celebrities get paid to pretend! makes sense to me, right? =)

With very few exceptions I believe a celebrity's endorsement neither helps nor hurts a political candidate. I actually pay no attention to this kind of press because it does not determine one way or the other how I feel about or see most candidates. Anyone that likes a particular politician because of a celebrity is a fool anyway.

I find it humorous though Ryan that you are blasting the so-called elitist progressive celebs when there are just as many elitist conservative celebs who do the same for anyone on a republican ticket. Remember, that for every Clooney there is a Nugent.

By the way, the only reason you receive emails about the Obama campaign trying to raise money is because Romney doesn't have to. Not when people like the Koch brothers, Trump, and many others like them are so willing to let loose their personal purse strings. Must be nice to try to buy a Presidency instead of winning one. ;-)

I'd imagine this is one of those issues that will split down party lines but I'm sure there are some independent thinkers out there that aren't amused by the progressive influence these celebrities have over the idiotic dumb-masses not to mention the close relationships they have with our president.

Obviously I get nauseated anytime one of these elitist celebs opens their mouth spewing progressive rhetoric but it is their right as it is their right to use their influence to help a like minded president. Not that Obama could ever gain my support but being surrounded by Hollywood brass doesn't do anything but further turn me off to anything he has to say.

It seems like once a week I get an email from the Obama campaign touting another dinner with X celebrity and a plea from Joe, Michelle, or Barack to donate for a chance to win a seat. Folks this is real life, not Hollywood special effects, screenplays, and fake boobs.

Should they HAVE to no, but if they want to bring certain customers into the store they should. I have to admit I sometimes found myself thinking like some of you here regarding people that were overweight. I even gave a promotion one time to one employee over another under the assumption that the individual that was fat was lazy...I couldn't have been more wrong. I come from a family that genetically seems to struggle with weight issues. That doesn't mean everyone is fat...just that unlike those that seem to be able to eat anything and stay thin, we easily put on weight and have to work at keeping it off. What we aren't is lazy...perhaps overdriven. I recently used a motorized cart for the first time...I'm 60...and find myself very embarrassed doing so...putting it off and simply not going to stores after my last couple experiences shopping. I want to walk and push my own cart. I want the exercise. Yes I have become heavy...fat...and I don't eat a lot of unhealthy foods. It began with painful foot condition that seriously curtailed my physical activity...I put on weight...now my feet are OK, but my knees are gone. Yes, I can still push a cart, though painful it does stabilize my my knees much as a walker. I manage as long as I can keep moving. The problem is to keep moving. People inconsiderately jam up the aisles leaving carts or visiting as well as tie up the checkout lanes. I can not stand for long in one place. The pain is very intense to the point at which I feel sick, sometimes panicked. Knee replacement is in my future..the problem being able to take off work for that period of time.
That said...my point is that why certainly there are more than enough fat and lazy people to go around, there are also people that are fat or have handicaps/health issues that are not always visable. These carts provide a means of independence. Don't judge what you don't know. I work hard and I have money to spend. If a store wants my business it is in their interest to make it possible for me to shop there.

I'm not sure anyone really deserves to be president. I can tell you Barack Obama deserves to be removed from power as did George Bush as it's obvious neither one of them respect the constitution.

With that being said I have a very difficult decision to make in a few months, do I make a statement and vote for who I'd truly like to see in office even though he will not likely win or do I vote for someone I don't really like to keep a horrendous president from getting a second term? I don't know as of right now, it will take a lot of research and thought to make this decision.

Please pay attention to the description. I would like a discussion on who you believe DESERVES to be the next President of the United States and why. This is not a discussion on who you believe will win. At this point Ron Paul is still a candidate for President so if you believe he should be the next President please join the neutral side. Either way please leave an explanation for your choice.

I realize that none of the candidates with the exception of the Incumbent has a running mate. This is purely on the basis of the three men mentioned above. I don't mind if you state who you believe WILL win as long as you state your reasons for choosing the candidate you believe deserves the presidency.

I'm sorry folks but Google has competition but everything Google does is better than it's counterparts. As a developer I would find it hard to believe someone would prefer Bings Webmaster tools to that of Google just as one example. Could they become a monopoly? Sure but they're not there yet. IMO

I guess that was a bit of an assumption but I didn't think it was much of a stretch knowing your opinion of our current President and the typical views liberals have on the progressive tax code which in my opinion is in part forced charity. I didn't mean any offense and certainly apologize if I was off base.

Not really sure where you were going with your remark Ryan? I said nothing about making it a requirement for wealthy citizens to give back to their communities and fellow human beings, only that to not do so seems a little despicable and callous to me. If your reply was to mean something else I'm afraid I missed the point. Actually, I'm a little confused by your remark, but I wholeheartedly agree that karma will come back to bite them, but the real question is "Why should it have to?". All I really have to say on the matter is do the right thing. Be a good human being.

While I do agree with your premise in that you should give in the circumstances where you are financially able to but I don't feel that it's my place or anyone else's place to force charity upon people. I for one give (When I can) because it makes me feel good to help someone or something and would give much more if I was financially able to. I guess the only difference in our points of view is that there should be no government or societal requirement to do so. Forced charity is theft while voluntary charity is beautiful. If some rich cuss wants to be a stingy ahole, I say let him/her. Karma is a son of a gun and will bite them in the ass.

I do like the 3d movies but it does hurt your eyes a little when you wear glasses plus its annoying because you have to wear them over your glasses.

If more people wanted more for themselves and actually had the motivation to strive for the things they wanted then the world may be a little different. So many people settle for less. So the people that work for a living and strive for the better things in life have to pay for those that want to sit home and collect their welfare checks.