Why are people in the USA so obsessed with their auto industry? It's hardly as important to the US economy as say, the financial sector. And let's be honest - you people will never be good at making cars.

I would imagine it's because people seem to be obsessed with cars in general.

Change we can believe in!

There is a big difference between Obama and Bush when it comes to "talking the talk," so to speak, but I see little difference between the two when it comes to "walking the walk."

This, and Bush made it harder for Republicans to get elected at the end of his term, and I have a feeling Obama will make it harder for Democrats to get elected at the end of his term.

As we would say here in Austria: A Verkettung unglücklicher Ereignisse, whatever that means in English.

A series of unfortunate events?

Probably Perry, followed by Santorum. Bachmann in third and Palin in fourth.

McCotter, Gingrich, and Johnson.

Not Roemer?

Perry. GWB wasn't very economically conservative, but Perry might be, at least.

I think most people are going to ask themselves, "Are we better off now under Obama than we were under Bush?" and relate that to the economy. If the election were today, I think it'd be close with the Republican edging out a close win.

Romney: Stay same. Didn't really hear much out of him. Nothing new, at least.

Santorum: Down. His opinion on gay marriage and foreign policy are disgusting.

Gingrich: Up. Hard for me to say up, because I didn't like his idea of a loyalty test for American Muslims. But on matters of the economy, he appeared very intelligent and articulate, and I liked that a lot.

Bachmann: Up. I really think she did a good job in this debate. She seemed like she had a lot of integrity and she was very charismatic.

Pawlenty: Down. This was an absolute disaster for him. He just seemed very feeble and weak.

Huntsman: Down. Mostly, the questions he was asked (relating to his policies and beliefs) made him seem worse.

Paul: Stay same. He was just saying the same stuff he usually says, which I love, but I can't say it improved my already high opinion of him.

Cain: Sort of like with Romney, I didn't really hear much out of him.

The lie Bachmann stated towards Pawlenty (era of small government) really turned me off for her, and I just didn't get too excited when those two were bickering. I haven't seen Gingrich-Wallace yet, so for now, Paul vs. Santorum. On foreign policy, I'm pretty even between their two beliefs, but Paul was making Santorum look foolish out there, and Santorum was knocked down a couple places in my book.

What lie?

Bachmann v. Pawlenty.

She made T-Paw look so stupid!

As much as I would love to say Ron Paul, I have to say Michele Bachmann won. I think she sounded really sincere and charismatic. My mom was apathetic to her at the beginning of the debate, but at the end of it, she supports Bachmann over all the candidates (except maybe Ron Paul). I wonder if other people were swayed in similar ways.

LOL Santorum is making such an idiot of himself, as usual!!

I wonder what Michelle was doing....

She is on her period
duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

lol Typical Santorum

They need to ask Paul some more questions and leave Romney, Bachmann, and Pawlenty alone for a while. And Gingrich is simply a arrogant ass.

Yeah, Ron Paul has gotten one question so far...what is this?

Ho sh**t, Newt Gingrich....

Why is she touting her opposition to increasing the debt ceiling? Things would be even worse if we had defaulted.

She has integrity

"We know you have a four point economic plan, Mr. Cain." lol!!

"I'm not gonna eat Obama's dog food." - Mitt Romney

Ho, sh**t lol

Was he booed? I thought they were saying "Newwwwwwt"

Jump for joy.

Poland.

That's bullsh**t that Japan was eliminated. It probably should've been in the top 5, or at least the top 10.

It's sort of like a black person being against civil rights in the '50s and '60s.

That would actually make more sense than a bisexual opposed to gay marriage. The bisexual is probably not going to think it's a "straight conspiracy" or "they'll still screw us over in the end."

I don't understand what you mean. Were there a lot of black people opposed to the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s because they thought it was a "white conspiracy" or that they'd be screwed over in the end?

Talk about blaming the boogeyman. The various problems of the West are of the West's own creation. Even the social dislocation that has led to the breakdown of the traditional family structure is just a byproduct of the capitalist system. Industrialization, urbanization and later - suburbanization and the rise of the service economy have logically led to the place we now inhabit. Social conservatives make it sound like some shadowy cabal is plotting the downfall of all that is good and right; rather than chalking the changes up to obvious rearrangement of the social structure. Not every trend or change requires some evil group with an Agenda (capitalized).

This also has no real relevance for 2012. Gay marriage will not decide this election.

So the capitalist system caused both rising divorce rates/out of wedlock births and the homosexual agenda? How is that not totally absurd?

There has been a social agenda since the 1960s that not only was not caused by capitalism but on the contrary by the people most opposed to it.

I think what generic means is that capitalism's emphasis on hard work and earning money has caused the traditional family structure to deteriorate, in that now the woman in the family has to work along with the man, whereas before it was only the man who had to work.

Anyway, the Democrats and the GOP are obviously going to focus on the economy in the 2012 election, unless it miraculously gets better before Election Day, which it won't.