started by an indentured servant. NYC!

There is a substantial difference between how these two candidates see America and their vision for our future. One believes in individual accountability and less government interference to allow you to achieve to your capabilities. The other believes that “class struggle” and a larger government are needed to get you what you deserve. All you have to do is read their books and materials. Don't allow the party talking points to exploit you and others. Get to know the candidates and understand how they see America and you.

Jim were you living during the eight Bush years? Remember when he went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with borrowed money? Then he cut taxes twice on borrowed money followed up by giving a prescription drug benefit to seniors with borrowed money? Were you living then? The biggest recession since the great depression. Thank God we have food stamps for the poor victims of the GOP economic policies. We've been adding private sector jobs for most all of Obama's first term after losing millions under Bush. You must have been out of the country during the Bush years. They weren't pretty. That's why there was no sign of him in Tampa. The GOP is ashamed of the mess Bush left Obama. No sign of either Bush or Cheney or Palin. Obama 2012 all the way!

You sound pretty sure of yourself so maybe you are not looking for input or a rational discussion. However if you are willing to look beyond the political party's talking points and spin ---- I recommend that you do a little research. As to who caused "the mess" I recommend you take a look at "Masters of Audacity and Deceit" by a local author William E. Been. In his book he explains "the mess" with the facts, including over 25 pages of footnotes. As to Republicans preventing progress ---- do you not recall who controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of the Obama Presidency? Unlike President Clinton, Obama during the last eighteen months has absolutely refused to compromise to pass a budget.

Exactly how will taxing the rich help the middle class and the poor? The rich do not keep this money under their mattress. Their money is invested in thousands of businesses across America. These businesses are making products that people want to buy and creating the jobs that we need.
It may sound great to the uninformed, but how does it make sense to take this money out of these businesses via higher taxes “on the rich” and take that money to Washington to be re-distributed by the political class to their buddies and those who help get them re-elected?
The politics of “class warfare” and the demands to make someone else pay is a far cry from what created the world’s largest and most successful middle class and made America the envy of the world. The political re-distribution of wealth creates less wealth and damages the poor and the middle class the most. To fall into this trap means that you will destroy small busineses (and the middle class) leaving you with only a larger government and more multiple multi-nationals with extensive lobbyists and tax breaks. (GE for example) Is that really what you want?