Pietro:

Great post to end the week. This so called "Pledge to America" is more of a roadmap to the destruction of the middle class. Nothing new, just a re-packaging of the failed Bush Agenda, no details on how they paln to pay for any of this etc. Great points.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Where is a pledge on: Immigration Reform, Boarder Security, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Trade Agreements, States Rights, Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Affairs and a Ban on Earmarks?

Great post and question; Dennis

I don't think Republicans have the IQs to put it there. Besides, those greedy Koch brothers with their their natural antipathy toward the middleclass and poor people wouldn't like it.

Dennis: Excellent post. I too was wondering about their plan on immigration reform, Social Security, Medicare, ban on Earmarks. Guess they don't have a plan or don't want to talk about it. Good to see you on top of the leader board.

[Dennis, Columbus, Ohio]

[Pledge #1 is to “Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts (all of them)”. Beyond the ‘how do you pay for them’ and ‘do they create jobs’ issues, what about the two-thirds of Americans that are okay if taxes increase for the wealthy?]

How do you "pay" for them? By having the government spend less. Does it create jobs? It has a better chance as the government spending trillions attempting to create jobs has failed. And "two thirds Americans that are okay if taxes increase for the wealth", means that two-thirds of the people are all in favor of someone else paying their way.

[Pledge #3 is to put “A cap on discretionary spending”. A cap on 15% of the budget! Just wow! There is a 3 year freeze on it that Republicans criticized for being too little so how is this any different?]

Got to start somewhere. What's the Democrats plan? Oh, wait, they don't have one!!

[Pledge #6 is to “Enforce sanctions on Iran”. This requires other countries to be involved as part of the UN forces. Good luck with that!]

Enforce them to the point if they don't comply that there are real consequences. Ask Saddam for details, I hear he's hanging around some where.

[Pledge #9 is to “End the stimulus program”. Then sit back as the tax payers scream as their Police, Fire Fighters and Teachers are laid-off]

Why would they scream? These are local, and some state, funding issues. Governments, state and local, need to get a handle on their spending. They, just like everyone else, need to pick and choose what programs are important to them, and which ones aren't. You can't have the federal government fund local and state governments by using deficit spending to do so. That is certain to fail as we have seen in the past 20 months as the "stimulus" money from the feds has been used to make state and government payroll, and not stimulate private industry. And of course a healthy private industry being successful would mean more tax revenue to the states and local governments. Instead the money stimulated nothing.

[Where is a pledge on: Immigration Reform, Boarder Security, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Trade Agreements, States Rights, Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Affairs and a Ban on Earmarks?]

Got to leave something for the Democrats. On Immigration reform and border security, the Democrats policy appears to be to sue states that are attempting to stop illegal's from entering the country. On the entitlements, someone is going to have to reform and cut back those programs. The Democrats won't do it, the Republicans better. On earmarks, that was covered by Obama who said he would not sign legislation with earmarks, but that turned out to be a lie.

There you go again Dennis... asking the TOUGH questions... lol

Nice Work!

"Does it create jobs?"

Uh, JoAnna- did you mean to say "DID it create jobs"??

"The Pledge" is a crock. A lot of nonsense. About nothing.

The devil is in the details and these people are trying to hide the devil. In fact, they are trying to hide 3 of them: 1) The privatization of Social Security, 2) The privatization of the VA and 3) The repeal of Medicare/Medicaid.

If you think SS won't be there for you now, just let the Republicans get hold of it and it really won't be there. And never mind the VA and Medicare are run much more efficiently than any private services, especially since there is no profit motive to jack up prices.

US NAVY - That was Dennis' post, not mine. I wish I could take credit for it though.

Dennis - great post. Maybe people will THINK before they vote on November 2nd. It looks like the 'Pledge' is a whole lotta NOTHIN'.

Matthew, Houston, TX

The devil is in the details and these people are trying to hide the devil. In fact, they are trying to hide 3 of them: 1) The privatization of Social Security, 2) The privatization of the VA and 3) The repeal of Medicare/Medicaid.

Ain't that the truth!

But, somehow lady JoAnnaSmith1 doesn't the Republicans have succumbed to the devil making; despite Republicans robbing America's piggy bank. Republicans do it better.Right JoAnna?

No Republicans don't. They just rehash the same old threats and lies. Like the abortion funding in the new law of the land which the Hyde amendment had already addressed in the healthcare law.

News from Texas.

After refusing federal stimulus money Rick Perry has decided to sue for Texas Share of educational stimulus money.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7214265.html

JoAnna:

We have had the Bush tax cuts for a decade now, and we have the worst unemployent of a generation.

Tax cuts don't create jobs, they create more wealth for the already wealthy.

So why go broke paying for something that doesn't work?

President Bush had the worst job creation record of any modern President.

Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record

The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

The Bush Administration created 3 million jobs in 8 years. President Obama's much criticized stimulus has created more than than in less than 2 years.

The facts speak for themselves.

Salt Grass,

Ain't our governeor just a peach? White may not be the best but he is MUCH better than Perry.

Who is the party of no now! Did you ask Obama for those same details when he was running for the office? You guys said to show you, well the Pledge shows you. You said there was nothing that the republicans proposed, guess what! There is more here to help America then anything that Obama has forced on the US with back room deals, bribes in Congress, and lies while looking into the camera.

Take a good hard look at the VCI, his has dropped 70 basis points in a little more then a year. Bush had 8 years as did the other Presidents except Ford and Carter. 70 basis points, you can't spin that!

NF: Tax cuts don't create jobs, they create more wealth for the already wealthy.

Don't talk to me about it Nash, it's the Democrats, you know the ones still in total control of Congress(but not for much longer), that are talking about extending the cuts, even for the "rich".

And Nash, just what do the Democrats stand for if they don't let these tax cuts expire? The Democrats have been ranting for years about them, about how they have destroyed the country, but now they are ready to extend them, or even make them permanent. Why is that? Was Bush right? Kind of looking like the Democrats are admitting that he was.

And obviously Nash you think the government creates jobs. So where is the evidence to support that notion?

Pietro,

Sorry, I was hoping around and had your name stuck in my old tired brain reading something else. Dennis, my comment was for you, Great post. My Bad. A lot of good ideas today, hard to keep straight.

Oh yeah, the media forgot to report this, but the stimulus worked!

CBO finds 3.7M jobs created by stimulus

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows the Recovery Act has increased the number of workers by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million. The CBO also projects that 3.7 million jobs could be attributed to the stimulus by the end of September.

The $787 billion measure included several tax cuts, including one for $400 ($800 per working couple) that showed up in workers' paychecks. It also created Build America Bonds, expanded unemployment insurance and funded several domestic spending programs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/99915-cbo-finds-stimulus-bill-boosted-job-growth

Like I said, President Obama has created more jobs in 20 months that President Bush did in 96 months.

There is just no spinning that.

Hi JoAnna,

Good to see your 3 way bulb is on notch 1, saving energy again.

STTS

Well yesterday Senate Leader Harry Reid showed his Yellow Spine again, by Not wanting to go up against the Casino Lobby in Vegas, therefore delaying a Vote on Tax breaks for Middle Class Americans. A little CommonSense showed this was a No Brainer as a Positive for Democrats, but Harry showed, he's out to save his Own A$$, instead of Millions of Americans. His office says they did'nt have the Votes for Passage because some Democrats(BlueDogs) would be hurt by thier vote in the upcoming Elections.

Instead of making Senators make the Tough Votes, this socalled Senate Leader WIMPSOUT again. How in the heck can he expect Democrats to FIGHT for Democratic Leadership, when this socalled leader won't FIGHT for US.

I hope that Reid can beat Angle in Nevada, but when it comes time to Vote for Majority Leader in the Senate, I want his Butt Voted Out, because he's Not the kinda Fighter we need in that Position.

MildMannered Harry Reid has got to GO as Majority Leader!

You Betcha!

Jon Stewart was spot on last night when he played the soundbites from the GOP's announcement of the "Pledge" right along side soundbites from 5 to 10 years ago.

The "Pledge" does not represent a single new idea. It's the same exact crap the GOP has told us they were going to do for years and years and years and either they never did it or they did and it didn't work.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/postcards-from-the-pledge

JoAnna:

You are a master of deflection, and your circular thinking about the Bush Tax cuts is pretty much ridiculous.

This much we know: the tax cuts are not paid for and have helped ballon the defict.

Nobody is debating that.

You counter by asking me why politicians might do something that is bad for the country to win votes?

You assert that the actions of politicians is the barometer we should use to make sound policy?

Politicians sent us to war in Iraq to win votes - was that sound policy?

If you all you have to support your arguments is the fact that "groups of self interested politicians whose shortsightedness led us to the current precipice think this is the thing to do", then you in fact don't have a leg to stand on.

And finally, the "government doesn't create jobs" meme is tired and played out, okay?

Jobs are created by any entity with work to be done and money to pay those willing to do it. So jobs can be created by the private sector, the public sector, or any combination of the two.

The endless debating of all these theoretical and idealogical talking points is pointless - the only thing I care about is what works and what doesn't.

Tax cuts for millionaires do not work . . . so lets move on to something that might.

How do you "pay" for them? By having the government spend less.

So, the answer to one platitude is another?

You have the government spend less. What do you have them spend less on? Remember, you have Tea Baggers out there having a nutty about government spending, most of which is on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, but these same Tea Baggers don't want you to even think of touching those entitlement programs because they feel...well...entitled to them because they paid their fair share!

JoAnnaSmith1

[Pledge #1 is to “Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts (all of them)”.

And "two thirds Americans that are okay if taxes increase for the wealth", means that two-thirds of the people are all in favor of someone else paying their way.

No, Joanna two-thirds of people want every body to pay there fair share!!! including me and you.

[Pledge #3 is to put “A cap on discretionary spending”.

Got to start somewhere. What's the Democrats plan? Oh, wait, they don't have one!!

The democrats plan is in effect right now, there is a 3 year freeze on that right now, that the democrats plan. where in there pledge is it written how the republicans will achieve 15%

[Pledge #6 is to “Enforce sanctions on Iran”.

Code word, Joanna, attack. i hope you can stomach another war. !!!!!

[Pledge #9 is to “End the stimulus program”.Then sit back as the tax payers scream as their Police, Fire Fighters and Teachers are laid-off]

Why would they scream? These are local, and some state, funding issues. Governments, state and local, need to get a handle on their spending.

Joanna city's like Chicago, New York and LosAngles are at critical lows with police and firemen. Chicago is not able to replace Killed, wounded and retiring officers (4 KIlled this year), there man power is at a critical low point that last week they marched on police HQ for more officers. the mayor had to move officers from the community policing program and put them on the street.

this program over the years was a bridge between the community and the police. many neighborhoods have been ridden with drug corners, dope dealers and gangs. people can walk the street and kids can play in the parks because of this program.

But why do you care, you don't care what happens in the big citys, those peoples problems never affects you untill you go there and have something bad happens. (god forbid)

Immigration reform,
Got to leave something for the Democrats. On Immigration reform and border security, the Democrats policy appears to be to sue states that are attempting to stop illegal's from entering the country.

Joanna in the last month we have found out the this whole Immigration reform talk is garbage, this was nothing but a campaign ploy to get John McCain and Jan brewer re-elected. before all this talk they both were trailing in the polls, ever since Jan brewers gaff in the debate, people see her for what she is, a rogue Governor that tried to use the federal government as a excuse on immigration and boarder security to convince people to vote for her.

Truth is Joanna the boarder security measures put in by the Bush administration in 06 are the same measures used today. they are working, crime is down on the American side and violence is not spilling over like in years past. nothing has changes with boarder security since 06, the fence has worked in many places, Texas, new Mexico. have you noticed that since her debate gaff, and she is not in the media like before, and alot of this talk has went away. see that for what it was, politicians using false imformation to win elections.

Like I said Nash, the Democrats are in charge and have the ability to terminate the Bush tax cuts by doing, . . . . nothing. Lets see: 1) If they have the guts to do so 2) How prosperous our country will become once all of our taxes are raised.

When a store discounts their merchandise for a sale, when the sale ends, do you say their prices rose?

Likewise, when the discount period on taxes expires, as it was desinged to do, that is not a tax increase.

But you already knew that, right? ;o)

P.S. So can I take your silence as an acknowledment that the Bush Tax cuts did not create jobs and the Obama Stimulus did?

Nash,

What a great example !

That should put many of the Conservative talking points to rest.

Ain't our governeor just a peach? White may not be the best but he is MUCH better than Perry.

What...you mean you don't want to secede? ;)

Great post Dennis---

...and there is this little gem.

"CIGNA Government Services, LLC an affiliate of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company--Part B & DME Contracted Carrier for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services"------

This is an addendum that appears on notices from Centers for MEDICARE & MEDICAID Services!

Jeff: Joanna city's like Chicago, New York and LosAngles are at critical lows with police and firemen.

Cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angles have been terribly mis-managed at a local level. Didn't Chicago give 99 year leases to private firms to run their parking meters and airports? So what happened to all that money the city got for those leases? And now those revenue sources have dried up and Chicago is hurting. Those revenues should have been used to hire police and firemen, but instead there appears to be no money left. Where did it go? Same with NY and LA, instead of managing their money correctly, those two cities continued to expand and fund more and more social programs, and now that the tax revenue isn't there, they refuse to cut those programs back.

Let's face a few facts here. The money politicians in big cities like these spent were to pay off their constituencies and buy votes to keep them in office. Now that tough times have come, these cities don't want to cut those programs for the fear that they will lose those votes. So now rather then perform those cuts, these cities to begging to the feds for free money. Exactly how is it someone's problem in Wichita Kansas that Chicago can't pay for it's own police and fire protection?

No, Dennis, Nash does NOT have a great example.

If a store has a sale on an item, and I get there after the sale is over, I have the choice NOT TO PURCHASE.

I don't have a choice about my taxes.

If the item I want to purchase is priced too high, I don't have to buy it. The government, however, has the right to spend my money any way it deems fit, regardless of my opinion.

They spend my money on things I find extraneous, unimportant, or downright immoral. They take my money and give it to others-money I earned, while others chose to do less.

They force their priorities on me, at the point of a gun. Don't think so? Try not paying your taxes. You'll get free housing-at a place with bars on the windows, barbed wire on the fences, and be guarded by people carrying guns.

So, no, the sale analogy does not fit. In fact, it is ridiculous.

no joe,

You do have a choice, no one is forcing you to live in the United States.

And I think it is interesting that as long as the policies you want enacted are being imposed by the government, you are just fine with it.

It is in fact a very immature position to take when one lives in a democracy - when the majority agrees with me - democracy works. When the majority disagrees with me - I am being persecuted.

Grow up.

P.S. And don't quote me any "polls" please - asking 800 folks leading questions about stuff they are poorly informed about to start with is not a source of wisdom.

When something passes Congress with a majority vote, that is majority rule in a representative democracy. So save the "rammed down our throats" talking point and all the other senseless stuff you use to justify the simple fact that "government of the people" is not the same as "government of no joes every whim".

Joanna, I just so happen to live in Chicago...The airports have not been privatized...only the parking meters. And as far as the money goes, I am here to tell you that is WAS NOT spent on social programs, unless you call Police, Firefighters and Teachers social programs. And in Chicago politics, Daley did not have to buy votes to stay in office.

P.S. And don't quote me any "polls" please - asking 800 folks leading questions about stuff they are poorly informed about to start with is not a source of wisdom.

This, exactly. Sagely observation, Nash.

JOANNA!!!

Cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angles have been terribly mis-managed at a local level. Didn't Chicago give 99 year leases to private firms to run their parking meters and airports? So what happened to all that money the city got for those leases? And now those revenue sources have dried up and Chicago is hurting. Those revenues should have been used to hire police and firemen, but instead there appears to be no money left. Where did it go? Same with NY and LA, instead of managing their money correctly, those two cities continued to expand and fund more and more social programs, and now that the tax revenue isn't there, they refuse to cut those programs back.

The moneys the city of Chicago got for the parking meters, Skyway, has not went any where, there are long term leases and they can only tap so much every year. they budget short falls have to do with 2 things, and they coincide with each other, less money from property tax's (housing melt down) you know Joanna if a city expect a certain amount from property tax's, but at the same time people are still loosing homes, that tax can't be collected, so what do they do, mayor has not leased out the airports YET!!!!

If more people are out of work, then more people need social programs. I'm going to say to you the same i said to No Jo,

when Obama came in to office the damage was done, Did you want his to do the same things Hoover did when the depression hit, Not a darn thing, did you want to see Bread lines, soup kitchens, homeless living in there cars, why is it that i don't hear you rail agaisnt the forgen aid we give Israel, 20 billion a year, is it ok to give our money to forgen governments instead of our own people, this is what i get from you.

We were Broke when he took office, loosing 600k jobs amonth, the unfunded tax cuts you seem to love broke us, along with the unfunded wars, Medicaid part D. during that same time, money to citys has been cut year after year, education, social programs, money for law enforcement, money to new technology's to fight crime, new equipment for firefighters, Honey do you know how much it cost to man a fire engine, 250k to equip it and 6 men to man it. On 911 your were praising them but today your railing against them, why because they need help. there ok to run in a burning home but there not good enough to get fund during bad times.

so please don't give me that if citys has spent there money wisely they would not be in this spot. Bush screwed everybody and i see that was ok with you!!!!

BUT JOANNA WHERE EVER YOU LIVE, WHAT I'M SAYING IT NOTHING NEW TO YOU. YOU JUST DON'T CARE AND MORE. RIGHT!!!!

Jeff: If more people are out of work, then more people need social programs

See Jeff, you hit upon the problem and the solution, all in one sentence. Because there are more social programs, there are more people out of work. See France and/or Greece for details. It appears those countries have "cared" too much.

So Jeff, are there only two government programs in Chicago? Police and Fire? Seems that way, because those are the two programs that seem to get cut first. You'd think there would be some other programs that may be bloated, mis-managed, or not needed at all that the Chicago government could reduce or eliminate, but yet that doesn't seem to be the case, and all the cuts fall on Police and Fire.

I know, I know, we're back to the standard liberal answer: "It's Bush's fault". That worked well in 2008, at least from a national political rallying cry. Doesn't seem to hold much weight these days.

JoAnnaSmith1

So i guess the fact we were broke because of the Bush policys does not bother you. I'm not blaming bush, i'm stating fact. Joanna facts are something you can't hide behind. this is something you do here everyday. Facts!!! Joanna.

So Jeff, are there only two government programs in Chicago? Police and Fire?

No Joanna what bothers me about the police and fire is that they are the last line of defense. if you have cut every place else and police and fire in any community are cut your are cutting the bottom of the barrel, that will not work for any body. its affects me, you, everybody.

Now i would like you to answer the most important part of my post you did not answer my last post so answer this, and that is, did you want to president to do what hoover did when the great depression hit, and thats was nothing from late 1929 till january of 1933 he did nothing but watch people starve in the name of free enterprise. is that what you wanted from president Obama. democrats seem to be more human than republicans.

should we pass more tax cut that we can't pay for, and take years to take affect if they do at all, look at the 01, 03 cuts, what did they do for us, except break us.

see to solve a problem we must first find out how this problem came to be, and with out blaming bush, i blame his policys. would you agree?

So how do we move foward, and i will ask you for a answer, should the government do like hoover did, Nothing, or should the government show compassion for its citizens and do what Roosevelt and Obama have done ? Roosevelt was a great president not because he won the war, but he in hard times showed conpassion for the american citizens.

see all your talk about deficets and spending will not put food on the table, that will not put people back to work right away, and cutting off states when social programs are needed for many people 4 years ago did not need them. 4 years ago people were not looking for a hand out, but now they are, so what would you do Joanna, tell them too bad, what, its easy for you, your not responsible for 300 million people look for help. i dought you will answer!

Its time to repeal the tax code. Institute a fair tax, value added tax or whatever you want to call it. Then there won't many any more deductions for the rich AND there will be no more Earned Income Tax credit, no credits for childcare, no loopholes for big corporations. EVERYONE, including the 50 of people that pay no federal income tax NOW, can begin to pay their fair share. Add some percentage of taxes to EVERYTHING that is purchased. We'll see how people like it then. Everyone will be upset, both the rich and the poor

thewaythingsare-2190636

Joanna, I just so happen to live in Chicago...The airports have not been privatized...only the parking meters. And as far as the money goes, I am here to tell you that is WAS NOT spent on social programs, unless you call Police, Firefighters and Teachers social programs. And in Chicago politics, Daley did not have to buy votes to stay in office.

thank you for saying this, mayor daley is one of the best big city mayors, he wins elections by being a good hard working for every ward mayor. believe me Joanna the way chicagoans are if daley was not as good as avertised he would have been gone long time ago. we got rid of a mayor 30 years ago because he could not keep the street clear of snow.

Navy: I sure do like your last line. "Roadmap to the Destruction of the Middle Class" Every ad from Democrats should be using that as a tag line.

From a USCG Veteran (O-5) ~

The Republican MOTTO : "Anything to Destroy America" .

"Roadmap to the Destruction of the Middle Class".

That says it all. Do the American people get it? Yes, most do. It's getting them out to vote that's going to be the challenge.

Dick, NH;

We all sometimes forget our fifth branch of service, Thank you for your service and dedication to this great country. One of my best friends, who is X Navy, joined the USCG as a rescue diver.

The USCG is one (if not the frist) line of defense of the homeland.

Is it not just amazing how the proof that the Republicans are trying to destroy the middle class seems to be falling on deaf ears. The handwriting is there in their constant obstructionism, saying one thing and doing another. They can't even make a 'Pledge to America" without breaking that pledge in the very same day.

Thanks again for being one of our unsung hero's.

The provisions that are already in HCR that the republicans are trying to claim as their own are;
Insurance Across State Lines

High Risk Insurance Pools

Pre-Existing Conditions Covered

Lifetime and Annual Caps

Recissions

State Innovation

Conscience Protections

These are not republican ideas; they already are in President Obama’s HCR Bill.

In my opinion this is a good bill for America, not perfect but a foundation to build upon

So if the Republican position is to repeal and replace, and they will keep the 7 provisions you mentioned, how are your positions substantially different? What is the difference between the parties going forward? If they repeal the individual mandate they will only be agreeing with the position that Candidate Obama put forward. I believe they also agreed with each other over taxing the premiums of "Cadillac" policies.

Exactly true Alan. I can only see 2 reasons for repeal and replace. One is that they have no intention to actually replace those provisions. The other is that if they're going to exist the Conservative approach is to coopt those positions, pretend Democrats never had them, and claim those ideas to be their own.

Either way The Republicans aren't approaching this in a way that any reasonable person would recognize as honest.

Don't forget, John and Alan, they do not replace any of the cost savings parts of HCR. You know, the hard part of finding ways to pay for their spending. Something they have shown themselves to be particularly inept at over the last 30 years.

John B.;

You are right on the money.

Navy, do you really think that business will not pass the tax increase on to its patrons? You will have less income in January then you had in December. Hows that for a Roadmap to the Destruction of the Middle Class!

Exactly true Alan. I can only see 2 reasons for repeal and replace. One is that they have no intention to actually replace those provisions. The other is that if they're going to exist the Conservative approach is to coopt those positions, pretend Democrats never had them, and claim those ideas to be their own.

I don't know. The burdensome bureaucracy where the HHS has to come up with mountains of regulations and mandates could go. Also the increased responsibilities to the states to expand Medicaid was an unfunded mandate that has to be completely re-done. The individual mandate I would like to think is unconstitutional. If it is not then the Federal Government basically has the power to pass anything. It should have been a tax but the Democrats were too scared to call it that. I also believe there should be a reduction in the mandates that every policy must now carry. There is much to change but I think that most could agree on these 7 - 9 principals. ..... but then it might not be called comprehensive but incremental HCR.

Could not have said it any better than you did US Navy!!!!

Keep up the good fight!

Terry DAV,

Thank you. You keep up the fight as well. We need all the help we can get. Stay safe and be well.

USNDV ret- I wish I was one of these milti-millionaires that they consider a 'small' business man. If I was- I'd bank roll your run for office! If we had people in office that had even 1/4 the sense you do, this country would be in great shape!!

Keep up the good fight, sir.

Thank you for actually answering some question! Try this for a general approach on tax policy: The wealthy have a lot of extra money to spend. They may in fact already have cars, boats, planes and homes and still have a lot left over. Shouldn't some of that wealth go toward bettering the infrastructure of the country-after all the only way they could make that money was because of the existing infrastructure and all that it creates (a modern country and nothing less). A stimulus bill aimed toward basic 21st century infrastructure to be entirely funded by tax cuts from the top 1-2%. And by the way I am in that category.

Anaxgnosis,

I think that you mean a 1-2% tax Increase, but yes, you are absolutely right. The wealthy would not have the same wealth if they did not depend upon our infrastructure and social structure as they do!

If we want to live in an exceptional country and have the opportunity to experience the lifestyle we seem to expect, we need to be willing to support it. You're right B. Honest, the wealthy used the discounted tax rates to more than double their wealth over the last 10 years. Now we can't afford to subsidize them any more, it's time to go back to sustainable tax rates. They need to stop whining about a 4% tax increase. We currently have almost the lowest top tax rates this country has ever had. There have only been 10 years out of the last 94 years that the top tax rate has been lower than it is now.

Welcome back Feisty. Good to see you!

Feisty: I can't tell you how good it is to see you today. Your presence makes my day. You are right on that money doesn't buy common sense. So I guess they are out of luck.

Hey, Feisty: this board has been missing your quick wit. Welcome back, and we can chat about all of it later at the Dew Drop Inn.

Yay, Feisty! Welcome back, it's good to see you.

I can only dream of making over $250,000 a year and all my retirement savings were wiped out each time I was laid off, both times when the Republicans were in control, so I'm voting for my own best interests. I may be an Independent but until the Republicans renounce a 'one size fits all' economic philosophy that favors the richest among us, consider me a Democratic Party leaning Independent.

Thanks Ron... amazing that common sense is 'free' and so few take the opportunity to 'help themselves'... lol

It's good to be back NewDay & Matthew... first round of drinks at the Dew Drop are on me... I can indulge you with what FR solitary confinement was like.. ;0)))

3 squares and a cot... wasn't too bad... but 'stripes' aren't my thing...

Thanks JoAnna... I think?

Feisty

I would like to take this opportunity to remind every one that there are three things that MONEY cannot buy:

Your health

Your happiness or

Common Sense

LOL, especially common sense, you made your full disclosure now I'd like to make mind. I am pleased to announce that none of my opinions are frontal attacks on the size of Tea Bagger IQs. After all, how could I? Tea Bagger earned "the word of the year" the New Oxford American Dictionary. Something I think is notewworthy.

Happy Friday Feisty!

Hey Feisty missed ya!

Have a nice weekend!

OMG Bev... best laugh I've had in a while! ;0)))

What cracks me up is TEA BAGGER is the term THEY chose... WITH OUT doing their homework (like that's anything new)... and now they want to go getting all indignant and offended... lol

Thanks Pat & TRR... don't forget 3 days until The Last Work with Lawrence O'Donnell debuts... YAY!

Knock em dead Red!!

Feisty,

You have no idea how much your wit and wisdom was missed even for only a single day.

Have a great day and I’ll see you at the Dew Drop Inn this evening.

Welcome back to a fierce and phenomenal woman . . . we call you Feisty for a reason . . . you serve the truth with bite AND humor . . . sometimes it stings a bit, but some folk need a good shake before they can rub the sleep out of their eyes and think for themselves!

Never change.

I do believe Lawrence O'Donnell show will be a big hit. Can't wait...his first guest will be Vice President Biden.

I want everyone to have a nice weekend!!!!

Well, Well, Well, the Feisty One has been released.

Many of us tryed to post bail, but were denied.

So we stood outside & shouted:

We want PopCorn, We want PopCorn.

Musta worked, now Kickem where it Hurts!

Thanks to you all for the warm welcome back!

Rick - thanks for the second good laugh of the day! lmao Some how I can picture the torches & pitchforks! lol

Feisty,

Going to see the new Michael Douglas flick tonight. I love his new line, Greed was Good, Now it appears Legal.

HA HA Retired...

That sounds like the perfect campaign slogan for the right wingers... lmao

It appears to me that there are a number of Democrats that are hesitant/reluctant to verbally support the Administration's programs that were designed to help the American people. So either they are Republican wanna-be's or some sorry-a$$ Majority Party members.

So, here is what I suggest/recommend....

Let's say we get some of our intelligent, well-informed, sassy, brassy, fiesty posters to speak for us at town hall meetings, etc. They are not running for office, so they can get out there and "Tell it like it is"!!!!

And you posters know who you are:

Fiesty....you smooth redhead-you!

Pietro....possible 2016 Presidentail candidate :-)

Nashville....still waters run deep...What comes to mind when I read your post

Pat, Boston.... the Ultimate Patriot :-)

Ron.... I would have loved for you to be one of my teachers in middle/high school

Sheila, Md..... If only folk knew you as well as I do...Majority Leader...I KNOW you can whip them into step :-)

I know I left some out. But, you get my drift...we need some Warriors..not wimps to look out for the middle class in particular and Americans in general.

ENOUGH of the Republican foolishness already.

MPEvans,

You know, only the Democratic Party could take the fact that President Obama has created more jobs in half a term than President Bush created in two terms and turn it into something to run from.

Instead of trumpeting the things that went right, like health reform, credit card reform, and student loan reform, all the Democratic politicians and talking heads are busy reading tea leaves and trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

It truly is a disgusting display of what Washington D.C. is actually about wielding power and keeping power, not representing us poor sap suckers who sent them there to begin with.

Thanks for your kind words . . . I got a funny feeling that politicians are about to find out that its not just the tea party that is angry . . . we need more Democrats standing up and refuting lies with TRUTH, not cowering fear.

MPEvans - thanks for the encouragement... trust me - my 'dance card' is full between now and election day doing everything I can to make sure we continue to move this country forward instead of the alternative!

And I agree with Nash - I'm NOT afraid to talk about the accomplishments of the President & the Democratic party!

Have a nice weekend!

MPEvans - to quote Robert DeNiro in TAXI DRIVER - ' You talkin' to me?'

2016 Presidential Candidate?

WOW.

I really just post what I feel after I have read a bunch of articles about various subjects. I do think that the current trend of being stupid for stupid's sake is, well, stupid. it would also be nice to have a candidate that believes in something that will live or die by what they believe.

Of course it is easier said than done in the cheap seats, where I currently am.

Thanks for the vote of confidence though, but until 2016, i will be making as much noise as I can from here. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but know that I will always speak my mind. I don;t mince my words, either.

How's that for an opening salvo as a Presidential candidate?

When Larry Sabato of the non-partisan University of Virginia Center for Politics released his initial midterm forecast, he made a point of suggesting that the media narrative that the electorate's mood is anti-incumbent isn't specific enough...Mr Sabato insists that the electorate's mood is actually anti-Democrat.

That is why Democrats are frantically trying to make this a "choice" election rather than a very focused referendum on the performance and competency of the Obama Administration and the large Democratic majorities in Congress.

It would appear that, thus far at least...the electorate has successfully been able to separate wheat from chaff.

The midterms will be a referendum.

Mixed Bag-I thought the idea of framing this election as a choice was idiotic, at best. Did the White House actually think that the electorate thought something different?

Whether it is framed as a referendum or a choice, it remains the same: a rebuke of Obama's policies.

The only difference, it would seem, would be in Obama's interpretation of the results. If HE sees it as a choice, he can ignore the message of the electorate, and continue to foist HIS will on the people, regardless of their voiced opposition.

With a republican House, he will be stymied. That is the 'choice' voters seem willing to make.

I thought the idea of framing this election as a choice was idiotic, at best. Did the White House actually think that the electorate thought something different?

No Joe - since when is giving the electorate a CHOICE 'idiotic'?

Oh, my bad - it is because YOU think is should be a referendum. Silly me. It looks like your logic - and conclusions - are FLAWED once again.

To no one's suprise.

Here's the deal - it looks like the Dems are framing this election as a 'choice' election because it is the most EFFECTIVE method of driving the point to the voters.

I would have thought that you would have figured that out by now.

We have a choice between:

1. The Democrats and President Obama, who is trying to stabilise our economy with the current policies, like it or not;

2. The Republicans, whose 'Pledge' to help America is a plagarised retread of the Contract With America with no substance, but want to repeal everything and investigate everything for the next 2 years, getting NOTHING done for the American people;

3. The Tea Party, whose very VOCAL voice is being heard with candidates, even though those candidates REFUSE to debate or articulate their views.

So, No Joe, why NOT make it a choice election? We can continue on the course we are, slowly and surely righting our 'ship' and making America strong and healthy again,

OR

we can return to divided government and a return to the policies that got us in this mess in the first place,

OR

we can put the direction of the country into the hands of the Tea Party, whose views are obtuse at best and a little 'different' at worse.

We know what YOUR choice will be - and that's fine. That is your right as an American. We know what MY choice will be - and that's fine. That is my right as an American. I am making sure that MY vote cancels out YOUR vote, because it is my CHOICE to. Now - let's see how many people will make the same choice as I do on November 2nd.

Besides, I kinda like the idea that people have a CHOICE in America.

With a republican House, he will be stymied. That is the 'choice' voters seem willing to make.

Actually, No Joe, what we see above is YOUR PROJECTION. You have no idea if the House will be in Republican hands or not, just like I have no idea if the Democrats will retain their position as the majority party . From what I have seen from the GOP's 'Pledge', that is not a bet i would be willing to take, but I am sure you can find so 'poll' that will make you feel better.

Would it help you that many Conservative groups actually PANNED the 'Pledge'?

I am willing to let the PEOPLE - the electorate - decide the direction of the country. it seems the Democrats agree with me.

So America has to decide.

And we will find out the result on November 2nd.

Pietro;

Your post is right on. That phony Pledge to America was nothing more than the failed policy of GW Bush in a new wrapper. It took them all of 4 hours to break it when they voted no in the House on the Small Business Bill. Hypocrites. Why people cannot see through their hypocrisy and lies is beyond me. They are against Social Security, Medicare and Veteran Health Care. To them our Senior Citizens and Veterans are drags on their "Great Society" philosophy. We are something to be used up and discarded like garbage. Squeeze us for everything that they can. Forfeit the lives of thousands so they can sit in their comfortable luxury homes and throw stones at us. Something has to give and it is not going to be nice.

Isn't it strange, Beverly, that the Republicans want to keep parts of the HCR and call it their own, and that they have already violated this "Pledge" by voting against tax cuts for small business. How ANYONE can take this bunch seriously defies credulity.

NDD;

It is funny that the republicans have been harping on how bad the HCR Bill is. Their answer is to copy at least seven of the provisions already in President Obama's HCR Bill and pretend taht they are their ideas. Hypocrisy again. They simple have an agenda to make our President fail no matter how they do it. They are mad because President Obama did something they could not or would not do. Namely set a foundation for major Health Care reform.

I don't think there's anything strange about it at all, NDD, though I realize you were being ironic. Making an argument for Conservatism requires coopting anything that's popular and claiming it for themselves. They can't win the argument on facts so they need to win it by controlling the language.

Boy, Navy and John, no kidding. How DO these people look themselves in the mirror?

You're right. John Boehner is the lowest among pretty low politicians. I'm so worried about November. I would hate to wake up the morning after the election and see his smirk. We deserve better. We've worked too hard our entire lives to see them sweep into office and turn back the clock.

ND, they don't look at themselves in the mirror or Mr. Boehner would stop going to the tanning booth. They have no conscience and a contempt for the common man.

From the initial reaction from everyone, including right wing organizations, the Democrats should be celebrating this. It shows just how bereft the Republicans are of ideas. Personally, I think they forgot about their pledge to present an agenda and when people started asking about it they realized they needed to put something together, and quickly since the end of September was approaching. They have been so used to not having to do anything except say no that they were caught by surprise when people actually expected them to produce something.

I've been extremely disappointed about this whole pledge thing.

Here was the GOP's chance to demonstrate they had a plan of action for the country that could counter what the Democrats are after. Here was an opportunity to outline not only what their objectives were, but how they'd be achieved.

Instead, this pledge was sorely lacking in substance and the GOP managed to drop the ball again. By merely catering to voter anger, the Republicans are demonstrating themselves bereft of the capacity for analytical problem solving.

Instead, this pledge was sorely lacking in substance and the GOP managed to drop the ball again. By merely catering to voter anger, the Republicans are demonstrating themselves bereft of the capacity for analytical problem solving.

Exodite Dragon, you are correct once again.

Actually, and this will surprise many, I was looking forward to seeing what the GOP WOULD propose they would do. What we GOT was a retread of old policies that have been repackaged as 'new and improved'.

There will be NO SALE here.

That brings up something else that will surprise you - I actually feel for the Conservatives because they will have to endure another 2 years - no matter if they take both Chambers of Congress or not - of inept, selfish, self-serving, boorish GOP leadership.

Conservatives, is this the BEST you can do?

Your Candidates are being usurped by the Tea party. Your current GO leadership is inadequate at best, plain ol' stupid at worst. How can I NOT feel for you if this is the BEST you can muster? Whatever happened to GOOD candidates? Whatever happened to PATRIOTS that CARED about the people of this country that just happen to be CONSERVATIVE?

I like a good political fight with the best of them, but come on - you cannot be serious that this is the BEST you can do. Maybe you should REPLACE your current leadership and get new ones with some ideas that ALL of us can rally around. Frankly - the current GOP leadership SUCKS. They definitely know NOTHING about governing, either.

Until then, I will continue to support the Democrats because they have the better ideas that are actually working for US in the United States. They have policies that are investing in US - in the United States.

Until I see some new Ideas, why change?

I was genuinely hoping for an actual plan myself, Pietro. Time and again modern Republicans prove that being conservative and being part of the GOP are two completely different things.

ED,

Nice posts. I was also looking for some solid answers also. We got nothing from the republicans. If this is their agenda for 2010 - 2012 (and further) we are screwed. More wealth and Power will go to an even smaller number of people.

Matthew

No it isn't!

See! See!

;-))))

I can't I'm color blind!!! lol

It's purple over 'ere in Montrose. @_@

Wait, no, nevermind, now it's raining like a sumbitch. >_>

Or we could just stop reading Bev's posts.

Don't you ever have anything nice to say!!!

I guess that's just your personality!

Boy, I would hate to be you!

TRR - Happy Friday.

I would expect dangerfield is talking about the term "t-baggers" in his post. That's all I'm saying rather then try to "legislate" something in the forum that if people are offended by the term, a term which has obviously been termed acceptable, at least in this forum, then just take matters into their own hands and don't read those posts by those people. Bev seems to use the term the most, I would expect she does so to get a rise out of and offend people she doesn't agree with. So, if you're offended by her use of the term, don't read her posts.

Easy and simple, right?

The problem being, they proudly christened themselves with the term and so the assumption is that they want to be called that. I don't call them that but, hey, if they self identify themselves that way, then it is fair game.

If you want to use a gutter term to describe your adveraries , then I guess you have every right to do so. Doesn't say much about your intelligence, or lack thereof, though. Just what point are you attempting to make when you are using that term?

Mathew:

Good morning. Yep, The republicans just hate it when they get called on their own mistakes. It is always somebody elses fault. They coined the TB term before they researched what it meant and now it is the fault of every body else that reminds them that is what they called themselves in the beginning, with Tea Bags hanging off their hats. Go figure.

From dictionary.com:

then /ðɛn/ Show Spelled[th en] Show IPA

–adverb

1. at that time: Prices were lower then.

2. immediately or soon afterward: The rain stopped and then started again.

3. next in order of time: We ate, then we started home.

4. at the same time: At first the water seemed blue, then gray.

5. next in order of place: Standing beside Charlie is my uncle, then my cousin, then my brother.

6. in addition; besides; also: I love my job, and then it pays so well.

7. in that case; as a consequence; in those circumstances: If you're sick, then you should stay in bed.

8. since that is so; as it appears; therefore: You have, then, found the mistake? You are leaving tonight then.

–adjective

9. being; being such; existing or being at the time indicated: the then prime minister.

–noun

10. that time: We have not been back since then. Till then, farewell.

—Idioms

11. but then, but on the other hand: I found their conversation very dull, but then I have different tastes.

12. then and there, at that precise time and place; at once; on the spot: I started to pack my things right then and there. Also, there and then.

than /ðæn, ðɛn; unstressed ðən, ən/ Show Spelled[th an, th en; unstressed th uh n, uh n] Show IPA

–conjunction

1. (used, as after comparative adjectives and adverbs, to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison): She's taller than I am.

2. (used after some adverbs and adjectives expressing choice or diversity, such as other, otherwise, else, anywhere, or different, to introduce an alternative or denote a difference in kind, place, style, identity, etc.): I had no choice other than that. You won't find such freedom anywhere else than in this country.

3. (used to introduce the rejected choice in expressions of preference): I'd rather walk than drive there.

4. except; other than: We had no choice than to return home.

5. when: We had barely arrived than we had to leave again.

–preposition

6. in relation to; by comparison with (usually fol. by a pronoun in the objective case): He is a person than whom I can imagine no one more courteous.

JS1, do us all a favor and update your troll handbook of standard responses to reflect the proper uses of 'then' and 'than'.

Like I was saying above... NOW they want to go getting all offended & indignant...

They self-appointed themselves as tea baggers... not us...

Maybe next time they will spend some time researching... nah... what AM I saying?

I really thought that any progressive reading the above would understand, agree, and move on. That there are some who would justify choosing to offend people when they KNOW the same behavior is unacceptable in any other circumstance is a sad commentary on them...

Using examples for the challenged, there are obviously dozens of others...

And Gay people call themselves the F-word, but it isn't acceptable outside the group

African Americans call themselves the N-word, but it isn't acceptable outside the group

Justifying BIGOTRY and the promotion of hate speech with the rationalization that "they call themselves that" doesn't hold water in any other instance and the progressives who rail against "their" bigotry and hate speech who somehow seek a loophole for their actions are not progressives themselves but bigots and no better than those they criticize...there's a word for that too...

Considering that they, themselves, used the term for over a year, how can ANYONE else think that the term is derogatory just because it happens to be used by a small number of people else wise. If they named themselves such then everybody else has the RIGHT to use that term for them as well, most did not even have any idea of the 'other' connotation of the term. For them to get all upset now is just sheer hypocrisy and they will just have to deal with it. Once you name YOURSELF something in the public eye, and continue using that name for over a year, people will naturally associate the name with the group in that way.

Deal With It!

Trouble is dangerfield that the rules for progressives are different for different people. If a progressive thinks a person/group is a victim, a minority, an affected-class, they will fight to the death to protect that person/group. But if that person/group is someone they disagree with, is a conservative, or a Republican, the progressive will attack that person/group with every gutter, slang, and derogatory term they can can conjure up, and make up an infinite number of excuses of why it's okay for them to do so. Just read the posts from them above for proof.

And this is also why progressives are some of the biggest hypocrites in the world.

B.Honest: Deal With It!

Dealing with ignorance is always a trial in patience.

Is it time for the familiar Conservative narrative about how Progressives are the REAL bigots already? If that were really true you'd think Progressive organizatons wouldn't spend so much time defending people that Conservatives claim are discriminated against. http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

JoAnna--your comment makes sense. Problem is that people who don't like that term or some others flag the posts and get them collapsed. I wish they could just get over it. And if people on the left do the same thing to your or others' posts, I would say the same thing. Flag should be used sparingly.

I agree with you, Dangerfield. The CoH speaks to no "personal attacks". Well, here's how that game often is played here. For example, a Dem responds to a Repub's statement and says "I totally disagree". No personal attack there. Then, they drop down a line and say "All Republicans are nitwits". It seems the moderator doesn't view that as a personal attack even though it's so targeted and so intended for the initial writer.

Growing up, I was told if you can only express yourself using name-calling and swearing, it sends a message that you are ignorant, uneducated. Joanna suggests just skipping the posts that use the offensive T word you seem to be referencing. I don't read the posts from several people here because their tone and content are so predictable. There's a enough hate, hurt and ignorance in the world without intentionally exposing yourself to it, especially when it's coming from an anonymous person writing on a board like this. The sad thing is that sometimes they have interesting things to say; however, who wants to wade through their ever-present hate and stereotyping?

I don't have much hope for your idea to advance, Dangerfield. The sad part is that you even have to propose such a thing due to the overuse of the offensive terms. When somebody has to use symbols instead of letters or omit letters in a word, they know full-well what they're writing is offensive and should, perhaps, choose a different word. The symbols make the word no less profane or vulgar . Even though that's part of the CoH, it certainly doesn't get enforced; the last few days have really demonstrated that part of the CoH isn't being enforced.

Supposedly, all here are adults and all have a right to voice their opinion. However, with every right comes responsibility. In this case, that responsibility would be to speak/behave in a civil and adult way. Sorry but I don't think some here are ready for that responsibility yet.

Isn't it funny how the "tea baggers" are bothered by the name they rather proudly gave themselves? I'm sure you all remember when...during the summer of the outlandish national tantrum that they did, not allowing constituents to question their own representatives. I had an ancestor that participated in the Tea Party at Boston Harbor. Ol' John from Ireland came and fought for his new country, was wounded at Valley Forge where he was an Aide de Camp to Washington, and carried the scar from that battle on his face the rest of his life. Some of the women of my family are members of the D.A.R. I'm not, due to that rather nasty brush with racism that they had in the 1940's. Why do I tell you this? The term Tea Party belongs to heroes, not these thugs that are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey. I gave these folks the respect of using the name that picked for themselves.

dangerfield

And Gay people call themselves the F-word, but it isn't acceptable outside the group

African Americans call themselves the N-word, but it isn't acceptable outside the group

Justifying BIGOTRY and the promotion of hate speech with the rationalization that "they call themselves that" doesn't hold water in any other instance and the progressives who rail against "their" bigotry and hate speech who somehow seek a loophole for their actions are not progressives themselves but bigots and no better than those they criticize...there's a word for that too...

Dangerfield, black call each other the N-word, just like Jews call each other the H-word, whites call each other the White T-word, and on and on. your completely right that if come one out side of my race called me the N-word, he gets a beat down, just like jew, and a white person. thats the way this world is. you know that, i'm sure you have engaged this same dehavior. Alot of people will not stand for this at all from there own race(like me), but some are different.

a black will call another black the N-word, and any body out side of that race better not call a black that or they get a beat down. i don't agree with it, but this is TRUE in every race. I'm sure you heard this kind of talk from your parents. i know i did.

JoAnnaSmith1 - Happy Friday to you also.

Have a nice weekend!

I doubt they understood the sexual connotation when the term was first applied. To be frank, the cross-sections of people at Tea Party rallies I've seen don't seem to be made up of those who're inclined to be adventurous in their intimacies.

dangerfield:

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a valid one.

However, that said, I do feel that there is a very important distinction: you can in no way equate the "suffering" of members of the Tea Party movement with the suffering of African slaves, African Americans and homosexual Americans.

There is a long and ugly history of oppression and even murder that goes with the derogatory terms that have been applied to black people and homosexual people in this country. When black people say "the N word" and when homosexuals say the "the F word", it is an act of defiance to show those that seek to hurt and destroy with words that they have no such power.

There is no such underlying history of oppression for the term "teabagger", and as has been mentioned, members of the Tea Party Movement initiated the use of the term, not outside groups who are aiming to exterminate and abuse them.

So there is a difference.

It would be a wonderful world if we would all refrain from using terms that we knew others find offensive, but alas, we do not live in that world.

I don't use the term "teabagger" often because I don't think a "movement" based primarily on anger at the wrong folks about things that were conveniently ignored when the folks they voted for were doing it actually merits much discussion.

But that's just me.

In a modern sense, I almost find the term 'carpet-bagger' weirdly arousing as well as offensive. <_<

Steeler-Fan: JoAnna--your comment makes sense. Problem is that people who don't like that term or some others flag the posts and get them collapsed. I wish they could just get over it. And if people on the left do the same thing to your or others' posts, I would say the same thing. Flag should be used sparingly.

Agreed with the flag feature being used sparingly.

There are only 3-4 posters that use the term in question on a regular basis. Their use of it over time demonstrates that they are only interested in insulting the people with which they disagree. The intent of the flagging of the post, in it's purest sense, is a community self policing action which demonstrates that enough people in the 'community' believe the comment is offensive and it should be a message to the author of the post that maybe they should clean up their act. Instead there is mock anger by the author of the offending post and complaints to the moderator by the posters when they get collapsed when they know full well they are being insulting.

So that's how it goes, and it's obvious that term is acceptable language here. With that, the message is if you don't like what that poster continually posts, stop reading their posts.

Again,

In our SOCIETY, the determination of what is appropriate is determined by the person or group being discussed, period.

That is what is meant by political correctness. The continuing attempts at excusing the use of offensive, inflammatory language on the board, and I didn't just mean ONE term or direct my post to ONE group, is an affront to the very precepts of what it means to be a liberal or progressive.

It's offensive if the folks you're saying it about say it is, and that's all it should take. Those who are still trying to justify this behavior KNOW that it is offensive and ARE using it as an insult. It is disingenuous, and hypocritical, and there is no arguing that and no place for it among adults.

______________________________________________________________________________

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.^[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.^[3] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

I don't the history above is quite correct. The tea-whatever people knew what they were saying early on when they wanted to "tea-bag" the white house last year. There was no confusion involved. The fact that it boommeranged on them and they are complaining about it is just funny.

Before the recent unpleasantness I had only heard the term used by supposedly straight people, usually homophbic ones at that, talking about male dominance behaviors, like at a frat house. Sounds like the tea-whatever crowd to me.

Why are the very people who are so 'touchy' about the term tea bagger...

Not making the same 'ruckus' when people on the board calls a sitting President every thing but a human being?

For once I agree with JoAnna.. they claim to know who the biggest 'offenders' are SO stop reading them and for the love of God... stop with the whining already will you?

I find that funny too Rich, that they thought they were being clever on so many levels and then it kind of bit them, well, you know. I also think it is a good metaphor. They didn't have a clue what they were saying then, and they don't now. But, still, I think they deserve the respect of the name they chose themselves.

dangerfield,

As a point of clarity, I am not trying to "excuse" anything, as no excuse is needed.

Of all the issues that we are currently facing in this election cycle, proper use of the word "teabagger" ain't one of them.

It is interesting that folks who show up at Presidential events with guns strapped to their legs morph into helpless victims in the face of the term "teabagger". Real impressive.

Like I said in my first post, this entire issue is not really worth the time it has taken to type two responses about a "movement" based on lies and unrealistic solutions.

But if your calling in life is to defend the defenseless and upstanding members of Tea Party Inc., you go right ahead.

I wish you luck.

Yes- blacks call eachother the 'n' word. BUT- Here's what's worth noting:

They had that word psted onto them by OTHERS first. They didn't just start using it themselves first.

I think that matters. A lot!

A few friends and I call eachother 'honky', too- so call a cop, ya wienies.

If only y'all could see my friends and I interact. Your ears might explode. >_>

Fesity: For once I agree with JoAnna.. they claim to know who the biggest 'offenders' are SO stop reading them and for the love of God... stop with the whining already will you?

The biggest whiners are the ones that demonstrate their indignity with mock anger any time their posts are collapsed. The same ones that run off to the moderator with their complaints when ever that happens.

Know anyone like that Feisty?

Dangerfield:

Get real.

Until I see you do anything except yawn and look the other way when the right wingers around here go into full-on Lord-of-the-Flies mode when someone says something they don't like, I am not exactly looking to you as my moral compass for what constitutes proper forum behavior and what doesn't.

The fact is that you don't. React that is. When the right wingers do things that are out and out malicious and borderline evil, you look the other way because you are so busy looking for the shortcomings of your supposed ideological peers that, ironically, those who are supposedly ideologically opposed to you can do no wrong.

Two or three weeks ago, a gang of right wing posters engaged in a two-day personal assault on the character of a left wing poster - none of which had a THING to do with the political discussion underway and all of which was purely based on nothing but speculation about what they thought his personality and life MIGHT be like away from this board - and lo and behold, you were nowhere to be seen.

-chirp, chirp, chirp-

But if someone uses the generalized term 'teabagger,' then you are all over it. We can't say THAT because that's HATE speech! It's not hateful to try to personally destroy someone in an obvious effort to drive them away from the forum altogether and you don't give a crap, but it IS hateful to use a non-specific word that applies to about 100 million people because of their political leanings and because THEY WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO USE IT FIRST, which allowed the John Stewarts and Stephen Colberts to make hay of it, which made it spread like wildfire through the entire left.

If you seriously want to be seen as a moral authority, then act, you know, like a moral authority.

Get serious.

"know anyone like that Feisty?" Thought I would use JS1's method for posting. But, in answer to your question, I thought you had gotten over that particular debacle, JoAnna. Are you still harboring hard feelings for your brush with the moderator?

I urge everyone to Google the term 'sockpuppets.'

Some people never learn do they NDD? lmao

I know I'm not the only one who detects a hint of envy am I?

You certainly aren't, Feisty.

Michael Thompson: I have missed your voice, both of reason and intelligence. Please, let us hear from you on this board, you raise the dialog, and I like to hear what you are thinking.

Two or three weeks ago, a gang of right wing posters engaged in a two-day personal assault on the character of a left wing poster - none of which had a THING to do with the political discussion underway and all of which was purely based on nothing but speculation about what they thought his personality and life MIGHT be like away from this board - and lo and behold, you were nowhere to be seen.

_________________________________________________________________________

Why didn't you come right out and say that you are talking about YOURSELF? lol

How freaking long are you going to hold a grudge over a message board flame-war?

So you're upset that I didn't step into YOUR little tiff and that gives you the right to lecture me?

Even better that the other one misses your "voice of reason and intelligence" when your entire post is yet another complaint about being "driven" from the board....

There are some mean spirited and frustrated people here Michael, and a lot of the exchanges have nothing to do with politics because those types prefer to attack the person as opposed to whatever opinion they may express. The 'gang" you speak of is vastly outnumbered by the "gang" of regular posters, and if they did not swarm in your defense I am sorry.

How you justify the angry tone of your post to me while bemoaning the nastiness that others have perpetrated on you is mystifying and makes your glaring blind spot even more unsightly. As a self professed "victim" you would be expected to applaud any call for civility and against hate-speech on the board, instead of attacking me for not coming to your rescue, what was it now, weeks ago?

Obsessing for WEEKS over a message board argument is of very questionable merit, Casting blame and/or venting at me even moreso.

Expecting more courtesy and decency than you give will always leave you angry and disappointed. I think any objective observer would say I have given you more than is due to someone whose post begins;

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC

Dangerfield:

Get real.

You know, dangerfield: I rarely read or respond to what you say since I find most of it without merit. I remember well what Michael is talking about, and he is right, people were way yonder over the line. Just like you are now. Let's see if you can ruminate about this, since you did make an issue of civility today (which is HYSTERICAL, given the tenor of your posts) and apologize. But, that would take a pretty big person, I would be pleasantly surprised if you can summon up that kind of grace.

NDD...

Ignore df... it's more than obvious the little guy has some severe persecution complexes...

WHHAAAAA why is every body always picking on me???

Don't hold your breath... on the apology thingy though...

And Michael I am 100% in agreement with NewDay... as the election grows closer we need your voice MORE than ever... I too remember vividly the 2 day unwarranted obsession over you!

I loathe things like this Feisty. Attacks as unfair as this are what I cannot ignore. Later!

Why didn't you come right out and say that you are talking about YOURSELF? lol

Because the subject of their assault is largely irrelevant. The point is that they did it and you didn't seem to find it either a.) an event that was all that noticeable or b.) an event malicious enough to warrant your comment. That being the case, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you now decide to wring your hands about the lack of civility on the boards?

How freaking long are you going to hold a grudge over a message board flame-war?

Gee, I don't know. What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to hold negative feelings toward people who piled on in attempting to paint me as a mentally unbalanced, suicidal sociopath who belongs in a mental institution? I think two to three weeks is a bit on the short side, wouldn't you say?

So you're upset that I didn't step into YOUR little tiff and that gives you the right to lecture me?

No, I don't care that you didn't step in. You aren't my friend or my family and you don't have any obligation. I am a big boy and can take care of myself. I don't go to moderators to complain and I fight my own fights. But I do NOTICE it when someone decides to make civility an issue when two weeks ago, he stood by the wayside and didn't even utter so much as a weak, 'hey that's sort of out of line' when all of that was going on.

My point isn't that you didn't defend me. You're under no obligation to defend me, just like I'm under no obligation to defend you if a pack of posters decides to engage in a full-on two day assault on your personal character. My point is that you didn't defend me and THEN a couple of weeks later decided to make this an issue.

That means that you have no credibility because you pick and choose which examples of 'incivility' to give a crap about and coincidentally, the one example you find objectionable, just as seems to be always the case with you, just happens to come from the left wing, right?

Even better that the other one misses your "voice of reason and intelligence" when your entire post is yet another complaint about being "driven" from the board....

Either you've read my historical posts or you haven't. If you haven't, then I doubt you know what Newday is talking about. There was a time when I posted here quite frequently. Most of my posts, ironically, were directed at the right wing and they were similar in content to what you've posted here. However, when I was posting that sort of thing, it was during the height of the time period when the right wing was threatening members of congress with death, disrupting town hall meetings with screaming fits, spitting on civil rights activists, and point out to the left wing that they have guns and therefore '2nd Amendment solutions' to problems if the 'voting-in-elections' solution didn't happen to work out for them.

There are some mean spirited and frustrated people here Michael, and a lot of the exchanges have nothing to do with politics because those types prefer to attack the person as opposed to whatever opinion they may express. The 'gang" you speak of is vastly outnumbered by the "gang" of regular posters, and if they did not swarm in your defense I am sorry.

Really? The gang I am speaking of post here every day in just as prolific a fashion as the 'gang' you are talking about. And again, I am a big boy. I don't NEED a bunch of people to swarm to my defense. Just like I don't need you to do it or really care that you didn't. But don't expect me not to laugh in your face a couple weeks after the fact if you chose to eat popcorn on the sidelines while it was going on and then suddenly have a problem with the forum's lack of 'civility.'

How you justify the angry tone of your post to me while bemoaning the nastiness that others have perpetrated on you is mystifying and makes your glaring blind spot even more unsightly. As a self professed "victim" you would be expected to applaud any call for civility and against hate-speech on the board, instead of attacking me for not coming to your rescue, what was it now, weeks ago?

Obsessing for WEEKS over a message board argument is of very questionable merit, Casting blame and/or venting at me even moreso.

Blunt appraisal about your lack of credibility on this subject doesn't somehow translate to lack of civility just because you don't happen to like the content of what I am saying. Have I called you any names? Have I made assumptions about your personality? Have I engaged in any direct personal attacks? No to all of the above.

I have said: A.) This was what your behavior was when you had the opportunity to impact a direct situation that you are now describing as damaging to the community as a whole, B.) You are now indicating that on some level, you view lack of civility to be 'bad,' but C.) You are going to pick and choose which examples of lack of civility meet your definition of being bad.

I don't give a crap that you didn't defend me. I give a crap that you don't seem to really believe what you are saying and appear to be using it as nothing more than just yet another mechanism in pointing out how pathetic you think the typical left winger is. In other words, you are using morality as a tool and in that respect, it's pretty despicable.

In other words, if I thought your call for civility was an honest one, it would be one thing. I might appreciate it on that level. But it isn't honest. It's nothing more than just another attempt on your part to make the left wing posters seem hypocritical and to score points with the right wingers that you profess to disagree with.

But in order to demonstrate moral superiority, you have to at least have given a nod in the past to acting in a way that was morally superior. And constantly deriding the shortcomings in the behavior of one side of the argument while never acknowledging the shortcomings of the other to the point of ignoring ludicrously out-of-line events in favor of calling out the sophomoric name-calling doesn't exactly provide you with a foundation of moral clarity.

So here's a clue. If you want to be a moral authority, then start out by pointing out instances to people on both sides when they are behaving like jackasses and don't pull punches for either side. It won't make you popular. In fact, it will make you vastly unpopular in short order, but if you are trying to be our moral compass, then popularity shouldn't matter to you, right?

Only the principle should matter. And that means you call out EVERYONE, whether you like them or not. And you acknowledge it when someone you don't particularly like is correct about something, even if it pains you to admit it.

Expecting more courtesy and decency than you give will always leave you angry and disappointed. I think any objective observer would say I have given you more than is due to someone whose post begins;

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC

Dangerfield:

Get real.

Telling you to get real isn't hostile. It isn't deriding you. It isn't belittling you. It isn't making any assumptions about your life or your personality. It's telling you in a nutshell that you broaching this subject in the manner that you have, given your behavior in the past is a waste of time because, again, you have zero credibility on it. You haven't shown any consistency and in the past, you have been mostly indifferent to the most egregious breaches in personal civility that have been displayed in the forum.

I could have applauded your hollow words. I could have given you a thumbs up on your post. Instead I told you the truth and you decided that was hostile and discourteous. Well, hostile it might be, but it is never discourteous to tell someone the truth.

**Stands and applauds*** This is brilliant, Michael, and exactly what we miss on this board. I could not have written it, and I admire that you did. I sincerely hope to see you back here.

Michael,

Extremely well stated! I am hoping to see more of you here as well as you bring a well reasoned truthfulness to your posts.

Michael,

NOW that's what I'm TALKING about...

Kudos!

I don't think there's any doubt that the massive amount of Conservative money enabled by the Citizens United decision is having exactly the effect that was intended. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1 It's distorting the sanity of the political environment and destroying reason among the electorate, exactly the sort of thing that Conservatives seek to exploit.

You should really go over to realclearpolitics and read Gail Sheehy's article on the fundraiser she attended in New York. Seems Obama is having problems filling ballrooms.

The ballroom at the Roosevelt Hotel holds 650-they were able to get 450 by having a 'fire sale' on ticket prices. Tickets were supposed to go for $450 for a half hour with the president; she got four e-mails begging her to buy one for $100. There were people there who paid $50 to get in-and, Obama got himself heckled.

There was a dinner following the reception, and those attending were originally asked to pay $30,000 a plate. It got slashed to $15,000-and they still didn't fill the tables.

With Axelrod planning to leave the White House to 'work on the re-election campaign', I'm wondering if you are still planning to save up your paper route money to help Obama, or if you've realized that narrative was a hoax.It was BIG MONEY that got him elected, not donations from the 'little people'.

On the other hand, this time he may really need your $1.37-it looks like the big donors are saying no thanks.

Care to deny that the concept "money is speech" is corrosive to our democracy?

I maintain that in this arena money isn't speech, it's votes -- and the Koch brothers have WAY more votes than do I. It's an idea that's sure to lead to the destruction of our democracy and its replacement with an aristocracy of those wealthy enough to buy elections. Five Conservatives on the Supreme Court have legalized bribery and Conservatives in Congress have blocked legislation designed to bring full disclosure to the process. If we at least had that we'd be able to shine a little light on who's buying elections...and legislators.

Really, John? You were informed that BP gave $800,000 to the Obama campaign? You were informed about all those big donors who got ambassadorships?

If so, you were in the minority. Most people bought the nonsense that their nickels and dimes bought Obama the presidency.

The media bought it, too, which is why they did NO investigative reporting-even after being informed that there were hundred dollar donors with names like asdf jkl;, and Donald Duck, not to mention the folks who got e-mails thanking them for donations they did not make. How did it happen? Well, donations of a hundred dollars or less have loose FEC reporting requirements. It assume that the campaign workers who had to break those large donations down to the hundred dollar mark got lazy, or ran out of names.

It could have been somebody's Pulitzer prize story-but no one in the media seemed interested.

It's actually quite well known. And yet it didn't stop the Obama Administration from looking after the interests of the American people to a degree that caused Republicans to apologize to BP, did it? http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/103829-top-republican-apologizes-to-bp

I'm sure you'd prefer Democrats to campaign with empty pockets against Republicans backed by Fox News and the Koch brothers, but that would be silly. The real point isn't if someone recieved money from Acme Company. The real issue is whether Acme got a sweet tax break on overseas production of portable holes and rocket-propelled roller skates as a result. Conservatives are pretty good at that last thing.

No, John, the real issue is that the Obama campaign lied about the source of his funding, and no one investigated and exposed the lies.

I suppose they will do the same next time out-the question is, are you going to buy into the lie again?

On the other hand, this time he may really need your $1.37-it looks like the big donors are saying no thanks.

But I thought freedom only cost a buck-o'-five?

Really? They complied with existing campaign finance law. Oh, that's right, only Conservatives are the arbiters of what is and isn't moral and right.

By your deflection I think it's safe to assume you have no interest in drawing attention to Conservative Republican politicians bought and paid for by wealthy contributors. I don't blame you.

Did you see that GM, the company that the American people own 61% of, has set up a political PAC? Did you know they've spent $4.8 million on lobbyists this year? They stated "We will participate in the political process as a new company". They've made $91,000 in political donations last year. While they've given to both Dems and Repubs, I find it troubling that American taxpayer dollars are being used in this manner.

|You were informed that BP gave $800,000 to the Obama campaign?

Of course this did not happen. People that work for BP probably gave a lot of money (subject to individual limits), but BP cannot give $800,000 to a political campaign.

Rich:

NJNB is not real BIG on facts... you'll get used to it... ;0)

Dirt, do you have a link? If so, I'm on the verge of frothing.

ED: Dirt, do you have a link? If so, I'm on the verge of frothing.

Froth away: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/119885-gm-rebuilds-its-lobbying-force-for-post-bailout-era

Urge to kill RISING.

Yeah, ain't that something ED? It's not enough that the federal government used our money to buy a failed company, but now you (and me) get to pay for funding their lobbying efforts.

Who is responsible again for the purchase of GM by the government? What was the vote in Congress and who voted to do such a thing? Oh wait, there was no vote in Congress . . . . . Hmmm.

So do you like our "Representitive Democracy"?

Hang it all - I'm just going to buy a Bahamian island and form my own banana republic - complete with fashionable clothing and a throne made of, well...bananas.

GAH.

Anyone ever hear of the Bilderbergs? George Soros is and has been a member of the organization for many years. As I recall George only funds the democratic party. Here are the goals and objectives of the Bilderberg Group

The Bilderberg Group was formed in 1954, primarily by the powerful banking families of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, along with royal Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands who had strong ties with the Nazi regime. The group meets annually with approximately 130 guests consisting of Europe’s and America’s most wealthy and noble elites from politics, royalty, business, banking, education, media and the military. The overall goal of the group is to bring about a One World Government and global financial system under the political body of a UN style Government controlled by the central banking systems of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. They are also advocates of aspects of modern eugenics and have plans to eventually reduce the world‘s population by 80%, as called for by the 1974 UN Assessment on Biodiversity. In his own words, on multiple occasions, Prince Philip of England has expressed his desire to ‘cull’ the surplus population. “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation”. See who else is in agreement with the use of eugenics by clicking on: http://thefinaledition.net/2008/01/27/eugenics-and-depopulation-plans-21st-century/">Eugenics and Depopulation Plans

Bilderberg Key Objectives

Zero-Growth Society. In a post-industrial period, zero growth will be necessary to destroy vestiges of general prosperity. When there is prosperity, there is progress. Prosperity and progress make it impossible to implement repression, and you need repression if you hope to divide society into owners and slaves. The end of prosperity will bring an end to virtually all industrialization except for the computer and service industries. The remaining Canadian and American industries would be exported to poorer countries such as Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, where slave labor is cheap. One of the principal objectives of NAFTA will then have been realized.

One International Identity. By empowering International bodies to completely destroy all national identity through subversion from within, they intend to establish one set of universal values. No others will be allowed to flourish in the New World Order society.

Centralized Control of the People. By means of mind control, they plan to direct all humanity to obey their wishes. The blueprint of this plan is chillingly described in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era (http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=99">details). He is also an associate of Henry Kissinger and well known for his presentations at several Bilderberg Conferences. He foresees, under the New World Order, no middle class; only rulers and servants.

State of Perpetual Imbalance. Will be artificially achieved by manufacturing crises that will put people under continual duress - physically, mentally, financially and emotionally. Too tired and strung-out to decide their own destinies, populations will be confused and demoralized to the extent that, "faced with too many choices”, apathy on a massive scale will result.

Western Trading Bloc. By expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere into Mexico, the US and Canada, a "North American Union" will eventually form and be modeled after the European Union.

One Legal & Enforcement System. The International Court of Justice will become the sole legal system for the World. In addition, as the UN intervenes in more trouble-spots globally (as is the current case in Afghanistan), NATO will increasingly become the UN's World army.

Centralized Control of All Education. One of the reasons for the European Union, the North American Union and the future Asian Union, is to collectively seek greater control of education in general, so as to allow “One World” globalists to sterilize the World's true past. They contend that today's youth is almost completely ignorant of the lessons of history, individual liberties and the meaning of freedom and that this ignorance will only simplify their program.

Perhaps this will explain why the democrats really don't want to enforce our border with Mexico

Janet, it would probably be more sensible for you to whine about Build-A-Bear. Good freakin' grief this one is straight out of the John Birch Society of the 1970s. Since it has anti-Semitic undertones the ADL is a great place to start debunking this one http://www.adl.org/rumors/bilderberg.asp although there are other sources. http://bilderberg.weebly.com/debunking.html Funny how whatever powerful figure of the moment most arouses suspicions of the conspiracy-minded, it usually comes back to the Bilderberg group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

The following were attendees at the 2009 Bilberg Group conference

Keith B. Alexander, United States (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director of the National Security Agency)

Roger Altman, United States (investment banker, former U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton)

Niall Ferguson, United States (Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School)

Timothy Geithner, United States (Secretary of the Treasury)

James Jones, United States (National Security Advisor to the White House)

Vernon Jordan, United States (lawyer, close adviser to President Bill Clinton)

Robert Keigkan, United States (? – possibly Robert Kagan, neocon historian)

Henry Kissinger, United States

Marie Jose Kravis, United States (Hudson Institute)

Craig Mundie, United States (chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft)

Richard Perle, United States (American Enterprise Institute)

David Petraeus, United States (Commander, U.S. Central Command)

David Rockefeller, United States

Dennis Ross, United States (special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton)

Barnett R. Rubin, United States (Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation)

Lawrence Summers, United States (economist, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council)

Peter Thiel, United States (Clarium Capital Management LCC, PayPal co-founder, Board of Directors, Facebook)

Paul Volcker, U.S. (former Federal Reserve director, Chair of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board)

James Wolfensohn, United States (former president of the World Bank)

Paul Wolfowitz, United States (for U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank, currently AEI scholar)

The U.S. group is directed by Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Paul Arthur Allaire and Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke

Notable Bilderberg attendees to the "several" meetings include David Rockefeller, Rothschild Family Banking, George Soros, Paul Wolfowitz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Al Gore, Alan Greenspan, and Rupert Murdoch

Well since they have videos of mainly democrats attending I suggest you check your facts

x

Ginger;

My thoughts as well. The republicans, by design, left off anything to do with Social Security, Medicare or Veterans Health Benefits. Why? Because their agenda is as you say. They either want to repeal or privatize them. They want to put private Insurance Companies and Wall Street in charge. This is not a good idea at all, but consistent with the Republican Agenda to support Wall Street and Big Insurance Companies that give them hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds. The Republicans are selling out the middle class.

US Navy,

It is mind boggling to me how the thought of allowing retirement money--all retirement money---to be placed in the power of Wall Street (who brought us to near destruction) is acceptable to anyone who hopes to have a modicum of security in their old age.

Have people no memories of the crash of 1987 or any of the others in recent memory? Who will folks blame when it happens again?

They'll have to look in the mirror and ask themselves "who did I vote for?" And..."why"????

Ginger-you are either deliberately misstating, or you misunderstand the whole 'privitization' movement.

The proposal is for younger workers to VOLUNTARILY designate a PORTION of their FICA monies to be invested in government approved plans-similar to 401k's.

This is something that a majority of younger workers want, by the way. The polling that has been done indicates that the only group that does not support this are those over 65, who somehow believe that it will impact them. It does not.

I know that all is fair in love and war, but this is politics. Now that you have the information, please stop spreading the misinformation.

Ginger understands the privatizing issue correctly. I would not want my SS in Wall Street if I had to retire during the Bush Administration. They aleady trashed my 401K and Roth IRA. I do not want my Vet Health Care run by Insurance Companies whose goal is profits not health care. It has been reported in NYT, Newsweek etc that moving Medicare to Private Insurance Companies will increase the front end cost 5X, that translates into less dollars for health care (stts).

Not buying the snake oil, sorry.

Good news, Navy-if you are under 50, and you don't want any of your FICA funds invested in the market-YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PUT THEM THERE.

What part of voluntary is mysterious?

As to privitizing other benefits- the government uses five workers to do the work of one,so you figure out what is more efficient. Ask anyone on this board if the company they work for employs file clerks. The federal government does-in droves.

The Social Security administration went to direct deposit years ago-which means, all those people who used to cut checks should have become redundant. Guess what? They are still there.

The increase of federal employees is a disgrace-what is even more disgraceful is the fact that they earn about twice the average salary of workers in the private sector. That is a recipe for disaster-and that, my friend, is exactly what we are facing in this country.

Of course you're glossing over the part where Social Security collapses completely as soon as workers are allowed to withdraw from the system, but Conservatives don't want us to realize that NONE of the cups has a ball underneath.

NOBODY is allowed to withdraw from the system. Listen carefully: if you are a younger worker, you would be allowed to VOLUNTARILY designate a PORTION of your FICA taxes to be invested in a government approved market account.

It remains part of your FICA tax burden. PART. Not ALL.

Please stop deliberately misstating this. It only proves that you have no real argument.

I haven't seen a file clerk in an age.

Sorry, not buying the snake oil pitch. The agenda of the right is to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and now Veteran Health Care. In their own actions as displayed by their obstructionism, they look at Senior Citizens as a drag on society just like they do for the unemployed. . They oppose Veteran benefits but support huge tax cuts for the 2%. Unless you happen to have a few million in the bank to give to them they (republicans) want nothing to do with you.. I find that attitude from the right repugnant at best. If they cannot repeal those laws, then they are going to try to make it so at least they can give control to their campaign contributors. Privatization, although it sounds nice, will not work. Just look at what has happened to Wall Street. What if we had privatization now? The only people that benefit from this Scheme is Wall Street and the Big Insurance Companies. Not to mention that Health Care Benefits would be curtailed because Insurance Companies work on Profit not Health care, Wall Street will skim money off the top putting less into the pipe, and probably putting it into risky, high commission programs.

Social Security in 75 years has never missed a payment. Cannot say that for Wall Street or the Big Banks. Replacing Medicare with private Insurance Companies will increase the front end costs by Five Times what they are now. Both programs are currently financial sound, but need to be addressed in the future to keep them so.

This is just another scheme by the republicans to benefit Wall Street and Big Insurance Companies on the backs of the people who rely on these programs.

No way.

You must work in the private sector, ED. I have an uncle who is a file clerk in a federal office. You would not believe what he gets paid-based on seniority.

I'll bet you a doughnut it is the employer of last resort for key punch operators, too.

And, Navy? Again, if you are a younger worker, and you don't trust Wall Street-DON'T VOLUNTARILY PUT YOUR FICA FUNDS THERE if given the option.

I think getting rid of the VA is utter balls.

Social Security ought to be changed but not gotten rid of. That private accounts haven't meant seeing your deductions essentially dropped into a savings account you can not withdraw from until retirement strikes me as counter-intuitive. In my mind, making this switch on SS should really mean one thing and one thing only: preventing it from being used as a slush fund by the federal authority, whether that authority is in the hands of the Democrats or Republicans. This idea of requiring funds to be dropped into market investments turns my whole world upside down-face.

I don't agree with the tax cuts. However, I do feel very much that expiration of the tax cuts needs to apply across the board to all tiers of our economic hierarchy. If you don't pay in, IMHO, you have no right to complain, but that's a completely separate rant. The bigger issue is that federal spending MUST be reduced in tandem with a tax increase, whether that comes from national reduction of salaries for government workers (including our friends in Capitol Hill and the White House!) or the cessation of anymore Sunday outings in disreputable geography a hemisphere away. The Abrams does not need to be driven once around the block every week.

The basic notions behind some of the Republican's ideas are good, but the execution is poor if not too thinly-veiled in terms of being self-serving and helping widen the wealth gap.

I agree with you, ED. Social Security needs to be revamped and absolutely off-limits as a slush fund. One problem is that they've borrowed so much against it that they have to have the younger people paying in to pay those who are currently eligible. It's turned into just a great big Ponzi scheme.

I absolutely agree with you, too, that unless spending is curbed the tax increases would be meaningless. I have a hard time understanding when people say tax cuts cause a deficit. Reducing taxes doesn't cause deficits; spending does.

I heard a report last night about the Millionaire's tax in Maryland. Maybe, somebody from Maryland can provide more information as it was a brief report. I believe they said it was enacted about 10 years ago with the idea that higher taxes in that bracket would produce about $106M in revenue. Instead, they lost about $250M because the "millionaires" moved to other states with a lower tax rate. I believe taxes should be equitable, but if the Federal government taxes the rich too much, they may just leave the country. They have the means to escape high taxes; the average citizen doesn't. If that happens, then we truly become a welfare society.

Or a collapsed one. If all your taxpayers are making $45K a year or less, there's no hope whatsoever.

|Reducing taxes doesn't cause deficits; spending does.

Actually subtracting one from the other causes deficits. Using your brand of logic, the quickest way to get rid of deficits would be to ban subtraction.

When Bush got into office, and we were balancing the budget (at least much closer than we do now), he went before congress to declare that since we were projecting a surplus, that the American people were being overcharged and that taxes must be lowered. That, plus the unfunded wars and bad fiscal policy that led to the whole financial crisis and recession leads us to where we are now with out of control defecits that were projected over 1 trillion before the current president even got into office.

NJ that doesn't fly. It doesn't matter if 1 worker takes all his money out of FICA or 5 workers take 20%. It's ALL money that makes the system less fiscally sound. At which point the cries of "see, the government can't do ANYTHING right" reach a fever pitch and Conservatives get their wish...a sunset to Social Security.

John B,Des Moines,IA: NJ that doesn't fly. It doesn't matter if 1 worker takes all his money out of FICA or 5 workers take 20%. It's ALL money that makes the system less fiscally sound.

John B is exactly right on this one. Social Security was created with the idea that it would be a trust fund, and it is from a consumer point of view, but it isn't from a program managed by the government point of view. There is no trust fund, just a stack of bonds that the government printed to substitute for the money they too and spent from the fund. The money has been spent, it's gone. SS is now a pay-as-you-go program. A Ponzi scheme that takes from the payroll taxes of workers today and gives to the SS recipients, and like any Ponzi scheme that works, as long as the money being collected is equal to or greater to the money that is paid out.

To take money out of the SS system, any amount of money, would destroy that system, it's output would be greater then the input, and the Ponzi scheme would collapse. That's what makes the SS mess such a hard problem to fix. It's difficult to change the system without destroying it in the process.

If any pension fund manger ran their accounts this way, they'd be in jail.

"To take money out of the SS system, any amount of money, would destroy that system,"

Which is exactly why every Conservative plan to address SS starts by taking money out of the system. Conservatives wish to destroy the system.

Conservatives have also been claiming that SS was about to collapse since my Grandfather was in his prime. He died in 1988 at the age of 95.

NoJo

Will you please stop with the government worker talk. It is a huge generalization. Some government workers get paid equal to or less than their private company peers. I know this because I am considered taking a pay cut myself to take a government position. Every large organization has some less than average workers. That being said, I will agree it take the federal government longer to get rid of its worst performers.

Basically I said all that to say. Being a government employee is not welfare of getting a free ride and like in most companies the hard work of some covers up the laziness of others.

Pat, Boston;

Good points. I also wish that the Democrats would have pushed the Bill on the Tax Cuts. We have bought and paid for politicians on both sides of the aisle and that is hurting all Americans. They have nothing in common with the people that have elected them. They are basically out for themselves and it shows time and time again. All we can do is hope the American people, both democrats and republicans take back their country and throw out the paid for political hacks.

They're awful US Navy. Just awful. But I can't give up. Not now. Not when I see these SOBs in the GOP who are telling us right to our face that the American people are going to suffer big time if they win. They couldn't be more clearer.

Did anyone else hear Senator Tom Harkin last night... saying the Democrats will be bringing a Bill to the floor early next week that will consist of 'taxing & punishing' these corporations who are shipping jobs overseas...

In lieu of the postponement of the Bush Tax Cut vote... I think this should box the Republicants into a corner and will be another opportunity to show the American people what a bunch of charlatan's these clowns really are...

So rather then have the US federal government creating a business environment in America that is strong and competitive with the global economy and the rest of the world, Harkin and the Democrats are going to "tax and punish" companies that they claim aren't "doing the right thing". And this will help these companies be more competitive with the rest of the world how?

You'd think the Democrats would learn, but yet they don't. Also, that's what happens when you have populists like Obama and Harkin running the show.

Matthew, Houston, TX

The devil is in the details and these people are trying to hide the devil. In fact, they are trying to hide 3 of them: 1) The privatization of Social Security, 2) The privatization of the VA and 3) The repeal of Medicare/Medicaid.

Ain't that the truth!

But, somehow lady JoAnnaSmith1 doesn't the Republicans have succumbed to the devil making; despite Republicans robbing America's piggy bank. Republicans do it better.Right JoAnna?

No Republicans don't. They just rehash the same old threats and lies. Like the abortion funding in the new law of the land which the Hyde amendment had already addressed in the healthcare law.

Whatever happened to Harkin's push to change the Senate's filibuster and cloture rules?

How many Democratic Senators did he bring on board, anyway?

Out of one side of their mouth they SCREAM 'where are all the jobs'?

And out of the other side they're all for rewarding the corporations that are in FACT ship THE jobs overseas...

I think it's the perfect opportunity to let the people see who's 'two-faced' when it comes to the middle class...

I mean... what's the concern about bringing to light what is REALLY going on with the Republican party?

Feisty;

I saw that again this AM. By removing the special tax breaks to company's that farm US jobs overseas will make a better economic environment here by increasing jobs here. If they insist on sending jobs overseas, then penalize them to the extent that it would be less expensive to pay Americans first.

The republicans do not se it that way because it would make their piggy bank smaller by irritaing big businesses to pay America before they pay Japan, China, etc.

It never changes. Same old same old.

Glad to see you posting again.

We know what's at stake, Pat. That's why the majority are voting to stop Obama before he does any more damage to this country.

He didn't get elected by telling the truth, Pat. He posed himself as a pragmatic centrist, when he is so far left that he can't even see the middle.

I can't tell you how many people I know who voted for him, who usually don't vote in mid-terms, who are planning to vote republican this time in order to stop him.

They are angry, Pat. I know you like song lyrics, so I will supply this line from Billy Joel: the anger of having been a fool.

That's what they're feeling, Pat. And they are voting against the very man they voted for two years ago; because he lied; because he does not listen to the very people who elected him; because he spends money we do not have on programs we do not want; because he is bankrupting this country.

I get that you are a supporter; this is America, that is your right. The majority disagrees with you. This is America, and that is their right.

The only thing Harkin's bill will do, if passed, is caused whatever industries demonized in the legislation to flee the country - taking whatever jobs they still keep in America with them.

What a horrid, knee-jerk reaction. Is he nuts?

ED- I can't speak for his mental stability, but I have seen evidence, time and again, that he belongs to a group of people who simply do not understand that there is no serfdom in the United States.

If you want to keep jobs here, punishing the job creators is exactly the wrong thing to do-yet it is done, over and over, because there are some who are completely unaware of the law of unintended consequences.

Common sense does not seem to be a strong suit, either.

Some may, but I doubt if most would. No proof either way. But if they do want to go let them. See how long it takes for them to want to come back, especially when China or some other company gets the idea to Nationalize them.

I read a few articles about this a while ago, I want to say I saw it on EBI, Princeton School of Economics or someplace. Will try to find it and ost URL later today.

no joe, no bo, nj

We know what's at stake, Pat. That's why the majority are voting to stop Obama before he does any more damage to this country.

No Jo, i wish you would stop all damage talk, You know darn well that the real damage was there when he took office. so stop, before your fellow MBAs friends take you member ship away. every ecomonics know that the damage caused by unfunded tax cuts, unfunded wars, unfunded medicade part D, made country to go broke. dead broke. there was no economic activity, we were loosing 600k job a month, what little steam there was from the 01 and 03 tax cuts was gone.

so i guess you wanted him to do what hoover did after the great depression hit, not a darn thing, is that it. you wanted our country to sink so low that beard lines would come back, soup kitchen, more uninsured, only spend on war, to justify your I'm against any federal help during hard times. i don't hear you rail against forgen aid, that comes from our federal government and your tax dollars. is giving our money away to forgen government ok with you, but helping our own is not ok, come on No Jo please tell me this is not true about you!!!!

just think the new HCR provision saying they can't deny children with pre-existing conditions, should hit home with you, your granddaughter, to the health ins companies she has a pre-existing condition and the can drop or deny her coverage under the old rules, are you ok with that. and if you don't think it can happen,if the republicans repeal HCR, your sweet grandchild who is just starting life will be will be a casulty just like many other children. will you be ok with that or then will you finnaly see HCR for what it is, making health care avaible for every body, not just the rich.

Mr. Navy, here's a question. Would you object to paying more for a product if you knew that every hand that contributed to that product's creation was an American one - or at least those of close allies?

The thing is that China isn't the only option for these businesses - nothing's to stop them from headquartering in business-friendly Arab or Southeast Asian nations. Qatar, Bahrain and India all come to immediate mind and these are countries which are hardly inclined to follow the practices of a command economy.

Globalization is a convoluted issue and can yield benefits, but are they worth the cost to the average American worker? Would we not do well to foster American business by repealing trade agreements with disreputable nations and instituting tariffs? Would it not be better to pass legislation which protects American business from foreign competition rather than blindly swinging an axe on some tangental issue of ambiguous moral obligations?

You certainly could be right, Beverly!

Nashville, they are such liars and absolutely refuse to see what they themselves have done to this country. And none of it is good. The teabaggers are so misinformed that it borders on frightening. Here in America where we brag about our education system and so on. We have everything at our disposal. Books, CSpan, newspapers, documentaries, seminars, colleges, universities, etc.

You get the impression that once these people leave school, they leave behind their education forever. They don't want to continue on life's journey to keep an open mind, to investigate, to help the forgotten. They have instead become blind sheep to the wealthy.

Right here in America.

Nash;

LMAO when I saw that. These guys have the IQ of a grape. Do they not even proof read what they are putting in print. And these are the people that want to run our country?

I want to know what they were smoking when they put pen to paper on that one, Nash - and most importantly, where I can get me some.

JoAnn

You are so correct. Even my mother whose drawing SS says that it's a great program.

I think how odd it is, that it's the Democrats who start these program to take care of our elderly and the Republicans are always the first to sign up for them.

But the Republicans will always use SS and Medicare as a scare tactic!

The worst part of the latest polling on the Nevada Senate race for Harry Reid might be that 8% of the voters are undecided...undecideds almost always break against an incumbent polling below 50%.

Reid has taken his best shot at Angle...he's spent millions and millions and simply can't put her away.

Amazing.

Dangerfield, you claim you're a Democrat, but you seem pretty gleeful that people like Sharron Angle and Paladino have a chance of winning. Do you REALLY want people like them to win?

So, Dangerfield, what does your post tell you?

If the races between Sen. Reid and Sharron Angle and Cuomo and Paladino are dead heats, that tells me that the GOP message is not as strong as it is touted to be. It can also say that the Democratic candidates are not as weak as they are portrayed to be.

Look, Sharron Angle was supposed to wipe the floor with Sen. Reid. He is admittedly not a strong candidate. But it seems that Sharron is more 'different' than people can stand. Pietro's prediction: Sen Reid retains his seat, but loses the title of majority leader.

Now I admit that I have not read much press about Cuomo and Paladino, but from what I have seen, Paladino is a little 'out there'. Pietro's prediction: No prediction, not enough facts to make one.

November will definitely prove to be interesting, no?

Houston!-

Do you REALLY think that Velma Hart doesn't support President Obama?

Houston!

The habit of addressing the person and not their post is the main reason why almost all political discourse here devolves into argument. I don't see any glee in my post or any desire for a republican victory. Yet you choose to discuss my motives and question my political leanings, and not what your take is on what is happening.

In fact in criticizing my post, you have to either be willfully ignoring or just plain blind to fail to comprehend;

And in NYC, we can't raise funds for democratic candidates,

There isn't an ounce of ambiguity in that statement, nor in the intent of your reply.

In your haste to criticize me PERSONALLY you again highlight what's wrong with the level of debate here, and who is often responsible.

True hypocrisy from Dangerfield AGAIN, he happens to continually personally attack people on this blog and has the gall to call someone else out for it?? He is one of the chief problems in lowering the level of debate here and yet tries to deflect that onto others. Stating that one disagrees with a stated position is fine, turning around and attacking someone for that disagreement is ludicrous and brings NOTHING to the table and loses respect from all involved.

If I'm not mistaken dangerfield had the audacity to call me the narcissist last week...

Since when does asking a simple question become CRITICIZING someone personally?

Talk about having a persecution complex not to mention some thin-skin... sheesh!

Dangerfield:

In fact in criticizing my post, you have to either be willfully ignoring or just plain blind to fail to comprehend;

I asked you a civil question and instead of giving a civil anwer, you throw another of your whiney tantrums. There wasn't anything to comprehend in your post. You merely regurgitated a lot of stuff about how much trouble the Democrats are in, which everyone already knows.

Since you refused to answer my question, I'll have to assume you do want to see people like Angle and Paladino win. I don't know why you would want someone who was caught sending out racist and pornographic emails, I don't know.

B. Honest

True hypocrisy from Dangerfield AGAIN, he happens to continually personally attack people on this blog and has the gall to call someone else out for it?? He is one of the chief problems in lowering the level of debate here and yet tries to deflect that onto others.

Where? Who's "other identity" is this anyway?

Post your reasons for this scurrilous and unfounded personal attack, or apologize.

I apologize if my calls for civility and ending hate-speech offend you. I fully support your right to voice your opinion, even one as obviously malicious, inflammatory, untrue, and ultimately embarrassing to you as this should be.

As to respect...well, you will find as you go through life that it is something that is EARNED.

I hit the "post" button too soon on that last comment. What I meant to point out is that Dangerfield claims to be a New Yorker, and I don't know why he would want someone like Palidino as the governor of his state.

Dangerfield:

I apologize if my calls for civility and ending hate-speech offend you.

So, Dangerfield's definition of "hate speech" is asking him question that he can't give an honest answer to. That's just plain nuts.

I asked you a civil question

Where? here's you post;

Houston!

Dangerfield, you claim you're a Democrat, but you seem pretty gleeful that people like Sharron Angle and Paladino have a chance of winning. Do you REALLY want people like them to win?

If there is anything CIVIL in your post, it must be in code.

I am a democrat, and it didn't take much in the way of reading comprehension to discern my opinion of the republican candidates.

Again I apologize if calls to civility and intelligent discourse so threaten you and others here, that they feel the need to attack the source.Even if it was ERIC or MO calling for civility, it wouldn't make the point any less valid.

Dangerfield

If there is anything CIVIL in your post, it must be in code.

There were no personal insults in what I asked. If you can't distinguish between a pointed question and a personal attack, I'd say you were just a tad oversensitive.

I am a democrat, and it didn't take much in the way of reading comprehension to discern my opinion of the republican candidates.

I don't read all of your gems of wisdom, so maybe I've missed something. But every post of yours that I have read is either an attack on some Democrat or a summary of the "bad news for Democrats". Sure, I've bashed the Democrats for being weak and cowardly, but that's because I'd like to seem them have the courage of their convictions. Whatever your problem is with the Democratic Party, it is hard to discern, but it seems to be very different than mine.

Again I apologize if calls to civility and intelligent discourse so threaten you and others here,

And I apologize for asking you a question that was so difficult for you to answer that it set you off making bizarre personal attacks like the one above.

Dangerfield,

Unless you go back and apologize to EVERYONE on this blog that you have excoriated with your attacks, for asking reasonable questions that you seem unable to answer in a reasonable fashion, you deserve NO apology from ANYONE, let alone have the right to demand them. You seriously need to get over yourself!

Dangerfield,

Yes, respect is something that has to be earned, but by ONLY attacking others and/or gloating you get NO respect from ANYONE. Some of your posts have some truth to them, but you almost always slant it into a gloating manner that makes many disregard what you have to say. Going and attacking someone for reasonably asking you a question that you cannot seem to answer and then attacking them for it only makes you look like a 3 year old complaining that "He hit ME back First!" and is totally unbecoming of someone who seems to have such a high regard for yourself. If YOU want respect you must First GIVE Respect to others, something which you seem sadly unable to do.

I rarely will take someone to task for their statements on here, recognizing that they may not be clear thinking individuals and stuck in the Faux Neuz rut of just following the sound bites, or obvious trolls just looking for a fight. However, it is clear that you are reasonably intelligent yet you continually attack others who just happen to disagree with you. That is not proper discourse, debate or respectful conversation, that is bullying and gloating and, frankly, I am disappointed as I had thought you smart enough to be above that sort of thing.

I thought I'd heard just about everything at First Read...but dangerfield being lectured on the topic of civility by the regulars who post here takes the cake.

For lovers of irony...First Read is truly a target-rich environment.

Lol.

Bag

For lovers of irony...First Read is truly a target-rich environment.

Thanks in large part to you. We would be much poorer in the irony department without your input.

Absolute outright lie about what? I've posted several times today. So please explain a little better. Then maybe I will have a better idea on what's upset you so.

Pat, Boston MA

Eddie Fisher died. Oh my papa

That was a shock. It reminds me of how time flies. I can remember watching his movie as a child.

Lynyrd Skynyrd died too. Sweet Home Alabama is still reverberating in my mind.

Man, tempus fugit ; ain.t it funny who time slips away.

They both made great contributions to American cultural art forms.

Lynyrd Skynyrd died too. Sweet Home Alabama is still reverberating in my mind.

Coincidence that his death coincides with me being a FREE BIRD again... sorry that was in bad taste but to tempting to resist! lol

Did I miss something, Feisty? Were you suspended yesterday? o_o

YUP - Got to join you in the FR solitary confinement club for a day... ;0))))

Ol Tyler felt that my comment about the stuck on stupid crowd was a personal attack!

Only validated my point then... that they must truly exist... I guess... lol

ED...right...suspended...

Geez. Feisty. That's utter balls. :/

And yes, dangerfield. "Suspended." ;)

Exodite Dragon
Did I miss something, Feisty? Were you suspended yesterday? o_o

dangerfield

ED...right...suspended...

Thanks SO much for the assistance dangerfield...but as you can see from above I am perfectly capable of answering a question that was directed at ME! ;0)

Concerning Skynnard and 'Sweet Home Alabama' other than Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water" it has to have some of the best most recognizable guitar riffs in southern rock. While always enjoying the melody and appreciate the harmony, I despise the group and their philosophy.

Listening to the lyrics them are some good ol boys. This would probably be the national anthem if Tea Partiers had their say. Not only do they diss Neil Young but they share their support for Nixon's Watergate break in and the pro segregation feelings in Alabama, including Wallace's support for segregation.

"In Birmingham they love the governor
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
Tell the truth"

http://www.shmoop.com/sweet-home-alabama/meaning.html

____________________________________________________________________________

In the 1950s and '60s, Alabama was ground zero for the Civil Rights Movement.

It was in Alabama that Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. Martin Luther King led protest marchers on a long walk from Selma to Montgomery. In Birmingham, police attacked civil rights demonstrators with dogs and fire hoses, and Ku Klux Klansmen blew up a black church, killing four little girls attending Sunday School inside.

Social change—racial change—came to Alabama in a hurry… but not without generating stiff resistance from more than a few tradition-minded white folks who liked things just fine under the old Jim Crow system of racial segregation. They rallied around their defiant governor, George Wallace, who marked his inauguration into office in early 1963 by declaring, "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

____________________________________________________________________________

Living down South it is well known and appreciated song for Southern "opressed" rights that some people take to heart.

Feisty Redhead:

Thanks SO much for the assistance dangerfield...but as you can see from above I am perfectly capable of answering a question that was directed at ME! ;0)

Too bad we can't say the same for certain other people around here who seem to lack that capability.

Houston!

The Sentate Democrats' decision not to vote on the middle-class tax cuts was just cowardly. No wonder they're losing. Cowards usually do. The Senate vote was delayed because of fearful "Blue Dogs" who don't want the word "tax" to ever be mentioned, even if the terrible word is followed by "cuts". I can figure out why they should be appeased. Most of these unprincipled cowards will be gone after the election anyway. Is anyone seriously going to miss Blanche Lincoln?

I was just thinking about her and all the cowards this morning and how they will get what they deserve. So what's the BFD there? We really need new blood in the democratic party. They have no principals what so ever. They will be free now to stand with the republicans. Had they any sense, since they were going lose, more than likely, the least they could do is tell the truth and do something for Americans. Probably, it would help them. I really don't like her now. I lost respect when the polls were closed so Bill Halter supporters could not vote.

here's a pic of a shadowy group called Americans for Job Security, which is spending more than $1 million in ads attacking Bill Halter in an effort to sway the Arkansas Senate primary -- without any of us knowing where any of that cash is coming from. Thank the supreme Court. We need to vote d or else we lose

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/shadowy_outside_group_in_arkan.html
I think of they as both cowards a wholly owned subsidares of big corporations