Very respectfully disagree with your analysis - and personally, I don't think calling groups communists is effective because it really equates groups with truely horriffic people - the communists. I don't believe very strong conservatives are fascists. While there has been a growth of government that is too large - not all things during this period were bad. The Civil Rights Act? The Voting Rights Act? Rural Electification? Medicare? Medicaid? The 600-ship Navy? The fall of communism.

Why would you call conservatives fascists? Most conservatives that I know of want less government and more individual freedom. That doesn't sound like Mussolini or Hitler. On the other hand most progressives believe in more government involvement in our lives. That's much closer to fascism than conservative views.

Robert, open your eyes, the Dems are Marxests. Read Carl Marxs witings and you will see the blue print that the Dems have been following since the 30s. A conservative is one who belives in the logic of the founding fathers. The devised a plan that enabled us to shake off the BS the British stuck us with, it has taken us years to do it but we are the best country in the world despite what the Dems have and are trying to do. Do we really want to be like the Euros, didn't we leave there to be here?

Lee,
Best country in the world? How many others have you been to?

You might want to look at a few of our world rankings before making a statement like that.

J. Lane McHahon, I was I a hurry and forgot to the "y" in they, sorry if that upset you. To answer your question about where I have been. I have lived in Eroupe for eight years, Japan for 2 years, Cuba for 2 years, I have traveled to Canada and Mexico. I have lived in nine different states and visited all 50. What rankings are you referring to?

Please, enough of this crap that Democrats had full control for two years. It completely ignores the fact that Republicans used the filibuster to block any vote without a 60 vote filibuster-proof democratic super-majority

January 20, 2009 - After a seizure Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts

Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman challenged the election results.

At the beginning of his Presidency, Democrats had 57 elected senators…55 Democrats and 2 Independents.

April 28, 2009 Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has switched parties

The Minnesota seat still remained vacant. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents.

May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital - 55 Democratic members and 2 Independents. (57)

July 7, 2009 Al Franken sworn in

Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate and was unable to cast any more votes;

Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate - 56 Democratic members and 2 Independents. (58)

July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats.

August 25, 2009 Senator Kennedy died .

The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 until September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat - 60-seat majority.

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!

so, as a "social" conservative, what does that mean to you? Prayer in schools? Treating those who do not share your views as second class citizenry?

I can tell you that social conservatives don't believe that a minor should be able to get an abortion without their parents knowledge. I'm pretty rock solid on that one.

What social conservative means to me is keeping God in the pledge of Allegiance, marriage being between one man and one woman, and eliminating abortions except in extreme cases such as rape.

I would think that a "conservative" would want things the way they originally were, and not modern reinterpretations ... Such as adding God to the pledge where it had never been before

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

I thought conservatives believed in the constatution the first amendment says god does not belong in the pledge of Allegiance.
"In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy a renunciation of the Deity. ...It was a notice to all churches and priests that thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and denied the authority of every "sacred book" and appealed from the Providence of God to the Providence of man." ..........Robert Ingersoll

The bible is not an excuse for bigotry and hate. Religious bigotry and hate is still bigotry and hate. It really does not matter what the source is. Don’t make excuses for homophobia that you wouldn’t make for racism. Just imagine a Christian saying:
I have a deep conviction in the authority of the Bible. And the Bible clearly approves of slavery, and in fact commands it in some cases (Exodus 22:3; Deuteronomy 20:10-11, 14). Furthermore, I belive, based on Genesis 9:25-27, that the descendants of Ham are to be the slaves of the descendants of Shem and Japheth, and after deep reflection I’ve concluded that Africans are the modern-day descendants of Ham. So please don’t call my support for enslaving Africans bigotry. It’s not. It is a working out of deep convictions.
Bigots will be just as free to hate same sex marriage when it’s legal as they did when it was not. The difference is that nobody will be legally obligated to give a crap what they think.

So was G. Bush violating his oath of office too? Or is this just an Obama problem? Why don't you take a look at how much of that debt is related to two unfunded wars...

How very sensible,my dear. Almost conservative of you.

Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Market

This points to the real reason people have difficulty understanding laws. Laws are longer than a paragraph or two.

If you don't like the length of a post, then don't read it.

Yea limit free speech, after all pundit talking points are the best information Peggy. Just who decides what is pithy, and "intelectually challenged", or spell checked, we can not have "intelectually challenged" speech, we have to put them away somewhere I guess, can't have anyone who does not meet your standards post?

Care to explain in a dozen sentences the "Bill of Rights" or the "Constitution". How about addressing the article on “Simpson-Bowles Commission” in about a dozen lines? Keep your living in your utopian world of George Orwell's "1984" where everything is limited, especially intelligence. Lol (sarcasm). I prefer the freedom of this Country, not what you seem to envision.
...

I must be "intelectually" challenged.

Again, Jack (et al) These forums are not an expression of "Free Speech" as a lot of people seem to think. They are a moderated conduit for speech provided by the website with exceptions and limitations, and as not subject to the First Amendment.

Ray you are misinterpreting my post, I said "knows the rules of blogging and what freedom of speech is". It is freedom of speech for me to blog anywhere I want, as long as I follow the rules of the blog, which I do. These morons, who keep following me, want me to quit blogging, or dictate to me what I can and cannot do or say. That is a violation of my free speech right.

No different, then going to a town meeting and speaking, but following the rules of no shouting or threats etc.

I mean really Ray, who are these anonymous and cowardly I might add with many different identities, to tell anyone what to do and deride people who are just following the rules. Rarely do they even comment on the article at hand.

They are violating the rules of TOS, by harassing me on every blog I post, that is not my fault, but shows they have mental instability, and very strange idea's on what freedom of any kind is, in trying to intimidate me or anyone for that matter.
These forums allow a person to express their "freedom of speech" according to their guide lines in TOS. Which all posters agree to follow when they sign up. There has always been limits on free speech as you know. So I disagree with your premise ;-}.

PS

If Peggy wants or any of them want to change ther rules of the forum, they become a member of the "Patch Engagement Council" Like I am and let their idea's fly..

Jack, people violating the TOS... you're not suggesting the narcoleptic monkey is napping are you ???? :)

Think it may be out gathering banana's Ray or finally got banned. Never fear it always comes back, at least for the last 2-3 years this has been going on, no matter where I blog on the internet lol.

So rather than comment on the Blog, you yet again, sign on only to deride me. Your attempts to antagonize me with your constant personal attacks will never work on a person who actually knows the rules of blogging and what freedom of speech is; like myself. I guess you are one of the "other people" Peggy is taking about?

Jack Baillargeron- it is common place for someone to mock or deride someone when they're unable to present a logical argument and support it with facts or at the very least accepted theory. The argument that one should be so concise that complex thought fits snuggly into a couple paragraphs is laughable.

Very true robert very true.

Our current Concressional Delegation is all democratic. The Democrats are mostly lawyers that are out to regulate everything. Republicans are business people who create businesses, create jobs and make things. We have too many lawyers in government gumming up the works!

Democratic are really Socialists and both believe that both the economy and society should be run by the party not private enterprise.

The Socialists believe many structures of our government and economy must be run by semi-quasi state agencies with their own private laws and regulations.

Rhode Island is a welfare state with votes bought with food stamps, unemployment extensions, higher taxes, bankrupt cites and towns.

Today we see how a private group known as the EBEC will radically transform the government of Rhode Island into the "Greater Economic and Social Democracy"

The people of Rhode Island today through the current administration are losing their basic standard of living. Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) may be the only answer .

1.Democratic activists “Tax the Rich.”

2.Karl Marx advocated for a progressive income tax within his Communist Manifesto.

3.Democrats advance the socialist agenda

Since when is the truth, negative?

Marx was more of a socialist...

Bobby Oliveira' lost every election he has ever run. Not hard to see why

Jack, the sad part is that again polarizing political interests got in the way. Simplifying the tax code could have raised taxes on some (God FORBID!!!!) by taxing capital gains as ordinary income for example. That, while common sense to us is taboo to some.

Making cuts in social services because we can't afford to keep up the pace we are at is also deemed taboo by others, but again, common sense to the rest of us.

All this grandstanding with no compromise is akin to arguing where chairs on the Titanic belong as opposed to figuring out how to save the ship, or maybe better can we avoid the iceberg and get there safely as opposed to getting there quickly

John what you are forgetting is that the consertives wre at the helm when they steered the Titanic into the iceberg and now they think they can save the ship by tossing the third class passengers into the water to drown to lighting the load in order to save the first class passengers. This mess started with George W Bush and his unfunded wars. This country has never fought a war until now without raising taxes to pay for it. Bush cut taxes and ran the deficet up to record highs and the Republicians still refuse to rase revenue to pay for the wars that are still going on.

I agree John, I could careless if one party is in charge like the DEMS hard the first 2 years, if they would have just passed everything they touted, then if it didn't work, ok you can blame them, same if it was reversed. Holding the presidency is not a mandate for the whole party. Neither can the President be blamed for anything except the policies he pushes his party to do and of course executive orders and his personal decisions.

But obstructionism on both sides, when the levels are close to equal, accomplishes nothing. I should say have accomplished nothing. It always amazes me that when it came to Iraq, it was totally for it and 1 against it, why? Politics, not integrity or standing up for the people you represent, making that vote disgusting and the fault of the whole system in general. It was not meant to be that way. I was against it.

I was for Afghanistan, but I foolishly thought we would Bomb and kill as many as possible and then leave, letting them know, every act against this Country will cost them more than they will ever accomplish. Not stay there and try to nation build. Same thing with this committee. Try the thing, if it does not work. Then we try something else. Like Ben Franklin said, I was not wrong, I just didn’t get it right the first 100 times, or something like that lol. Why we throw money instead of idea’s to repair something eludes me anyway. If it is broke this bad and it is, we need new solutions the old are not working.

John I am American with free will, granted by the Creator. I belong to no political organizations ideals or beliefs, nor any religious organization. I decide my opinions of issues on research, personal beliefs and debates with others.

I do not believe in Blind Party following and detest the single lever vote option (should be removed nationwide) seems like how they do it in dictatorships to me, in my opinion.

I am very Out Spoken and Honest, which creates adversarial and confrontational problems constantly for me.
I say nothing on here I would not say in person. Some detest my post because they are long winded, but I like to make sure to explain myself the best I can an provide links an paste of where I got my opinion from.

I do not care for anonymous posters that make personal attacks, to me that is cowardly. To real name users like larry and a few others I respect them, when they deride me or such, because they are using their own name and it is a debate, and that is the nature of debates and sometimes we all get out of hand ;-}. I will defend anyone for their right to have an opinion, even if I disagree. Don’t know what that makes my John, but I am not fond of all inclusive labels either, even though I too am guilty of saying them sometimes ;-}.

Hope that explains me, before I start doing parts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, etc.

PS

I always answer most posters, no matter what they say, I am senior and retired so I have the time lol.

SO: JACK..Do you consider yourself a LIBERAL or a CONSERVATIVE,..? Your post as usuali was long winded and I STILL... was not able to figure out WHO you are..Please advise...

I guess John is you want to label a prson that is fine, however on me you can only label the position I take on a certain issue, though probably more conservative on most issues, especially with government. Social issues for me are dependent on what they are to accomplish and whetherthey conform to the Founders vision of the Constitution, Bill of rights, Federalist papers, Magna Carta etc.

I vote for the person who is in line with my view of the issues, no matter their party. I run fromany politician that speaks like he or she is supportive of all issues that anyone person has. That means they are lying in my opinion.

Don't know how you put that intoa single Ideology of that, free thinker I guess. I dislike and like many things in all ideology's. Which is why I say am American, because we have freedom, how do you quantify thinnking for ones self, ito a sigle label. That I do not know lol. Knutz maybe works.

I also like being long winded, because it help keep the lungs strong ;-}.

ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT?

Read the post Gordon, it is pretty easy to figure out ;-}

John rather than concerning yourself with who people are ideologically so that you can fit them neatly into stereotypes. You might try listening to what they say instead of using a predetermined response based on the label you've placed on them.

John I am only talking about those who come on here just to follow people and deride them or attempt to get them in an argument that has nothing to do with the subject. Other than that, I understnd why many use, monikers, and I would too if Icared, but I don't and that even rankles some lol.

But is people are going to attack someone personally, that they do not know, they should have the guts to say who they are. that all I have to say on that. (wll for now anyway) lol.

oops forgot john, if your name is in the phone book, what differnce is if your name is one here or if you go to a council meeting etc. I just do not see the point and I believe for some people it makes them say things they would never say in public or to someones face.

I could go anonymous now, but my chaotic writing would give me away in a heartbeat lol. Besides it really isn't worth stealing my identity, who the hell would ever want to be me. lol

Not a problem john, I am in the book an there are not many with my my last name anyway, we are all related lol. though we get confused with those in the north who do have the "ron" ;-}.

Not sure what you mean by PM?

Jack: "PM" stands for Personal Message that a couple of forums i go to, have. It ennables one to comunicate with another poster....privately, as opposed to publically in the forum. Like a secure E-Mail.

John the patch has that,if you click on the persons name in the comment, you can PM it is in the left corner to leave a message on their board, that only the see. ;-}

Jack; I didn't know about that feature. Thanks..I learn something new every day..hopefully. :)

A grammar attack? Really?
While Jack and I differ on many issues, I am at least willing to welcome his input to any discussion. I think your the one not contributing.

Thanks J Lane, I appreciate the post, though I suspect it will not matter to my beast of burden. lol

Jack's fan club posts with many names . Try "Sick and Twisted" to better fit your persona.

Yep, we let it happen, is the bottom line, and did not speak out soon enough with loud and numerous voices. A republic that hides its head in silence is doomed to the fate of tyranny.

Should have thanked you for writing this Chuck, it is a good issue to discuss the heck out of before November Elections. We really need to stay on the ball, which is the economy, not dogs on cars, or who ate dog geeze.

Thank you for writing it sir.

Please, Jack. So "bustopher1" mixed up "am" and "pm" in his/her post. Are you saying that you really couldn't figure out which post he/she was referring to? It's the one above, posted on July 23rd at 8:52p.m., not a.m. You know, the one that begins "The class warfare I am talking about is tis noion..."

"Is tis [my] noion" that you're confused. When I last posted, you accused me of being infatuated with you. That's not the case whatsoever. The reason why I (and many others) post in this way is that you are completely UNAVOIDABLE on this website. So please stop flattering yourself. No one is infatuated, we're just fed up with running into your blather in every last corner of this website.

Also, let's get a few things straight:

a) I do not post under many names, just this one. When you see me post, you can take it as a sign that you've been particularly abusive. I don't give a hoot if you make 3,000 moronic posts in a row, but when you start abusing others, I feel the need to step in and call you on it. If your urge right now is to say that you were attacked first, please break with past practice and stifle the urge to say anything.

b) I'm also not saying that you don't have the right to post (God forbid I or anyone should threaten your rights as an American), but I am saying that only a jerk completely and utterly dominates the discourse -- whether it's at a cocktail party or an online forum -- particularly when he doesn't have much to say.

If the shoe fits...

How nice to know that I alone in the 24 states and 1,000's ofcity and towns, these sites exist you picked me lol. "You like me you really like me" to quote Sally Field. It is so nice to have a fan like you, in your many persona's. little mental problem there, but hey, no publicity is bad publicity as they say.

Guess your th partner he dug up huh lol. What happened to the "BristolRI02809" been a few days now, you lose the profile on that one lol.

Oh you wat to get a few things "straight" do it face to face, I am more than happy to grant your wish and straighten you out. I abhor cowards like yourself, especially when the yellow runs all the way to the bone. lol

Whatever... as long as they continue to be as successful as they were in the mid-terms in taking half of the legislature away from the 'tax and spend and spend and spend' group.

lol yea right, this race baiting is really going to work, along with the white guilt complex this time around. (NOT).

Are you aware that 69,456,897 people voted for Obama in the last election.

59,934,814 voted for McCain. So you think 59,934,814 people are racist in this Country. lol wow are you out there. You do realize there are people of color in the congress right who did not get voted out of office in 2008 or 2010, funny how your theory or should I say accusation fails miserably.

That is why there will be a change in the status que this year, just like 2010. Most people are fed up with being called and labeled something are not.

At the Tea Party rally I saw all races represented . BD. is truly clueless !

This is interesting. If I'm following your logic correctly you are suggesting that all 59,934,814 people that voted for John McCain are all teabaggers? I would suggest you are greatly exaggerating the importance of your movement. You won't concede that maybe one or two may not associate themselves with the movement? Secondly, because there are "people of color in the congress" you are dismissing any elements of racism in the tea party movement? I guess I'm just missing a few steps in your logic.

Joe, I think you are confusing the "tea party rally" with one of your stints in the clink.

Actually it is your logic not mine. " old, white people, afraid of a black man in the white house" you said it not me. So now by your statement all old, or white people are afraid of a blackman, again you said it not me.

BD, you obviously live in a dream world, if you think racism only exist in certain places and certain races of people. it exist everywhere in every race. You however label groups of people and whole races of people, if just one person of the group or race is a racist.

You insinuate that all other groups are perfect, I have met more DEM racist in this State and across the country thatn I have ever meet conservatives racist and yes they exist also. When I discover that, I let them know they are idiots and to either change their ways or keep away from me,

I do not need to here that crappola of idiocy, which is basicly the same as what you are advocating, called race baiting and deflecting from the real issues and trying to focus on that which means nothing.

Racist in this Country are by far the smallest minority of all, especially in voting terms, I know next you will say all conservatives down south are racist, toothless red necks, but I defy you to go south and find out what real southern hoslitality is, you would be very surprised. maybe.

Oh by the way, it is not my movement, as I have stated many times, I belong to no political organization or follow and one ideology and never have in my life, I prefer to be a free thinker and only belong to the party of America period.

The best post yet.Congratulations on being awake!

Somebody had to say it!

If only… we could decide on a common goal without agendas getting in the way. Whatever they are called: Whigs, Tories, Labor Party, Muslim Brotherhood, Democrats, Republicans, etc. etc. etc. they are all factions and they will always exist, and should exist. The day when we have only one-party government is the day we have a dictatorship. Not pretty. I can put up with the Democrats spitting at the Republicans and vice versa as long as they can be controlled and no one has a solid majority.

The obscene part of all this is the enormous amount of money spent on elections and the corruption it encourages.

By far the best post yet WOW reality for once!!!

As usual Gary, on the mark ;-}

Yup. Because in the middle is where compromise lives. Democracy is not a perfect system because there is always the tyranny of the majority to contend with, but if you pay attention to what’s going on you can make it work.

"tyranny of the majority" is democracy.

Joe the Plumber, we are not a Democracy, we are a republic, big difference, Democracy is Mob rules and is why the Founders formed a representative republic, so that minority rights were respected and part of the system of government.

There is direct democracy (mob rule, as you call it) and representative democracy which is what the our government uses.

To me, Obamacare is a good example of the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ Many people feel the bill/law is being jammed down their throats, but the majority prevails… this time the SCOTUS majority vote.

Just for clarity there Larry, I belong to nothing but the party of Jack, I call it American period. So no need to have people call me, as they will get the statement, sorry wrong number lol.

Teaparty is not what most Americans think, If they started out with good ideas they turned off people by acting like the westboro church!

@Larry. Mob rule is more or less direct democracy. That doesn't apply here. The phrase 'tyranny of the majority' could apply #1 by the passage of Obamacare by the majority of congress and #2 (frosting on the cake) by the SCOTUS vote.

Considering nearly half the country is in an uproar about this new law it could seem to be oppressive by that group.

Very true Robert and the numbers are even more stark, if we go bac futher.

Democrats controlled BOTH house from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005. 2006 to 2010 the Dem controlled the house. 2006 to 2009 DEM controlled the senate.

... and in what years did congress start borrowing against the Social Security Trust fund, replacing treasury funds with iou's .... well, there's a coincidence.

Too many parts to post the whole explanations, Ray lol. However here is a summary and link.

When is on Budget they are robbing it, when off they are not. DEMS and GOP both robbed it, so it really does not matter who started it, though it was Technically LBJ. Do not have the amounts, but that does not matter I think. It should never be on Budget. In my opinion Ray.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

Larry DeWitt
SSA Historian's Office
March 4, 2005
Updated 6/18/07

Summary-
So, to sum up:
1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Larry thos numbers I posted are the actual Numbers of who Controled the Congress period. I post it at times to prove it is both parties but there are more years to blame DEMS then GOP. But like I kep saying, blaming the past accomplishes nothing, you have to quit making the mistakes of the past to accomplish anything.

Of couse in this State we can blame DEMS for everything in Our lifetimes unlesss you are over 78 years old lol.

Corrected

You are wrong there Larry, Judges are not Mob rule, (you are ignoring how our Government of three branches works), The Court is part of the Checks and balances in our Republic. They do not make law; they interpret (though many debate that aspect of it lol) they only determine whether it supports the Constitution of the Country. Nothing more nothing less.

They ruled on 2 things in this law, is it a TAX, or a mandate to purchase a product? They said a TAX, and the Congress has the right to tax, so under the Constitution it stands.

They ruled the government cannot threaten states withholding federal funding to states to expand Medicaid for the poor. Those issues for now are the law of the land. I support the law of the land period.

It is not mob rule because the Minority also writes and opinion so that their interpretation is heard also, that is how the system works. Not perfect and nothing is, but it is the best system in history so far.

The beauty of this Country is that if you do not like something like this, or even something in the Constitution the Republic can change it, we can petition the government under the 1st Amendment, for redress under the Constitution and change it. I would say that will start the day after Inauguration in January 2013, no matter who gets elected that fight is coming. So time will tell.

I also feel it is pointless to discuss the law at his point as what is done is done until after the Election in November.

Shhhhhhhh William Phone calls are monitored by HS, and the NSA. This blog is secret!!! lol.

PS

Only some guy named Manning knows about it, and he will never tell.

Actually, the Civil Rights act destroyed personal property rights, so yeah, parts of it do need to get repealed.

Speaking of Nixon, forty years ago title IX was signed into law. Happy anniversary to all you women in athletics!!

Yea and the Country has about 2.5 million laws and regulations based on those documents. Explaining issues is more that just 8 word talking points. Don't like my opinions, Very simple do not read them if your incapable of unerstand the reasoning and context. geeze another one "holier than thou"