“51% of likely caucus-goers surveyed in the poll said their minds were made up while 41% said they could still be persuaded”

With only 2 days remaining I find this very odd especially with all the attention this caucus has been given; all the town halls, stump speeches and TV ads.

Ron Paul: “It is the government that causes so much of the racial tensions,” he said.

That right there tells you how nutty he is.

Man, if it weren't fer the g'umnit we wouldn't had no Klu Klux Klan.

"No War and Legalize Pot"

I guess the Paul mantra is live it up while everything around you is either falling apart (no regulation) or being destroyed (enemies of USA arm up).

I hope santorun didn't ruin the chair he was seating on, he could have been leaking and left a spot.

Happy New Year Feisty! I'm waiting to enjoy some homemade quiche made with asparagus from my garden and morel mushrooms I harvested last spring. Over to mom's with the champagne and quiche! Cheers to all!

ROMNEY'S "Business experience" consisted of buying companies, laying off workers, stripping pension funds, and taking the companies public again - 80% of which shortly went bankrupt.Check it on you tube and WATCH the vid
:"THE STORY OF TWO MEN TRAPPED IN ONE BODY"

RON PAUL 2012

Happy New Year!

Dennis, I don't recall a 41% undecided number this late in the Iowa caucus stage or elections period. I would not be surprised if a majority of the undecideds stay home because they do not like any of the GOP candidates. As I said last week, I think most of the undecideds are simply unconvinced and not enthused. That could hurt Romney the most since the undecideds are probably the most moderate and least likely to support the extreme views of Paul or Santorum.

Jack, you nailed that one. Ron Paul is definitely nutty. His racial views were expressed by his son Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow's show last year; the apple didn't fall far from the tree. No matter how much they try to nuance and justify their positions into the small government box, it is what it is.

Jody,

There aren't enough childishly naive people in the country to elect him president.

In fact, he's hitting his high water mark in Iowa.

Calling someone nutty..based on what again? Nutty is thinking that going to war with Iran is ok. Why does no one mention the fact when they talk about Iran they neglect to say who is helping them build this nuclear stuff. You do know that russia is helping them build this and China gets 40% of their oil from Iran.. you think they are going to sit idley by while we disrupt 40% of their oil and destroy the reactors they help build?? I bet we wouldnt do that.. that nutty thinking there..

Santorum is the ideal American Taliban candidate. I sure hope he wins Iowa. The more he is interviewed; the more Americans will realize how different and out of touch the teabagger right is from ordinary citizens.

"Frothy" Santorum. A reference to a Google scam to link his name to gross sexual fluids.

Feisty starts the new year in the gutter...and she will only go lower. Despicable.

Another day and the liberals are playing wack-a-mole with the republicans. Meanwhile, their president is sitting on a beach somewhere, drinking mai-tai's and contemplating his next move towards... you guessed it, Marxism. This, on the backs of the taxpayers... most of whom feel this country is heading in the wrong direction. I wonder why that is.. do you think it might have something to do with the progressive plan to take this country to the far left?

Another year and it's starting off with more snide remarks from the left.

Well, Jack, consider this, there were enough to elect Dubya for a second term . . .

I think Jody got is right about the lack of enthusiasm in Iowa, but I think they will show up, anyway. Remember that there is one huge motivator for the right wing: the defeat of President Obama. This works to Romney's, and Huntsman's advantage. The 'undecideds' will either throw their support behind Romney, en masse, or Huntsman will come out as 'the compromise'. Most likely it will be Romney, as he and Paul are the only candidates who managed to get on the VA ballot, though (i.e. most viable, good name recognition, good organization).

The motivator for the Republican/TP Inc. party also needs to motivate us all to get out there and help people get registered. We need to make sure everyone has an acceptable ID. If you know someone who might not have a good ID for your state, start now to help them. It is not enough to just get people registered, with the draconian voter ID laws the Republican/TP Inc. party has managed to get passed, we need to make sure everyone has a valid ID. Every vote will count more than ever this year. We are, literally, fighting against a corporate takeover of our government. We can not afford to have the Republican/TP Inc. party retain the House, or take over the Senate.

Right on Jack .. if the gub'ment (Lincoln) hadn't insisted on emancipating those goshdern slaves, we wouldn't have had all that silly tension leading to Civil War.

Feisty - down right scary watching Santorum beat his chest proclaiming "Bomb Iran"!! Of course, I also thought it was funny when he claimed he would make it known publicly that he would use covert operations to unseat the Iranian government. Mmmm, doesn't covert mean under the radar, discrete in nature?

Oh, poor Brian! Wahhhhhhh! I want my president! I want my president! Wahhhhhhhhh! Your posts are always Gloom and Doom. Do you ever smile? Have a day of lightness?

Matthew & RedDevPS,

Agreed on both counts.

@Matthew - R. Reich has a great article on why the GOP/TP is bad for America. Anyone who is Republican or Democrat and not a Tea Party member should find it interesting.

Why the Republican Crackup is Bad For America

http://robertreich.org/

@ Cynthia's Point, you reminded me that my mom used to make aspargus omlets, man is that good or what!

The expected turnout of the 613,000 registered Republicans is expected to be about 22% or about 135,000 voters. In 2008 the turnout was 20%.

I believe the actual turnout should tell us a lot about the electorate’s enthusiasm for the current field.

drinking mai-tai's and contemplating his next move towards... you guessed it, Marxism

BB - are you suggesting Obama is contemplating seizure of property, a notable Cuban style of Marxism if you will, for conversion to state ownership? I have never heard him mention that. What I do see happening is banks are happily foreclosing on property at record rates. This would suggest that corporations are attempting to become the great property owners, not Obama.

Just what Marxist moves has Obama made? Compared to any actions of any previous president, I don't really see any overt Marxist moves on his part.

RedDevPS, ignore BB, he has nothing constructive to add to the conversation. I just read that article you linked to, and BB is a product of what it was talking about. Did you happen to read the following article? http://robertreich.org/post/14480589454

Excuse me while I go and order two of his books that I've been meaning to get: Supercapitalism, and Aftershock.

alright first off Jack is completely wrong in his assessment because who do you think started the laws of segregation and slavery....THE US GOVERNMENT thats why they were laws, you obviously arent understanding the concept of freedom. If you force someone to do or say something how is that freedom, we all know racism is unacceptable but are there still racists out there yes are there still people who are racist but keep it to themselves mostly yes so the Civil Rights Act did not end racism which some of you seem to think it did. No matter what you believe you have to allow people who are racist to be racist unless they start causing violent acts and before you go nuts on that what I mean is if one person whos racist says a racial slur then they are excersizing free speech, if they hang someone then now its murder and you try and convict them as such but to say every single one of them would start killing people is absurd or that ALL restaurants would start segregating again is the real nutty idea that means you have no faith in your fellow man and we should all just give up on humanity now. So by your logic Jack you would rather FORCE people to accept your ideals than let them choose their own...that is not freedom it is slavery and that is 100% wrong. Now onto Rev you really think that Lincoln wanted to free the slaves and that the Civil War was fought over slavery? Hardly, if you think brothers and sons and fathers would shoot and kill their own family members for the rights of people theyve never met then I encourage you to pick up a gun and shoot your own brother or father or sister or whoever of your family disagrees with you so that illegal immigrants from Mexico can become US citizens. Would you be willing to shoot a family member or friend for a stranger to gain US rights? I doubt it. Second the Civil War was about banking institutions, the North was highly industrial the South agricultural hence less income and a lower ability to control them with taxes, regulations, and currency. The large banks in the North wanted to be able to have a fully industrial country so that they could give out more loans for businesses and corporations could make more money because everyone would be working for them instead of working for themselves. Now to the final point on Lincoln you do know that he got rid of the right of habeas corpus so no one could have a fair trial and he declared martial law allowing the military to arrest citizens prompting the 1878 law of Posse Comitatus so he wasn't that great of a guy and heres a link to a famous letter he sent to an influential editor of a newspaper named Horace Greeley where he states precisely that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would, it was all a campaign ploy to make him look good. The link to that letter is here

Nice to see all the FR children out today. Hope everyone had a wonderful New year's eve. While I could get into debates and name calling today, I don't believe I shall. I have just enjoyed my (FYI, I am a GREAT cook) annual New Year's Day "good luck" food dinner. Pork, sauerkraut (good luck food from the Pennsylvania Dutch), mashed potatoes (Irish), black eyed peas, collard greens, copper pennies (fancy, doctored carrots) and homemade yeast rolls. I have an apple crumb pie in the oven. And my lap blanket handy for nap time while watching football

Happy New Year Everyone!!!!

PS BB you are wrong about your characterzation of Progressives, but I will post on that tomorrow.

BrianB,

The truth, as I see it:

--You're wallowing in self-pity because you don't have a job.

--You think the president can simply snap his fingers and get you one.

--You refuse to put the blame where it really belongs, on the cynical Republicans in Congress who refuse to present a realistic, viable jobs bill that will garner bi-partisan support.

Happy New Year, Jack. Good to see you today!

I'm waiting to enjoy some homemade quiche made with asparagus from my garden and morel mushrooms

Happy New Year Cynbad!

My, that sounds delish!

I made bacon, avocado & Monterrey Jack omelets with cheese infused hash browns to start off the new year! ;o)

Have a pot of chili simmering to enjoy later this evening!

Feisty,

You would have loved New Year's eve here. Down at the beach, by the pier, they had a chili cookoff! (Gonna be awhile before I eat chili again, though) Great fireworks too, fired off the end of the pier. That's New Year's eve, southern style.

I'd rather Blingrich come in 5th or 6th rather than 4th. There's something about a loss to Rick Perry that would have a real nice sting I think Newton might enjoy!!

Ahhh Matthew - Ignore anything I say... How Hitleresque of you.

Nothing Hitleresque about what Matthew said. Hitler was about sending one to a concentration camp for work/extermination if you didn't advocate and support his views on Aryan Supremacy. Now that is truly suppressing speech.

Anyone for a Moroccan Mimosa? It is a drink recipe I got from the chef in Morocco (EPCOT). Champagne, OJ and Grand Marnier. Yummy!

Hey, Phancy! Good to see you, too! Happy New Year to you and all my other friends here today.

Have to get back to the Pats game. Not looking good. 21 to zip at the moment.

Jack,

Not to worry, you have Brady!!!! We couldn't even - the Jags- punch in a TD from the goal line against Indy!

Matthew - I also read the article size of government vs. who it is for, and found it to be an excellent read. What many fail to understand is this is very much the core of what OWS is about. What I find baffling is that conservatives, liberals, progressives, democrats, republicans, tea partiers all rant about how much they (we) hate government ownership by corporations and the elite, yet we do not get legislation passed to restrict big money interests; we cannot kill K-Street.

Until all these groups, which are the 99%, unite to kick the big-money interests out of politics, we are doomed be left to squabbling over the bread-crumb issues.

Is that what BB said about me, Phine? Doesn't surprise me. He just proved what I said about him personifying the Robert Reich article you recommended. I have BB on 'ignore', so you will not see any response from me to his posts. That being said, I will admit to opening up his posts, once in awhile, just to see what nastiness he is currently spewing.

There is a term that refers to someone who is losing an argument, and resorts to references to Hitler, and/or Nazism, and, therefore, clinches a loss. Seriously, I can't remember the term, but I've seen it, and read about it. Can anybody enlighten me?

P.S. Phine, that sounds like a great dinner. Takes me back to my youth in NW Ohio. We had a bite of sauerkraut on New Year's Eve for good luck. It's not just Pennsylvania Dutch, it's Eastern European traditions. Thanks for the memories.

Matthew,

My mother's family was from SW Pennsylvania (coal mining outside of Pittsburg). We have kept the food traditions from there and from the south where I have lived my entire adult life. It makes a great start to the New Year, and fun for all.

I have a great post I am working on for tomorrow's FT about the diference between conserverative and progressive. Hope it goes over well. Kind of a historical look - and what we might learn from it.

Jack, Jack, Jack ....

Didn't sink in ... about your being new here... about not being very bright .... about being a liberal bigot?

The truth, as I see it:

--You're wallowing in self-pity because you don't have a job.

Ever notice that most of Brian's posts are weekends and after hours?

So you're pretty sure he is not an employed project manager, huh?

Nice bigoted assumption, though.

I noticed you went after me regarding ITM last week. Sorry I missed it. I did prepare a little reply, but didn't see you the rest of the week. But since it is kinda slow today, New Years and a good time to clean up crap from 2011 .... here you go ....

"Other Vets besides myself have said your friend IntheMiddle is a fraud …."

Hate to tell you bud, but the exchange had nothing to do with ITM's military service …. G-Mama threw down the race card …. ITM called her on it … sayitaint said something stupid about what group / "white only" to ITM and ITM replied …. "I'm an African American that thinks for himself."

Your reply was to post that exact quote and state underneath …. "Why do I not believe this?"

In the context of the thread, what did you apparently not believe … that ITM was not African American, or that he was African American that could not think for himself - that as an African American he didn't think the way that you felt he should think, therefore someone must be thinking for him?

In that context, my response was that it was probably a combination of things …. That you were new (didn't know ITM was African American) , that you must not be very bright (don't think ITM can think for himself) and that you were a liberal bigot (believes there is something wrong with African Americans if they don't think the way liberals think they should think.)

That was the context – Jack.

So which is it – Jack?

And if it has nothing to do with context or the thread, what are you doing …. Stalking him and interjecting comments that don't relate to the thread just to marginalize him?

ITM explained 24 years of service with 22 years SF.

And the next morning you go into your research and epic analysis of ITM's military career…. 'He said 22 years … then he said 24 years' … cited your acumen, your shrewd brilliance as a military interviewer and interrogator … and declared the man a fraud based on other bloggers and your ability "to smell" a fraud (through the internet).

All you got?

Then it is really more about you than ITM.

Bigot – intolerant person; somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views.

10 tours with 3 PH and 24 years service / 22 SF?

Most Americans would at least demonstrate a little deference to that if they had doubt. Only bigots would jump to defamation through such insipid judgment and then demonstrate an utter lack of emotional maturity to actually stalk a guy.

And then you pathetically try to couch your facileness with …..

"Why do we vets care …."

Yea right, coming from a self avowed socialist and anti-war protester?

"We care because his false claims dishonor those who did fight and bleed and die."

Yea right, GUYS THAT THROW THEIR MEDALS AT THE US CAPTAL are really just trying to honor those "who did fight and bleed and die."

And then you have the clueless audacity to offer later ….

"The Swift Boat Veterans set all Viet Nam Veterans back when they attacked Kerry."

The guy that worked 3 tweezer, bactin and band-aid wounds, wounds that were self-inflicted, that resulted in no loss of service time into – 3 Purple Hearts and a ticket out of Nam after only 4 MONTHS!

"It was jealousy, …. "

How childishly and moronic …. That is the last thing it was about. How could they not have been more proud than for a former Swiftee, a guy they lived with, a guy they served with, a guy they fought with to be President of the United States …that is …. Unless Kerry truly was a gutless POS that was unfit to command a boat – much less be CIC?

" … anger at his testimony before Congress when he returned from Viet Nam?

Yea …. Anger for projecting on them the very atrocities Kerry and a few other nut jobs committed. They weren't negligent/missing at their post that lead to the slaughter of a family and their baby, they didn't order their crew to slaughter village animals with .50 cal., and they didn't take their Zippos to a village like Kerry did. They didn't shoot a wounded kid running away with a spent B-40 in the back and ask for a medal. They didn't run when one of the boats hit a mine …. Come back when it was safe … pick up a man in the water on their way back … and then ask for a medal.

They were there – they know what Kerry is.

" ….and extreme right wing politics."

Yea …. 192 of his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth signing a letter demanding he release his records and asking for him to address meticulously documented inconsistencies were all right wing extremists?

Yea …. Kerry using a photo in his campaign where 12 out of 19 of his fellow officers demanded he not use their picture – stating that Kerry was unfit - where ONLY ONE OUT OF 19 actually supported Kerry. (2 were deceased, 4 no comment.)

"Nothing more."

In case you didn't know, they actually wrote a book, a New York Times #1 Best Seller …. "Unfit for Command" … about 200 pages of "more" … and have begged Kerry to sue them if anything is incorrect.

Regardless, "nothing more" is pretty funny …. coming from someone who declares a man a fraud based on little more than his sense of "smell."

Happy New Year Jack

RedDev - Not to be argumentative, but that's part of my nature... Money is the key. As long as we have politicians in it for the big bucks paid to them by lobbiests and anyone wanting to buy favor, we will always have the problem of dishonesty in politics. Term limits is the answer. Take a look at this list of current representatives and how long they've been in their positions:

John Dingall - 56 years

Daniel Inoyue - 52 years

John Conyers - 46 years

Charles Rangel - 40 years

Bill Young - 40 years

Thad Cochran - 38 years

Pete Stark - 38 years

Don Young - 38 years

Patrick Leahy - 36 years

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

It's nuts to have someone serve in an elected position for greater than 36 years, let alone so many are have done it. They sit there and roost, moving from election cycle to election cycle drawing a salary from the government, earning big retirement benefits, getting rich on the sides through lobbiests and pay off's. Of course many of them never get caught because it's all done under the table. Remember ABSCAM? There should be an ABSCAM type sting going on all the time...

The reason the corporations do it, is because the government allows it.

Congrats Jack!

You are now the boob's current obsession... Nice work!

First Read membership is not complete until you have been stalked by the boob! ;o)

Anyone else find it creepy that the boob is so fixated on a conversation that happened almost a week ago, he felt it necessary to write a novella in defense of Rambo ITM?

From the sound him, he has lost a ton of sleep over this, he is much pissier than his usual, belligerent self!

*popcorn*?

The reason the corporations do it, is because the government allows it.

No argument there. I think we should legislate all K-Street lobbyist and large campaign contributions out of politics, which also includes United Citizens.

I don't agree with instituting term limits. It is like administering aspirin for cancer, while alleviating the pain, it doesn't go to the core of the issue. If politicians are doing a good job, and their constituents are happy, keep on electing them. It means they are doing something right.

RedDev said: If politicians are doing a good job, and their constituents are happy, keep on electing them. It means they are doing something right.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. How many liberals accuse republicans of bringing home the pork? I know republicans accuse democrats of it all the time. This is why government spending habits in this country go unchecked. Consider this... those with the greater longevity know how to milk the system better. Those who rank the highest are those that have been in the system longer. Senior members of both the Congress and the Senate have more power... Not many of them have a stellar credibility rating. Food for thought.

As I've stated repeatedly, history will not look well upon this time when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

America has had a long history of white Southern radicals who will stop at nothing to get their way – seceding from the Union in 1861, refusing to obey Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, shutting the government in 1995, and risking the full faith and credit of the United States in 2010.

Newt Gingrich’s recent assertion that public officials aren’t bound to follow the decisions of federal courts derives from the same tradition.

This stop-at-nothing radicalism is dangerous for the GOP because most Americans recoil from it. Gingrich himself became an object of ridicule in the late 1990s, and many Republicans today worry that if he heads the ticket the Party will suffer large losses.

It’s also dangerous for America. We need two political parties solidly grounded in the realities of governing. Our democracy can’t work any other way.

http://robertreich.org/post/14535718993

Fiesty,

Gee, do you think I got under Booby's skin a little? LMAO!

The other thing about the exchanges with Booby and his friend that week--which he echoed in #1.38 today--is that I'm "new" to posting here. They were bragging about how many years they've been posting (4), as if this somehow made them more intelligent, or more credible, or more wise. If it's true that it actually made them more intelligent, I sure would hate to know where they started four years ago! In fact, they appear to be at Ground Zero now, so it's hard to imagine how they could have been less intelligent four years ago.

Did you get the impression that Booby wanted to tell us all about his time in the service? Guess he thought better of it.

BTW: BrianB is the one who said he didn't have a job and hinted that he's bitter about it. He let it slip in a post a couple of weeks ago. So Booby's little tirade about my not posting long enough to know that BrianB is in fact gainfully employed, is one more nail in Booby's coffin.

And, oh, BTW: I am not unsympathetic to Brian being out of work. I've been there and it's no fun. But wallowing in self-pity and blaming the wrong party/Party is a step in the wrong direction.

RedDev - I read the Reich article. Couldn't disagree more with his assertion that we need two political parties. Not if one one is so wacko and clearly bi-polar as are the Repubs. If there were a party that had real values and not just talking points that would be good. A party capable of compromise and not simply " a my way or the highway" approach to governing, then I could agree. As of now, the Repubs deserve a long trek in the wilderness.

Hey Phine I have not posted much today because I am making spare ribs potatoes and sauerkraut in the dutch oven outside today. I don't know where it came from but we were told as kids it is good luck to eat this on New Years Day, but every that tastes my ribs and potatoes says they are lucky to eat them any time I make this.

I do mine in the crock pot, Forrest. I end up having family and friend "dropping in" for a bite all day. (Been busy around here all day!)

You know something I noticed, most of the folks posting (please note i said MOST, not all) last night were on the right? I guess they have become so embittered about life no one wants to celebrate the New Year with them!

Iowans cannot be entrusted with its role as the state that kicks off Presidential voting ever four years when they pick a nut like Michele Bachmann in the Ame's straw poll or a old man with one foot in the grave like Ron Paul and now Santorum a beloved Kochead tea tard with no experience and not qualified to be a dog catcher, this is evidence that Iowa votes were too unsophisticated to be trusted. We don't need backwoods people making our pick for being the President of this Nation. This is dangerous and has to come to an end.

Happy new years everybody. Nothing Like a Bottle of Scotch to go with he flavor of the week.

So funny...I heard a group of "un-decided" voters who were getting ready to vote in the Iowa caucuses yesterday being interviewed on NPR. One lady said, "I believe our country is going in the wrong direction....I think we need to do a 360." (That should help)

LOL....and these are the people who will choose our next step.

Phine, I start with two slabs of ribs, brown them in the bottom of an 8 quart dutch even with the lid off then bake them for awhile with the lid on, then pull them up off the bottom and put 5 pounds of potatoes on the bottom with the ribs on top of them, let it bake awhile, then I put six cans of drained saurkraut on top of the ribs and let it bake down real good. I do all this on a charcoal and oak wood fire,and there won't be a morsel left, as my family has alrady put in their orders, and on top of all that I will deliver it to them. The good luck part must be having family to share with. Happy New Year!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWttKddn_Hw

This is the most hilarious you tube video I've seen in ages. Have fun!

Jack

Does eric holder work for govmint?

Feisty, love the "News for dumb fux" logo. The truth as bluntly as one can put it.

The truth as bluntly as one can put it.

Thanks Daniel!

I learned along time ago, you can't beat around the bush with these bird-brains! ;o)

Matthew, Houston, TX, the term you are looking for is Godwin's law....

Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.

Brianb-999431 has conceded or lost his argument since he invoked Godwin's Law, and righty so.

Bob #s,

My "Why don't I believe that?" was a comment on his credibility, and had nothing to do with his race. Period. You can believe it or not. Frankly, I don't care.

192 of his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth signing a letter demanding he release his records and asking for him to address meticulously documented inconsistencies were all right wing extremists?

This simply points out what you want to believe; i.e., there is more than one way to interpret that letter, but for you there exists only one possibility.

About a year after that election I stood on a porch with 6 or 7 other Viet Nam Vets. I only knew two of them, but all were at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. None--I'll say that again--none of them believed that what the Swift Boat Vets had done was good for the image of Viet Nam Vets as a whole, and none of them believed what the Swift Boat Vets said about the firefight Kerry had participated in. On the other hand, all of them believed it was payback for Kerry's testimony before Congress.

So you go right ahead and believe what the Swift Boat Vets said about what happened in that firefight. That's what you want to believe, so believe it. But I'll tell you this. There's a reason none of the vets on the porch that night believed what the Swift Boat Vets said was true. And if ITM really has been in all the battles he says he has, he'll be able to tell you what the reason is.

This is my last comment on the matter(s). Please go soak your head.

Feisty, l back that up, "poor dumb Fox" Is for Retards !!!!!!!!

"Anyone else find it creepy that the boob is so fixated on a conversation that happened almost a week ago,"

Now that's some FUNNY SH!T Red!!! You're a "Do what I say, not what I do" person!!! Sad.

Good post Bob, if Jack understood how SF worked, back in the 80's you had to do "your" time before trying out for SF. It wasn't recently that they had/have an 18X program. We (my MOS) would get the wash outs from the 18X program because they already have the TS clearance and the ASVAB to enter our field.

I won't explain anything to Red, she completely doesn't understand what goes on if it has to deal with reality. Maybe I'm one of those "Posers" too!! hahaha

Happy New Year Bob

Ahh, thank you, Cynthia.

Forrest, please, please, please provide a few more details on that recipe! It sounds great, and I can't order any from you! How long is 'awhile'? How long does it take to 'cook down real good'? Are the potatoes peeled, and cut? Chunks, or slices? How big are the cans of sauerkraut (I prefer the bagged as the kraut doesn't pick up the taste of the can if it has been on the shelf too long)?

By the way, Brianb-999431

Ahhh Matthew - Ignore anything I say... How Hitleresque of you. You just added to my belief that liberals are not for free speech. Telling someone to ignore the comments of another is very fascist of you. Don't you believe in the 2nd Ammendment? Apparantly not! If I don't say exactly what you want me to say, advise others to ignore me. Maybe I should do that to you... but, I can't, because I BELIEVE in your right to say what you want. If you want to ignore me, then friggen do it. More on.

besides your invoking Godwin's Law, the right to free speech is covered in the 1st amendment not the 2nd amendment(the right to bear arms, militia, etc.)

Cynthia,

That's very interesting about Godwin's Law. Never heard of it before this evening. Thanks for answering Matthew, Houston's question--I had been wondering what he was referring to.

Forrest, that sounds like an old german recipe very similar to one I make on occasion. The best saurkraut is homemade if you have a 20 or 30 gallon crock. ;-)

Santorum isn't everything I would want in a president. It's easy to see how he'd be better than President Obama, but few people wouldn't, so that isn't much of an endorsement by itself. I think that Obama and his administration saying that all options remain on the table is, for those not blinded by their partisan hackery, another way of saying we could bomb Iran if needed. So how is Santorum wrong for saying this more directly?

If you think that President Obama sincerely believes his rhetoric that Iran with nukes is unacceptable to the USA, and you agree that all options should remain on the table, then you must, unless you are delusional, agree that bombing Iran is one possible outcome of all of this. But if you don't see a nuclear armed Iran as unacceptable then saying so is, at best, duplicitous. It weakens the USA when we are not clear about our intentions.

Hi Phine, Forrest and all my FR friends out there, Happy New Year!

Just got back from Bingo today, Good start to the year $1,350.00 ahead YOO HOO!

The kiddies are out in force I see today, why can't we just enjoy the holiday for once?

The Missus and I are doing the traditional spiral glazed ham, candied sweet taters, copper pennies, (don't ya just love 'em) just about ready now...

Every one enjoy dinner and have a great new year!

What a sad life you lead, Feisty. It seems your only purpose in life is to be a gadfly to the Republican party.

You obviously don't care to sway people to your opinion, you only desire to be a burr under the saddle of those with whom you don't agree.

Why don't you go outside once in a while instead of waiting for an article to be posted about Republicans just so you can be the first to comment about it?

Pathetic. I think you're secretly in love with the Repubs, otherwise why would you be so obsessed with them.

Happy New Year Egilman!

Cynthia, see what you did? You exposed me to what he wrote, and now I'm trying to figure out how telling one person to ignore another person is being against free speech. One of the reasons I have BrianB on ignore is that I don't usually want to waste time on his rantings, and nonsense.

(Just playing with you, Cynthia. Anything BB says is easily ignored.)

Awww Matthew, sorry 'bout that! I have a very few people on ignore.I only ignore those that continue to spout lies in the face of facts.

"I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. " ~Adlai Stevenson

"DNC seizes on Bain:"

Give us a break. Bain Capital invested in and then ran poorly run companies, and turned them into profitable companies that were then able to expand and grow and add jobs. For example, one of their early purchases was Staples Stores, which had only one store in the mid-1980s and has about 2,000 stores now - that's a lot of additional jobs 'created'.

Do some people from unprofitable operations get laid off in the process - YES, but that's the way that profitable businesses prosper and grow in the long run.

How about the 6.3 million people laid off under Obama and his anti-business, anti-growth policies?

The average number of people working in 2008 (Bush's last year) was 145,362,000 jobs.

The average number of people working in 2010 was 139,064,000 jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

GOP is testing many of the hopefuls, in search of ABO.

Really shows desperation they actually put Santorum on the stage.

You guys all realize that Rick Santorum cannot win the presidency, right? I would rather not go into reasons in this post.

Happy New Year to all.

@ Matthew I sent you my recipe as best as I could desribe it, let me know if you got it.

@ Cynthia I would not have a clue as to how to make my own kraut, I have no German in my ancestry, but I agree homemade is always better if you have the time and knowhow.

@ Egilman nice win, great start to the new year, I love candied sweet potatoes. I always thought bingo should be called "aw crap" because only one person yells bingo, then everybody else says aw crap.

I just tried some Pear Liqueur from Yugoslavia someone gave me for Christmas, it tastes like fruit flavored rocket fuel, wow this stuff is strong.

Funny reading about Liberals bringing a guy up to talk about how he lost his job after Bain Capital took over. Here's the problem ding dongs -

No one trusts you clowns and your ridiculous pandering anymore - your little Obama test is an utter failure.

Soooo, for every Bain Capital job loss we have what, 1,000 Obama jobs lost?

As for Santorum, I'd vote for the guy. ABO

Well you would, but I bet you a ham sand-which not enough people would to beat Obama in the general. Ha I don't think Pennsylvania would vote for him as president after rejecting him big time as a senator. ABO is a slogan, slogans don't win elections, candidates do, the republican candidates can't even wow republicans how do you think they are going to sway independents and flip some democrats in the general.

First Read is like ground hog day. Same subjects, same lead poster, same lapdogs that follow

Hey and the same old Kornfed, Happy New Year Kornfed! or Happy Groundhog Day! if you prefer.

Your kidding, right? You'd vote for Santorum and your in these sites? Start paying attention to whats being written about the guy. Listen to what he's saying too. I'd never vote for him. Well I'd never vote for a repube, ever again. Why would I want to hurt myself, by voting for a repube.

If 5000 Iowa GOP/Tea Baggers vote on Tuesday and our boy Ricky gets 15% of the vote, that’s a whole 750 votes. Looks like the Rickster only needs about 54,999,250 more votes to be elected President. Thank God I can sleep tonight because there’s a greater chance that Elvis is alive and running a 7-11 in Orange County California than Ricky boy has of ever becoming POTUS.

So far it's all talk, the voting starts in a few days then it gets REAL. get the also rans out of the way and we can have a real debate on who is best and why the voters think the way they do.

Until then, it is all talk.

As is your Birtherism, Egilman, as is your Birtherism.

Birtherism? what the hell is Birtherism?

Does this have anything to do with the supposed birth certificate thing?

I've never commented on that, it all just sounded like a cruel joke to me.

anythingwrongx-

Sorry to take so long to respond to and be so far away from your 1.22 post of January 1, but where and from whom did you learn what you try to pass off as American history? Slavery was became law first in Massachusetts and then in subsequent colonies as a way of establishing legal protection for property rights, the ownership and control as chattel of human beings. Behaviors and the laws that codify and protect these behaviors are human processes and, as such, are too liable to the too-human flaws of their authors and enactors. It took compromises to get The Constitution both framed and ratified, including compromises that continued the legally-protected practice of humans as property.

One of the reasons for the expansionist push westward was the desire by Southerners to increase plantable land while increasing representation in the Senate as a means of thwarting the increasing abolitionist fervor in the North. That abolitionist fervor was in conflict with many of the financial and mercantile interests of the North who had become as dependent on cheap slave labor for cotton farming as Southern planters had.

Out of curiosity, which side initiated armed hostilities in the Civil War? Which side did more this year to "celebrate" that conflict's sesquicentennial? You write of freedom. What was the freedom of the slave? You write of the freedom of speech that excuses racial slurs and then slide into mentioning hanging and attempts to convict the murderers. Of all the lynchings, how many successful prosecutions have there been?

If it is not yet one of your New Year's resolutions, please engage in a more complete and thoughtful reading of our country's history, for your own sake if no one else's.

I disagree with probably 99% of what Santorum represents but one thing about him is that he remains consistent. He believes what he says and he has stuck to those beliefs.

You know what they say about foolish consistencies and hobgoblins.

And that's the thing, really, the GOPTP has become so radical, now that they've made their agenda and intentions clear they've very little chance in the presidential election. The important thing at this point is to make clear that it isn't JUST the Republican presidential candidates who are whackadoodle...the entire Conservative Movement has moved so far to the Right they're off their rocker.

why do you libs spend so much time posting to each other on this leftist sight??? same old characters all the time. I do ask this one ??? and I know you will no bother to answer. Why does nearly 3/4 of the population saying we are moving in the wrong direction as a country???? hmmm???? why??? are you all that ignorant.

Obviously because we have not been liberal or progressive enough, and they realize trickle down economics have been a disaster for them.

Before calling others ignorant, Me-sane, you might want to try that 'spell check thingy', maybe pick up a grammar book, and possibly try your hand at correct punctuation. I wouldn't mention any of that, except you're the one calling everyone else ignorant.

Forrest got it right. I am one of those '3/4 of the population saying we are moving in the wrong direction' precisely because of the way the Republican/TP Inc. party, and corporate America is pushing us.

and what policy would you be talking about that your party is in favor of that would change this country for the better??? oh and you can spend your time deflecting and complain that I don't care to use caps at the start of these blog post - thats important - but really what is your plan??? green energy??? how are all those green jobs working out??? i guess if we give a private co 500 mill to bail out its share holders that support the pres - it's ok - you people are so funny

I am waiting Mathew Forrest??? Someone - please tell me what your plan is ?? Come now - is tax and spend??? if you don't like capitalism what is your plan??? greece spain italy??? come on now

Tax the rich at the same rate as working people, raise the minimum wage, support collecrive bargining, tax the pants off of American companies that produce products overseas to skirt US laws and taxes and but then sell those products here, stop subsidies to insanely profitable oil companies who drill for oil in US teritory but then sell it abroad to the highest bidder, I could on and on but there is a good start for you Me-sane.

finally - let me address these one by one - tax the rich - you realize you cannot take money from the wealthy that they have already made and paid taxes on - correct? So you are looking to tax future earnings - which means that person can choose to no invest in this country going forward or make their home base overseas so you get nothing. The reason we have repubs in congress pushing for tax breaks is to re-patriate about 2 trilliong that is hiding over seas - get it? You are not going to get that money back by raising taxes on them - the opposite will happen - but you leftist dont live in reality. Fantacy is your game. But the reality is the top one percent pay 50 percent of the total debt so what is fair? why not have everyone pay taxes??? What you feel that a person that makes 45,000 a year shouldn't pay a penny in taxes?? that is fair?? You don't make sense and the other fact and it is a big fact - these wealthy people are very smart and they would actually not have a problem paying a little more in taxes but they dont trust where it is going to be spent. If it were to go directly to out national debt they would pay more - but libs like you just want to spend it. Thats the issue that you dont get. You live in a dream world. Raise the minimum wage ?? hmm you going to make those poeple pay taxes ?? at all no why not?? not fair - because you get to decide what is fair. Support Collective bargining - my now you are scaring me - I belong to a union because I work for the state and all it is a tax on the people that are working - nothing more - when push comes to shove union has nothing but the power to walk out its workers if they agree - not likely in many cases - I am sure there were reasons in the past to form unions with some abuse that was taking place - but the reality that makes this difficult is companies are struggling to survive - my wife has been the director of finance at a healthcare facility that is very successful - by that - they have never had to lay anyone off - but if they were to unionize they would meet the same demise as those that once were non union - which are now union and are broke - taken over by the state or else they would be closed. Not every business owner is a bad person - many in fact treat their employees like family - but you have a mind set that you need some big entity that costs everyone money - to protect you. If a business owner breaks the law then so be it and they should be punished - "tax the pants off of American companies that produce products overseas to skirt US laws and taxes and but then sell those products here" tax tax tax - thats all you care about - getting to other peoples money - how english of you - but here is the reality - these companies build product overseas because of the reasons you are talking about doing more of. The companies do not move overseas because of the cost of labor - they move because of the 38 percent corp tax - and you want to raise it. Do you realize that the repubs presented your pres 200 bill in removing those subsidies to oil co. and the pres didn't like it and at the last minute asked for 400 bill which was why the whole debt debate fell apart during the summer. You need to look at your own part when it comes to dealing with oil co. you boy pres received the most campaign money than any other pol from the oil co. but you forgive him because why??? why do you let that go?? I don't get you people.

I guess, in these times, a consistent fool can make a solid stand against a knowledgeable flip-flopper. Some choice, huh?

It's not just Romney with the flip-flop syndrome... it seems that all Republicans, after 8 years of otherwise, now believe in balancing budgets and reducing deficits... a far cry from ballooning unfunded off-balance-sheet trickery and a Bush deficit burn rate of $1Trillion a year that continues today. Their self-righteousness makes me puke.

The GOP complains about the government "training" people to rely on entitlements instead of themselves... yet they adhere to a religion that allows them to screw everyone in sight only to get forgiven every Sunday... so what does that "teach" them?... maybe to be uncaring hypocrites? It's working so well!

ME-sane

finally - let me address these one by one - tax the rich - you realize you cannot take money from the wealthy that they have already made and paid taxes on - correct? So you are looking to tax future earnings - which means that person can choose to no invest in this country going forward or make their home base overseas so you get nothing. The reason we have repubs in congress pushing for tax breaks is to re-patriate about 2 trilliong that is hiding over seas - get it? You are not going to get that money back by raising taxes on them - the opposite will happen - but you leftist dont live in reality.

Let me address your first point only, because if the rest makes this little sense, it just doesn't make sense to address the rest.

First of all, we've been talking about restoring 3.6% of the tax rate on money made in a current year that is already over the $1million threshold. Do the f'ing math. Yes, they will make a new decision. And here it is... on a $100,000 project with an ROI of 10%, a higher tax would take $360 off the bottom line. AGAIN... $360 on a $100,000 project. Anyone that decides to go overseas because of $360 can go... they'd have to be so damn greedy we wouldn't want them here anyway. They would be the ones not paying a dime anyway. But, frankly, the math just doesn't work for this insane argument.

Secondly, no one is saying that our "fair trade" is not out of whack... address tariffs and and you might get at the overseas money issue.

Thirdly is the current 15% tax rate on investment income. Although we must be careful with this one, calling an investment broker's income "investment income" instead of "earned income" is a bought-and-paid-for tax law... it's ridiculous... change it.

As far as your pathetic sympathy plea about the rich paying most taxes... talk to us after the economy returns from your dump. It's on the GOP's shoulders that so many people make so little that they pay no taxes. So to hell with your argument. The rich should appreciate the opportunity they have had and still have and it's in their best CURRENT interest to help where they can... THEY are the only ones in a position to help right now.

And, besides, virtually EVERY "rich" person I know couldn't care less about the $3.6%... they took math in high school. They can add. They realize that they make more money with a healthy economy. They realize that 3.6% in chump change. And we realize that this is just more BS from the Norquist crowd... don't get me started on that one.

ME-sane - yes you can take money that has already been taxed - it is called an estate tax. Don't worry. polliticians won't let anyone except their friends get away without paying taxes.

"What's fair?",asks mesane. For starters it would be fair for the very wealthy to not pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class. The current situation is thanks to the artificially low rate on "capital gains" (very liberally defined by GOP defenders of the wealth) so cry me a river about criminal mistreatment of the wealthy elites.

And what do you base this statement on? so you support war with Iran apparently because what does Santorum stand for again thats any different from the rest? Take your blinders off please because you been watching to much false news..

I watched Meet The Press today and, I confess, I had a hard time focusing on the interview. Something about listening to Santorum explain why he endorsed Romney in 2008, and attacks him in 2011, just strains ones' credulity.

PS I never noticed how pretty David Gregory's eyes are, and it was nice when he actually contradicted Santorum by pointing out, however, mildly, that Santorums crictism of Obama was not fact-based. Keep standing up for reality, Gregory, I might get to like you.

Amy, sweet Amy. That is how politics works.

Let's try something you can follow. Remember 2008? Remember Obama and Clinton attacking each other during the primary? (3 am phone calls and Only one speech ring a bell?)

Now, do you notice how they work together today?

See, Amy, no strain, dear, just politics.

Even Hillary was astonished when President Obama buried the hatchet and offered her a position as Secretary of State. But, Santorum calling Romney a true conservative in 2008, to the point of endorsing him over McCain, then attacking Romney's conservative credentials in this primary, is just too hard to swallow.

Not at all, Amy. Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle. It's nothing but a series of narratives designed to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.

The Conservative Movement has become so corrupt they no longer see corruption as wrong.

I find it quite funny that you call out Newt for being a pig in your moniker (And your 100% correct) While at the same time supporting a candidate who couldn't be more alike if they had cloned him!

What I took out of the interview was he would vote for Romney over McCain. How hard was that to clarify.

I really don't understand Ron Paul followers, even if you ignore the fact that Paul is an anarchist and a racist, lets face it folks the guy is older than dirt.

Ron - Newtisapig wants Santorum because he think Obama will mop the floor with him. Either you aren't on here frequently enough, or you show what led you to think Ron Paul is the best candidate.

Ron Paul - Many people who watch this whole video change their vote

Yeah, they decide not to vote for him.

So Jack all you have is name calling in your statements. And who is the canididate that you think is the best out there?

Well, it ain't Ron Paul, that's for sure. (See my #1.9 above.)

None of the Republican candidates are inspiring--not that I'd vote for a Republican anyway.

ah so the democrat gets on a Republican article and spouts how they are all bad.. hmm not suprising there.. Jack and Jody = your typical sheep.. they dont look into the what the candidates stand for they just know they don't vote republican.. LOL can anyone say TROLL?

I do know what he stands for, and just because he is against war in Iran (which is one thing I can agree with him on) doesn't mean all his ideas are sound. 80% are them are nutty. Do you have any idea at all what abolishing the Department of Housing would mean to this country? No, and neither does Paul. The economic results would sink this country into a depression.

I've known a few Libertarians and have spent many an evening with them discussing politics. To date I haven't met a true Libertarian (in other words, not simply those who are thinking about voting for Paul and haven't fully grasped the results of his policies) who isn't either an incredibly selfish human being, or incredibly naive--or both. (And, yes, I will grant you that Paul has done some good things in his life.)

And why wouldn't Jody and I read and comment on this article? This is a FirstRead site and it's the site we frequent.

Look, RonPaul4Peace, I won't call Ron nutty, but you have to admit his ideas are a bit too archaic. I mean, I am with pulling out SOME of our troops from our bases overseas, but we ought to keep them where they are needed. Plus I am not with his "small government" business, because in actuality a small government could destroy a nation. He wants to cut the deficit and debt quickly, I can accept that. But doing so by cutting 5 departments and laying off hundreds of thousands of people could harm our fragile recovery. Besides, maybe those departments ARE necessary to the running of our government. And extending the Bush tax cuts??? That is one of the most stupidest ideas that he has. The tax cuts add $4 trillion to our debt every decade, so they MUST be cut down in order to help cut down the deficit. Plus I am completely opposed to his deregulate and cut taxes stuff, because doing so would make it impossible to cut the deficit and could both harm the welfare of this nation and our economy. Plus I highly doubt that the free market can self-regulate, because it may work but there must be a government to provide management. And to anyone who says that the states can run things better than the feds, I have a simple statement for you. Decentralized government had its chance. It failed, see the Article of Confederation. If it didn't work then, than it definitely won't work now. Libertarianism has never been tried before (or been successful), so I would advise Ron Paul to create a new country and make his case to America a few years later. Until then, libertarianism is an untested and possibly faulty philosophy.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT 2012

NO LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

define the 80% that are nutty then? Why do we need a department of housing? remind me again where the housing market is and why again the state governments cant handle this themselves. why do we need federal intervention with a one size fits all mentality? I am tired of you guys spouting that 80% of his views are bad and that following the constitution is a "nutty" or crazy thing to do? Might as well just throw the constituion out the window according to you guys... Read some history if you know so much..apparently we learned nothing from vietnam and I am pretty sure our founding fathers had a good idea of what could become of the US if the constituion was not followed..and we are certainly headed that way.

Fresh, it has been tried briefly with some success. Google Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish Revolution was a workers' social revolution that began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936 and resulted in the widespread implementation of anarchist and more broadly libertarian socialist organizational principles throughout various portions of the country for two to three years, primarily Catalonia, Aragon, Andalusia, and parts of the Levante. Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy Communist Party influence, as the Soviet-allied party actively resisted attempts at collectivization enactment. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivised and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. Sam Dolgoff estimated that about eight million people participated directly or at least indirectly in the Spanish Revolution,^[1] which he claimed "came closer to realizing the ideal of the free stateless society on a vast scale than any other revolution in history."^[

Freshie, Thanks for at least considering some of the policies and letting it be known who you want to represent you. But, the only thing I don't see in your logic is where would you cut from then? You want the bases but you don't want the tax cuts either and you also want to keep the government the same size. Something has to give here. Raise taxes even higher? Where are we going to cut spending from? If someone could tell me that their canididate has a plan to do some actual cuts from something I would be more than open to hearing it. We all know you can't just keep spending at the current rate and not either raise taxes or cut spending. Which is it going to be?

ronpaul4peace--you are stuck in a place. The place where the people believe we are overtaxed. Taxes are at their lowest percentage of gdp in the last 50 years. They are so low that many services needed by the neediest are being cut on a regular basis--check out what social security widows in Maine are getting in federal heating benefits this year. The reason that many things should be done by government is that they are too big to be local and funding is actually more efficient if done centrally. You are right that we must either raise taxes or cut spending. Since cutting spending and taxes is not working, wouldn't raising taxes on those who have benefited the most from our system be appropriate? My belief about a centralized government is actually based on the belief in full human rights for all---not some for the people of Washington state and less for the people of Alabama and more for the people of Puerto Rico--HUMAN rights. Everyone benfits, or should, and everyone pays, or should. If you have been blessed and can pay more, great. If you have had hard times, bad luck, social disadvantages, let us help until and if you can stand up again. If you don't think that all are entitled, then we do have a fundamental disagreement.

Your welcome. While I have some major disagreements with libertarianism, I at least hope that the supporters of Ron Paul won't be so partisan and uncompromising than the current lot in Congress But actually, I would like to remove SOME, I repeat, some of the bases overseas, perhaps 144 to 200, to remove at least $400-500 billion from the deficit over ten years. Then I am willing to cut the budgets FOR every department (but not dismantle them) except for Education and NASA. I am also in support of finding at least $1.2 trillion in savings from entitlements over 10-12 years, plus defense cuts and a revision and simplification of the tax code to both promote growth AND be revenue positive. I would also be in support of reviewing the nation's regulatory policies, removing some wasteful ones and placing new ones in areas where it is needed (housing market, Wall Street). My plan is to cut $9 trillion over 12 years from the deficit and debt using a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts. We have to both raise taxes AND cut spending to cut the deficit. I think most GOP candidates and definitely Obama have been willing to raise revenue and cut spending, but I am not trusting the GOP because they had their chance last year when Obama offered a $4 trillion plan to raise revenues, cut spending, reform entitlements, etc. It contained a lot of Republican ideas, but they still refused to agree do the Tea Party. I am in favor of both spending cuts and tax hikes as long as it goes to the deficits. I would advise you to check Obama's summer debt reduction plan plus research those of the GOP candidates, compare them, and see which ones are better. I like how Ron Paul wants to cut the deficit and debt by a large amount over a short time, but the way he is doing it is, in my view, dangerous to our economy. Obama is pretty much the only guy I trust when it comes to deficit reduction, because he proposed a BALANCED plan in the summer. I hope that the person who is elected (Obama or another) at least tries to use a balanced approach. And FWI, taxes are the lowest in decades. We have to raise rates on EVERYBODY so we can raise enough revenue, or at least reform the tax code. I am willing to cut taxes on corporations as long as they pay that amount minus any deductions for charity, buying equipment, and having at least 20-30% of their manufacturing capabilities in the US.

Thank you, opajack. You have proved the exact principle that I have been "preaching." The feds are the only ones who can afford massive areas like education and healthcare, but the states should still be able to control the specific parts of these areas.

Chucky, your understanding of socialism, libertarianism, and communism are seriously flawed. 'Collectivism', and 'libertarianism' are diametrically opposed ideologies, and can not coexist. If you get your information from wherever you copy and pasted that post about the Spanish Civil War from, it goes a long way toward explaining your posts (that is not a compliment).

Freshiee,

Interesting analysis and from what you describe sounds very close to Ron's thoughts on things. These things can be compromised on and I think Ron Paul supporters are be characterized as being uncompromising when that is not true.

I do not seem to understand why Democrats seem to oppose state right's. My thought of America was if you wanted the freedom to do something you were allowed unless the state opposed it. Not everyone agrees the same. So, if for example you want gay marriage or wants to legalize drugs and the people of your state vote for that, that is fine by me and should be for the rest of America. Your state doesn't think the education provided at the Federal level is not getting the job done .. then they should have the right to determine that so why do people oppose that? I thought that was what freedom was.

Well, Democrats don't necessarily oppose states' rights, they think that it is inefficient. I don't support the theory that states should have more power than the federal government as a liberal progressive Democrat, but I do believe that states have fundamental rights. They reserve the right to have a sizable amount of control in education, healthcare, and maybe the legalization of drugs. But federal law should be the supreme law of the land. I personally think the feds ought to establish a single, national standard of education and institute nation-wide reform to make our system more competitive in the world. The same thing with healthcare. But the states deserve a degree of control and management by managing the specific functions of education, healthcare, etc. And yes, what you stated is true. But for Democrats like me, it may sound disorganized to know that this state legalizes marijuana with that state does not. I believe that they would prefer the decisions to be made on a national scale to stop all the disorganization and any confusion. Freedom is what you said it is, but it can also be taken to a more national scale. Before the Civil War, states had a large influence on the federal government, some of which was disadvantageous to the nation. But after the Civil War, the federal government took a more powerful stance on what goes on in America, justified in the fact that states' rights can be self-destructive to a nation (see Fall of the Confederacy). The feds took on more powers to strengthen their position as the supreme government of the US, while the states were to occupy a more subordinated role. Essentially, it was the issue of states's rights and slavery that strengthened the power of the government. Back to your thoughts, it is true that if you wanted freedom to do something you are allowed to unless the state opposed it. But it could also be taken on a more national scale: you have the freedom to do anything that you want that is legal in the United States. Ever since the Civil War, many Americans (and the federal government) have tried to assert a more national sense of citizenship than sectional to promote a unified nation rather than a loose federation of autonomous states. While that may have drawbacks (such as less state rights), it keeps the nation united and reduces the risk of a great sectional divide that could lead to civil war. Nowadays the feds are trying to give some powers back to the states in order to placate the politicians and lobbyist organizations on the right that call for a return to the original precepts of our nation (states' rights). What they fail to realize is that the problem with states' rights is that states can adapt conflicting ideas that leads to friction between one another. That is why the federal government is given more power over the states; in order to prevent the development of interstate friction that caused the Civil War and the postwar social and cultural divide. While I do agree that states deserve certain rights that that feds can't infringe upon, the federal government is the only central institution that works for the benefit of ALL Americans, not just the people of one state or region. At least that is how it SHOULD be.

Chucky, your understanding of socialism, libertarianism, and communism are seriously flawed.

---------------------------------------------------------

Not at all Matthew. Google Left Libertarianism, Anarcho-Socialism (as opposed to state soacialism), Noam Chomsky. Only in the US is Libertarianism considered a right-wing ideology.

From wikipedia:

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,^[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)^[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.^[5] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism^[6][7] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.^[1

One of the main reasons why I don't like the GOP candidates (and the GOP itself) is that they always go on the anti-Obama side. I mean, just a few years ago it was not necessarily bad to agree with some of your opponent's ideas and beliefs. Now, that is completely sacrilegious. If a Republican supports a policy that a Democrat or Obama does, he is done for. I know that they disagree on many of his ideas, but they don't have to be so anti-Obama. I have never seen a president more slandered than Bush, and even Bush originally had some bipartisan support in the beginning of his term. Obama has been despised ever since the end of his first year in office, maybe even before. I am so tired of every Republican shouting that big government is bad, that Obama is acting like Big Brother, that he is weak. I know that he isn't perfect. I think everybody does. But the GOP is making him into a monster. They question his love of America. They question his patriotism, his belief in America, even his own birth certificate. They accuse him of destroying America, of promoting communism and the type of government system found in George Orwell's 1984. I can't take this anymore. If this is the America that I will have to grow up in, than let the terrorists win. Let them destroy America. We have already darkened our own beliefs and our values, and sometimes with all this I think that our nation is not worth saving. That may sound unpatriotic, but it is beginning to feel real. This nation is too divided. Maybe we NEED a civil war. Maybe we need 2% of our population to die, our nation to be darkened by blood and violence, our very souls to be shaken, so that we can FINALLY realize that we are ONE PEOPLE. We are not Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, Californians and Texans, Hispanics or white; we are AMERICANS. Unless America realizes this, we are no better than the terrorists who want us dead. So go out. Preach peace and love. Preach citizenship, unity, and peace. Obama is not perfect. Nor is he Abe Lincoln, or JFK, or Ronald Reagan. But he is not a Communist, a Marxist, an idiot, a weak president. Nor is he ineffective, or anti-American. Whoever utters these very words is no better than Osama bin Laden. At least he didn't lie about his feelings toward this nation. One reason why I will vote for Obama is because I want to just shove his victory down the throats of EVERY one of his detractors. They claim to be for America, but are not better than those they condemn. Please, please, America. Don't descend into hatred. Don't condemn your neighbor, your politician, or your president. Instead, try to promote unity and Americanism, and acceptance of ALL people as equal. Don't descend into hatred, or else our nation is as good as dead. That is my hope for 2012, that is my prayer. Heed this warning, America, or it will be your last....

Sincerely,

A faithful American.

P.S. America 2012

really Freshieee

Hey Freshieee,

Why do you love govt so much? The Dept of Housing? What the hell do they do? Not much if you ask me. The housing situation in this country is messed up. You have a bunch of houses that are empty, that no one can afford. Yeah they subsidize cheap housing projects that within 5 years become ghettos. The Dept of Education? Are you kidding me. Since Carter created that waste of a deptin the late 70's the kids test scores are nosediving. Only the Swiss spend more per capita(student) than we do, but our kids can't crack the top 20 of educational rankings of OECD nations. The return the American people have for the amount of money they put into govt via income tax, sales tax, etc is a total ripoff. You would think that we would already have attained utopia now wouldn't you? Also, let's face it most government expenditures are on our ever increasing war machine. To keep the money trough going we manufacture even the lamest excuses to bomb a nation half way across the planet, based on total lies that they are needed for our national security. Currently, Iran spends the lowest per capita of its GDP on defense in the entire Middle East. Even the UAE spends more in dollar amount than the huge state of Iran. Sort of hard to paint Ahjy as the next Hitler if he isn't gearing up his war machine now is it? Heaven on earth will NEVER be attained til individuals change themselves. No government will ever be able to right all the wrongs and establish equality, however noble that idea may sound. And if they ever did it would be akin to Soviet style, where everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator(which in many ways is happening now here). Everyone is not equal. I am smart, but no Einstein. I am an OK looking guy, definitely no Brad Pitt, and I am not anything close to a Michael Jordan as an athlete. You will never ever get equality with all human beings. One poor black kid will keep his nose clean, learn in school, and become a success in the business world, or maybe through his athleticism, while 20 more dropout and become gang members. Same thing goes with white kids. Out of a million people only a handful will reach the top, because of hard work, determination, talent, and/ or brains.

Hey, Joe. Really.

Alright, Bruce. Lemme start by asking you a question: do you dislike govt??? If so, why??? I don't necessarily love government, but at least I am willing to counter all of its detractors with examples of how it has succeeded. We put a man on the moon, won both World Wars, kept our nation together, and increased the standard of living, all thanks to our government. I know government can't fix everything. Nor should it. But there are some things that it should do. Like manage education. There is no proof that the Dept. of Education is screwing up our system. We're just using old-fashioned techniques, spending less on schools and more on stupid defense systems that aren't even needed; we aren't doing the things that we should be doing. We are spending our education money on the wrong things, we must focus on teaching and paying people based on their merit. I know that there will never be an egalitarian world. What makes you think I do?? My liberal philosophy on the scope of government??? Believe me, not that. It is my education. And our government HAS been wasting money; on do-nothing weapons systems; on stupid earmarks, on damn bases all the way in Germany. Doesn't Germany have a standing army??? We waste our money on a lot of stuff, and we need to prioritize. Check out this plan on http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The_CPC_FY2012_Budget.pdf. It'll help cut the deficit and prioritize spending on rebuilding our nation.

RonPaul4Peace & Freshieee @ 4.14 & 15

Hi Guys,

Ive carefully read your comments here with great interest. It seems like we agree on many areas the only difference being the degree (how far to go).

There is one point I would like to make, Libertarianism is not about "States Rights" as classically understood. It is more akin to "State's Individual Responsibility"

It stems and extends from the belief in a persons individual responsibility, we take care of our own lives.

In short, (short version)

We join together in common cause to form states to handle the individual community responsibilites we all require to function, but the state can neither invade or control the individual, but operates on the consent and cooperation of the individuals. The same this is done on a federal level as a united country.

The classic idea of "States Rights", each state can go it's own way no matter what the others do, as is taught in the history books centering on the Civil War, died with the Confederacy. (This is the part they don't teach, not even in advanced history)

Shelby Foote put the civil war in this light, "the Civil War changed America from an ARE to an IS".

We are a unified nation based upon individual responsibilities, to ourselves, our loved ones, our neighbors, our cities and towns, our states, and finally our nation. This is ingrained in our national psyche.

It never ceases to amaze me that when this country is attacked, the WHOLE world steps back and says a collective "OH @!$%#" WHY? because it is a nation that derives it spirit from INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY! yes, we are all responsible, we argue like cats and dogs over the trifles of life within the country, but when needed we pull together with one voice, when threatened we come together, when challenged we work it out.

What appears as divisiveness to the rest of the world is our STRENGTH! Whether Dr Paul wins the presidency or Obama keeps it doesn't matter. Liberty eventually will win the day, personal responsibility will overcome collectivism from the left, or stateism from the right. no matter who is in office.

The only problem for us as a nation is to decide are we going to do it civilly, or are we going to have to do it using guns again. (this would mean we haven't learned a damn thing in 200 some odd years)

I would prefer that it be done civilly, but I am prepared for the other. This was the position of our founding fathers, and if you search your souls, every american no matter what their particular stripe is. It is also why, as screwed up this country appears to the outside world, everyone else wants what we got, in one form or another.

It's all about responsibility from one to a few to many to all. Libertarianism is exactly that in a nutshell.

The reason why Romney will win the nomination is because the establishment republicans want him to win. For some reason they feel he will either take the heat for a republican loss in the general election against Obama, or win. Personally I don't feel he will have much of a chance because Romney will have his hands tied behind his back. Establishment republicans will not allow him to attack Obama. They won't allow him to run his campaign on all Obama negatives... their brains are wired all wrong. Obama will only run a negative campaign because he has nothing else to run on. He can't run on his superior record because there is none. Obama can't run on his accomplishments because there are none that matter. Obama can't run on the strong economy because it doesn't exist. Obama can't run on debt reduction because debt is growing. In essence, there are no positives from Obama, but Romney won't be allowed to use them as a wedge issue at all. Watch and see.

Brianb,

"The reason why Romney will win the nomination is because the establishment republicans want him to win. For some reason they feel he will either take the heat for a republican loss in the general election against Obama, or win."

Agree wholeheartily, Brian

Romney can run a nice positive compaign because his close buddies are ready to unlesh their superPac monies to suatain a allout negative assault against Obama. This has already happened in Iowa against Gingrich and Paul, with the ad buy of Romneys' super Pacs.

Add to the mix , that 2012 will be a fight for the soul of the Repulbican party. The tea party folks might have the passion, but the establishment GOP have all the money and overall power to get their candidate the nomination.

As Jody stated above, will lack of enthusiam for Romney keep the moderates home or will they show up ?

Will the religious right get behind one of the candidates or split their votes and Romney still pulls out a victory?

We will all stay tuned.

I still look at the general election as a crap shoot. When you consider the republicans are still duking it out with Romney more than likely the winner... and so many that don't like him, or trust him... and Obama not carrying the same enthusiasm as last time... my crystal ball is full of fog. I don't see a sure winner in either of them. I knew Obama was going to win last time on multiple levels. For as much as I don't like his politics, I still knew before the election that he was going to win because the country wanted him to, no matter what my objections were. This time I don't see it as clear cut..

Ron Paul is a joke, and a dangerous one. He needs to come clean about a LOT of things, and we need to know the full extent of his prejudices. The man opposes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and he opposes to Civil Rights Act. This is just unconscionable.

More name calling with no actual basis for a arguement ... this is getting old or you are really the idiot you appear to be. See I can name call too.. it's rather easy to do. I dont have to back up my arguement about that either now do I?

If I were a Ron Paul supporter, I'd be furious at how the Republican elite has tried to marginalize him. If he doesn't win the Republican nomination, I think you should vote for President Obama;
Obama brought the troops home from Iraq, Republicans want to start a new war with Iran.

RonPaul4Peace, this is the second time that you've lied about people name calling. Not only that, Toasty gave specific examples as to why they oppose Ron Paul.

What was it you said earlier . . . ? Oh Yeah, "LOL can anyone say TROLL?"

Cite please where I lie? Let see Jack started with:

"That right there tells you how nutty he is."

Jack's second post:

"There aren't enough childishly naive people in the country to elect him president"

So RP is "nutty" and anyone who supports him is "childishly Naive"

From toasty:

Ron Paul is a joke, and a dangerous one

So tell me again how I am lieing about people name calling???

Your post 4.2 where you said Jack called names in his post 4.1. And toasty's statement is an opinion, not name calling.

Your posts here just prove that Jack was pointing out a fact when he called people like you 'childishly naive'. Pointing out facts, is not name calling.

Here is an example of name calling (and I really mean this about you, I will definitely call you names, I'm not as polite as Jack): You are an insufferable, imbecilic fool. Your stupidity is only exceeded by your inability to see the a$$ you are making of yourself with every post you make. You are an immature, childish, self important idiot.

Happy New Year, and, since you are new here, welcome to the blog. Gird your loins, son, because if you don't, you will soon go crying home to mommy (that would be the woman upstairs in the kitchen cutting the crusts off of your sandwiches for lunch) with your tail stuck firmly between your legs.

Matthew, Houston,

Whoa! Good one! A couple of days ago I was given a "time out" (along with Houston1) by FR and so I've been trying to be a good boy, coming at the "issue" obliquely, as it were.

Gird your loins, son, because if you don't, you will soon go crying home to mommy.

Hiya Matthew!

You sure got THAT right - I have never seen more whiney little b!tches on FR!

Just another distraction to keep from focusing on the GNOP carnival barkers currently representing the worst in America!

Amy, what you said wasn't quite true. The troops being brought home from Iraq was part of a long term phase out established 4 years ago. If you say it was all Obama, then you must say that the loss of our credit rating is all Obama as well since it occurred on his watch.

Obama has been rattling the swords over Iran as well... This is how it starts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16376072

Obama signed sanctions against Iran. This is always the first step towards hostilities. Remember Iraq? Sanctions were the first step.

I know how you love to blame everything on republicans... but you need to look at what your democrat president is doing too. Let's at least be somewhat fair? We know you can do it.

I am a 40 year old proud american,father of 2 and well respected in my community. I simply want to see my children grow up to be prosperous and I would love to here your plan on how that can happen. I have heard the plan that makes the most sense to me personally and I am sorry you cant accept that.

There you go, RonPaul4Peace, now that was a good, respectful post.

I can certainly accept that you have decided that Ron Paul is offering a plan that you like, and makes sense to you. And I can respect that decision. However, the devil is in the details of his plans, and those details involve taking this economy, and this country back to the late 1800s/early 1900s. I heard him talk about foreign policy, and he has a firm, and very good grasp of what happened, and what was done incorrectly. However, his conclusions are flawed, and his policies based on those conclusions would take us back to an isolationist stand like we were in before WWII.

Here is an alternative that you might take a look at: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70&sectiontree=5,70

I'm onboard with about 95+% of this, but need to read more, and think about it more. So far, it has the highest ratings by the CBO (and other non-partisan rating entities, even Forbes recommends it) for job creation, deficit, and debt reduction, as well as protecting the most unfortunate of our citizens.

I am also very happy (as is the rest of the world) with President Obama's foreign policy. But that is another subject for another day.

brianb Our country has had been putting sanctions on Iran since 1979. You make it sound like this is the first time sanctions have been used. There are more on your side who want to start a war with Iran anyway. By the way your not going to change any minds here on this site. If it makes you feel like you told us a thing or two, good for you. Your rants by far are laughable.

Oh come on, people! 5 votes for my a$$hole post, and only 3 for my reasoned response to RonPaul4Peace? No wonder we are at each other's throats all of the time.

Jeez.

Well, now you have 4, thanks to me and 3 other people. At least some of us aren't idiots...

Smitty - I don't rant. I post. I sit here, type what's on my mind, express myself in the way I see fit. It's called freedom of speech.

I'm very glad you think you are the evaluator. I'm sure you derive a sense of satisfaction for critiquing the words of other people. I just don't have that much gumption. Your attempt to minimize my opinion only goes to show that you are of a liberal mind... that's not saying very much about you either.

It's not my intention to change the way you think. I'm not into impossible tasks... Granite is the hardest rock to break through and I just don't have that much energy.

Hey Matthew, I took a look at that website, and I liked what I saw. Well, most of it anyway. It was very good, thoughtful, and in some ways bipartisan. I hope that if Obama and the Democrats gain control of Congress, that they pass that immediately. Maybe some people have been listening to bipartisan compromise. I hope so...

brianb your ranting again! LOL I posted a fact on sanctions. You never said a word on that. Thanks for informing me about freedom of speech, to bad I knew about that years ago. Who on here has deprived you of that? This site is a Democratic site. You come on here telling us we are wrong than you wonder why you get the response you get. Now thats hitting your head on that granite rock. You would think after awhile it would hurt and you would stop. So keep on ranting. LOL

Smitty, I beg to differ with you. I come here and read all this trash talk about republicans. When I post the negatives about Obama, the democrat candidate, people like you say I'm ranting. Then you verbalize that I am telling you that you are wrong. Are you? That's for you to determine. If you don't think Obama has done anything wrong in his presidency, then think that! I can't help it if you are so blind you won't see. Don't blame me for Obama's faults, inefficiencies, and terrible leading style. Don't blame me if he's the problem and not the solution. I can't help it if you don't like hearing about it... not my problem. Do what you want, vote for who you want, eat pine bark for all I care. Like I said, busting through granite is way beyond my desire to achieve. Your attempt to minimize me by your innane remarks fall under the heading - Foolishness.

brianb well your still ranting. Sure The President has done some things wrong, name a President who hasn't. I just don't agree with you, thats not my problem. Tell me, does that make your trash talking ok? So tell me there is no trash talking at republican/tea bag sites. I'm sure on those sites everyone is polite and speaks well of Democrats. I have never lowered my self to go to a right wing site. Why go somewhere, where your not wanted, get the hint! Everything you rant about has been said before by others so why do you keep hitting your head on that granite rock every time you post. I'm not here to minimize you do a good job at that yourself by talking the same old s#!t. The foolish part you keep coming back for more.

This is for you, RonPaul4Peace:

It is CLEARLY evident that Ron Paul has more problems that are being unearth than he would like to have, ESPECIALLY when he has written articles that are extremely racist, homophobic, and Anti-Semitic in nature. What is EVEN more damaging is the excuses he tried to pass of when confronted with the facts, ALONG with the testy interview he had with CNN.

When a person enlists in the military AND/OR seeks public office-TO INCLUDE THE PRESIDENCY, they take an oath. The main crux of it is that they are swearing to defend the Constitution. QUESTION: How can a person swear to do something when they want to RE-PEAL amendments to the Constitution that gives the power to the laws that are upheld on the books? ANSWER: YOU CAN'T!!!!

Kevin,

Please show me on iota of proof that he wants to repeal anything in or about the Constitution?

Please?

GUESS WHAT, YOU CAN"T!!!!

Kevin, that's a flat out lie to say that Ron Paul "he has written articles that are extremely racist, homophobic, and Anti-Semitic in nature." The articles in question were published under his name, but not written by Ron Paul. Do a little research before you make such ridiculous claims.

What I find funny is that this has been addressed already, and yet the media seems to want to dig this back up and present it as some sort of new dirt. Paul talked about this back in 2008!

And if you still think Ron Paul is a racist:

If you want to talk about racism in the GOP, why don't you look at Santorum:

Ron Paul on re-pealing Civil Rights

H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42, H.R.7955, H.R.2597 and H.R.392

Whoopsie, I'm short on three. Give me some time to get the rest.

Yes, it was addressed by Paul claiming articles with his name on them weren't written by him. So there was a point in his career when he saw advantage to be gained in racism and homophobia. Now he disowns his past because it threatens to become a hindrance.

Romney's firm bought profitable companies, highly leveraged them by borrowing huge amounts of money based on their reputations and profits to buy other firms and do the same thus bankrupting or reducing the companies to a shaddow of their former successful status in the process.

Ah...the defense bill provision on depriving citizens of habeas corpus, on terrorist changes. I consider myself to be very center-of-the-road, but that does sound like a scary provision, that has to be challenged in the courts. Contrary to Gingrich's attitude toward the Federal Courts, there are times when they become the necessary third leg of the stool.

I have to read the bill, however. I find it hard to believe that there would be bi-partisian support for such a provision.

Re. Ron Paul - a curious fellow, with a few good ideas. Unfortunately, the bad ones outweigh the good ones. He'll never get the Republican nomination. Too soft on defense and naively pacifistic. Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

Stone, only 7 senators voted against it, 3 dems, 3 repubs, and my main man Bernie Sanders. If 2 guys with the diverse political philosophies of Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul are telling you something is a bad idea, folks should actually listen.

Agreed.

".... I know this is probably really going against the grain here on such a conservative site ( the truth always hurts),"

Thanks for the laugh, moonbat!

Happy New Year everyone!

Curious about Santorum. I seem to remember some story over his residence...maybe that one. But, he is a native Pennsylvanian, no? Didn't he live in the state for most of his life, prior to becoming a Senator?

Just because he was born and raised in a state does NOT qualify him to be a senator from that state IF he isn't maintaining a legal residence in that state (minimum of 183 days of him and/or his family living in one address within that state.) Maintaining an apartment (just for the address) does NOT meet that qualification.

Perhaps if he had paid for YOUR education expenses you'd learn how to spell correctly. Thre's no sense in digging up the dirt on him, because he is a joke, a bad joke.

I disagree with your last sentence completely. It is necessary for legislation to establish the rights of the miniority groups. Those who feel their rights have been diminished in the process are the very ones who would prefer to keep things as they were and that is exactly why legislation is necessary to change the status quo. Political correctness, which I agree at times can be taken to extremes, comes from raising the social consicence to awareness at how hurtful and harmful the spoken and written word can be, however unintended.

Jody, Iowa

Perhaps you can explain to me why minorities in our society can go to college for free when non minorities receive very little to nothing?

My point is just what you stated."It is necessary for legislation to establish the rights of the miniority groups." They receive more rights instead of establishing rights for all.

John 737...,

Ron Paul stated in the interview that he he was glad Jim Crow laws ended , but he was against the law because of personal property rights and state rights. The term "political correctness" had not been invented at that time.

To be debating the Civil Rights act today is the logical dead end of libertarian thought. And the reason that Ron Paul and his son Rand are dead end politicians.

Jody

I agree. Without the Civil Rights Act we would still be living with Jim Crow and "whites only" signs. I like the way you make your points and remain polite. Enjoy reading your posts. Happy New Year.

Odd isn't Jody, that when talking eliminating discrimination over voters rights, most agree with the early Federal governmental role in extending those rights to Catholics, Jews, non-property owners, and finally women. Yet, when the Federal government steps in to extend rights to other minority social classes it is suddenly overstepping the boundaries and infringing on states rights. In all cases, the argument is about equal access to all citizens. But apparently, many believe (such as R. Paul and many on this site) it is only appropriate to give equal access when if fits their framework at the moment.

Within our current system, nothing works because Congress only wants to legislate when it makes them money or limits our freedom. They are corrupted to the core.

Cleaning up Washington should be our FIRST and ONLY priority. Only after that's done can we have policy debates in the interest of the American people. Otherwise, we're treating a cough and ignoring the cancer.

So my vote is for the most viable person that I can TRUST to not be corrupted. Right now, that's Ron Paul and I can't see anyone else that I can trust in that fashion.

The Civil Rights Act had it's purpose, that I will agree with. Was it good law? I haven't decided yet. Was it Correct Law? absolutely not!.

The reason it is not correct law, or, better stated as an incorrect application of the law, It enabled the establishment of quotas in just about everything, any minority could come up with something to complain about and if it could in any way be connected to racism, it fell under this abhorrent application of law, basically forcing the minorities view on the majority. (believe it or not there are some people that feel that forcing their viewpoint upon others is a good thing)

Most today view it as anti progressive, this is why many colleges and universities in the early '90's started refusing to comply with it in admission standards and eventually other areas claiming that it was forcing them to accept students not as qualified as others, and in some cases forcing the brightest students away.

in the '60's People challenged it in the courts, and won, in the '90's they lost. Affirmative Action died in the '90's it needs to remain dead and buried, it was discarded by the education system as counter productive and I agree with their assessment.

John...amen !

Walter Cronkite would never make it in today's media - too deep, too honest, not to mention pudgey.

PS On the Chris Matthews show today, Kelley O'Donnell said she wished there was a way to make the issues "sexy" and entertaining, so the journalists could inform the public on things like, what caused the financial crisis, instead of just focusiing on the horserace between candidates. My God! Do journalists really think Americans prefer to hear about Herman Cain's sexcapades rather than how we can get everyone covered with health insurance? Unbelievable. This is why Americans are almost as disgusted with the media as we are with Congress.

Unfortunately, Amy, yes journalists do think that . . . and they are correct. Look at the popularity of 'reality shows' (that are not all that 'real'). Remember that many of the journalists are of the generation that grew up with this crap. They cut their teeth on the Gingrich congress tactics, and the Dubya years. Show over substance is the easiest way to control a population, and the Republican/TP Inc. party learned this lesson well.

Amy, Great post. These so called journalists are pathetic.

Hi Amy. I also watched the Chris Matthews show. I took Kelley O'Donnell's remark differently. It seemed to me she was being a little sarcastic. I may be wrong, but thought she was trying to say that a lot of American's pay more attention to sill stuff...like reality tv,the Kardashians. So, unless the journalists can make things appear "sexy" a lot of people don't pay attention. I take my government and politics seriously and even enjoy other viewpoints. Hope this made since. Happy New Year.

Patricia,
Does it seem like Gloria Borger is a Republican? I find myself disagreeing with these journalists so often, its like we are on different planets. Last year, I read an article on income inequality in Vanity Fair, it really struck me as important, but I never heard theseTV journalists talking about the issue.. Then, the Occupy WallStreet protests broke out, and "99%" became a household catchphrase. The same with healthcare - I had to go to websites like the Kaiser Foundation to understand the issue, the TV pundits were focusing on Tea Party opposition to the bill, not the actual issue. The pundits say Obama doesn't have a record to run on...but I predict the affordable Healthcare Act will finally get its due, and voters will give Obama a huge thumbs up for signing it (once they understand how impacts us all.)

I watch the Sunday shows, but I find myself disagreeing with the journalists. It's pretty clear even the journalists have a political agenda, no one pretends to be objective anymore, reality is largely ignored while the media tries to shape the news.

Amy I agree with you on this, the media has for years thought that IT shapes our thoughts on everything, like we are a bunch of mindless record, tape or CD players spouting anything they put in front of us.

Last I knew, my brain does not have a port on it which says "Fill Here". Opinions are like @!$%#s, and, there are a lot of opinionated @!$%#s in the media.

And Gloria Borger does seem like she is beginning to come across as an establishment republican doesn't she?

Why don't you just marry Ron Paul and have his baby??? I think they're some other new octogenarian fathers walking around so it's not totally unheard of....

So who is your candidate again Mr NewtisaPig? Diamond is right there is no one supporting Romney or santorum other than the media.. who donates to Romney again? Certainly not individuals. Unlike the other candidates all of Ron Pauls contributions come from INDIVIDUALS .. that shows who the people really want. No one is excited about Santorum or Romney.. you can ignore this movement all you want but it is not going away..

Corporations are people too!

Well I'll make a $10,000 wager that Ron Paul will never be nominated or elected. And his ideas stink. Big waste of everybody's time................

BTW, I am for Obama - Democrat through and through

I'm also for ending the GOP clown race - I want to concentrate on real issues, not clown issues. Ron Paul supports clown issues that nobody with any comon sense is ever gonna support. Sorry, but it's true...

Newt. Judging by your witty Remarks I'd reckon you're pretty intelligent. Why is it then that you don't have the capacity to realize your own candidates failures?

He BYPASSED congress to get us into a war that only turned the place into a total hell-hole.

He SIGNED the NDAA for 2012 fiscal year, allowing American citizens to be indefinitely detained without trial or evidence. Stating that he had "Serious reservations" and Promised not to use it's power against american citizens. JUST like he PROMISED to veto the bill!

and he IGNORED the criminals on Wall St. saying that they we're "Immoral, but not illegal"

I think we both know that he isn't very good at keeping his promises don't we?

There's no reasoning with NIaP, he's a mindless robot, most have given up on him.

Eddie Harris,

I admire your passion as a Ron Paul supporter. But he should have run on the libertarian ticket. He would still lose any general election.

I hope you take your passion and find a candidate you will support in the general election.

As liberal Democrat , I will vote for Obama.

I agree. Have all of the primaries on one day. Too much emphasis is being placed on tiny segments of the population that are not representative of our country.

Iowa is a stage where this play is performed - nice for backdrops of farmland, and Iowans look like concientious voters (not that Floridians aren't concientious, but they do walk around in bikinis in December.)

What I learned in Iowa: Bachmann is smarter than you'd think, especially watching her take down Newt Romney for their healthcare mandate hypocrisy. Huntsman has a weird concept of a presidential campaign, annoucing in New York and avoiding Iowa, Romney thinks "corporations are people too!" and generally, cannot relate to real, live American voters. Republicans are having the worst primary ever!

Chucky Stuart,

Iowa, MN and I think some other states have caucus not primaries.

I love going to my caucus night. See other neighbors from my precinct. We elect delegates to the county conventions, debate proposal for the state platform. My local elected officials stop by with a nice speech and hand shaking and time for questions.

It is not an quick private action, but an evening of public discussion and action.

We had ranked voting for the first time in our mayoral race this year. I loved it! It's very satisfying to rank a candidate you despise last. And, it forces you to listen to all candidates, so you can decide who your alternate choice might be.

Amy. If you could vote NO against your "despised most" you could help keep them from being elected whereas many like minded voters voting for an alternate like you scatters your opposition to that candidate helping their election possibility.

They tried that here in Tacoma a while back, one election, Bye bye ranked voting....

Except for Dr Paul....

Paul's got a lot of 'splainin to do...

and he's been 'splainin for over 10 years, except no one wants to listen. Why should he subject himself to the abuse when abuse is the only point.

Besides, if that is all you've got, (and sofar, that appears to be true) Dr Paul is going to do very well.

If it turned out to be Paul vs Obama, Fox News would implode under all the hate for both guys. Now that would be a nice change to hope for.

Hear, Hear!!!!

Actually, just 4% think Bachmann's the most knowledgeable. 26% think she's least knowledgeable, and that's understandable when she's competing with the likes of Perry (26% Bachmann, 17% Perry, 26% not sure is a pretty solid majority correctly identifying the two most clueless candidates).

Is it anymore frightening than her state electing her?

Shelia,

Bachmann has only been elected by the people in the 6th district of MN. It is not anywhere near the whole state.

Minnesota has been for years in the Democratic column when it comes to electing a president.

Northstar Thank You for the information about the 6th district of MN. That brings up this 1 burning question. Just what in the hell is wrong with the folks in the 6th district of MN?

Smitty,

The 6th district of Mn is a horseshoe district that rings the northern suburbs and some rural counties north of Mpls/St. Paul. It was these suburbs that elected Jesse Ventura as governor in a three way race. The rural counties have a lot of German Catholics, evangelicals, home schoolers, and assortment of anti government extremists.

Due to redistricing this district will lose 100,000. voters next year. Our courts will decide the new map sometime in the Spring.

Sounds similar to my district in west Michigan...Our biggest problem is a bunch of stupid, old, white men who cannot stand the fact that there's an African-American in the white house who is smarter than they are....Jim Crow is alive and well and he's not just living in Mississippi....

Kathryn, I thought the same thing myself! Did you catch Romney telling the retired firefighter, who complained about getting a reduced social security benefit after paying into that system for years "if you want free stuff, you should vote for the other guy!"

The attack ads just write themselves.

yep, thats what I mean, can't make these up!

Weed out the nut-cases, the hypocrites, the dummies, the jesus-freaks, and the flip-floppers, and you'll have one viable, capable person to be president, and guess what, he already has the job....

After what happened in 2000 and 2004, those rules will only apply in blue or purple States.