• Lol..John,the clichés are nice but didn't you claim to be a conservative?...Are you preaching to the chior?..:-)

    May 12, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

  • Countrymen lend me your ears, “United we stand divided we most assuredly will fall”.

    George Washington had not the respect of the continental congress at the time of his great battle, to say the least he was regarded as nothing special. Despite this he believed in something that few had faith in or could even imagine a “United States of America”.

    I hope that those who participated in the “Tea Parties” have within them the same spirit, and double their efforts next time given the opportunity.

    Our country is worth more than “political ideology”; it is worth the life of the “free men and women” that are willing to die to insure all our freedoms. Because of this we must not allow ourselves to be small-minded men lost to narrow-minded discussion on matters based on personal prejudices.

    What is the past, serves no purpose unless it guides us away from wrongdoings and towards action, which serves the greatest good of our country. We must put aside blaming each other in order to garner sincere support in tackling the problems of our country.

    Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, or Liberals all share this great country. Only insane men would want to take this country down a course that would lead to their own destruction, we must assume that we are all sane.

    “We must come to the understanding that any differences we have lay in the path not the destination for our country, the rebirth of its greatness.” – John

    May 12, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.

  • Mike your replies always seemed to indicate that you never read my comments anyway - whether you read them or not be assured I couldn't care less.

    May 12, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.

  • Rollinstone
    I read your first few words and quit.
    Advice: Why don't you keep your condescending chuckles to yourself and we would both benefit...I will ignore all your future posts...You have a good day.

    May 12, 2009 at 10:27 a.m.

  • Ernie
    I distinctly said that conservative at that time called DR's Social Security; “socialism. “Father F. Coughlin led the way with his radio program that had 35-40 million listeners. That is a historical fact and no reason for you to characterize me as a "cradle to grave" liberal, just to try to elevate your status….Look back to see what the Hoover republicans (conservatives) were saying at the time

    I did not say having Tea Parties did not have a right to petition; just stating that I didn’t think they made an impact.

    I am not on the side of the lobbyist and I have quoted Barack Obama many times when he said "The lobbyist can have a chair at the table just not all the chairs...."Campaign Finance and tougher congressional ethic reforms is the tool to use to curb the influence.

    It is everyone right to contribute to a political campaign but you cannot legislate morality...A quid pro quo is not always the case, and if it is, we have laws to punish those that do.

    The rest of post was just personal stories and opinions not backed up with any facts…Hyperbole


    Thank you for getting my point that conservatism is not without fault.

    I don't know what impact energy had on our economic woes but until we stabilize the banks, get some reforms in, consumer confidence and the credit markets will not rise...That is critical.

    May 12, 2009 at 10:24 a.m.

  • Mike I always get a chuckle when I read your blogs. I read an interesting description of socialism the other day by a socialist, "We would rather have everyone have less of everything than have some have more of something." That pretty well sums it up.

    Socialism has always been about using someone else's money for as they say, "the greater good." That good of course being decided by the government. Now, Mike you say I want to reduce the government down to a "Radio Shack outlet." Let's see the federal government has a budget of almost $4.0 trillion of which $1.8 trillion has to be borrowed. To whittle that down I have my work cut for me don't you think Mike.

    The government now is increasing at an alarming rate so I think I am too late anyway. It has become a huge behemoth. If that is good as you say it is, Hell let's make it bigger why not make it a colossus standing astride the continent, dictating every facet of our economy and our lives, oops I really don't want to give you socialists any encouragement.

    I start rolling around laughing every time you bring up social security, our "Ponzi Scheme" retirement plan. A plan that steals money from the struggling younger generation to give to the older generation. The older generation is of course correct in demanding the money since they paid into it and were promised some return by the government. This revenue is produced by a tax on employment. There is a saying that, "if you want less of something put a tax on it." How stupid can you get? No real need to answer that Mike.

    And finally I will repeat, our current financial crisis was caused by the government through Fannie and Freddie getting into the subprime mortgage business. Our politicians and many socialist are in denial. So much so that as we speak the FHA is well on its way to needing a bailout because IT HAS NOT STOPPED MAKING THOSE STUPID LOANS - socialism don't yah love it?

    May 12, 2009 at 9:39 a.m.

  • Senator Reids sons are major lobbist in Washington. Uncle Sam Rayburn believe that the safety net of some social programs were needed to stablize the country and I agree. I have for twenty years never understood why the anti-trust laws have been weakly enforced.
    Both parties have been gulity of increasing the size of government.
    Both parties are more interested in their power than the power of the people.
    By keeping the citizens opposing one another liberal against conservative, conservative against liberal, Democrats against Republicans, Republicans against Democrats, Washington wins and the citizens loose.
    I personally believe our current economic problems are not due to banks and Wall Street. Actually, that does sound like demonization used by Hilter to gain power in a Democratic govenment. I don't believe our current economic problems are due to housing, unions, or a single person or group of people in Washington. I believe the rapid raise in fuel cost gutted our economy like a fat pig. Until we have energy independence, any economical rebirth will be in danger of another stab by fuel cost.

    May 12, 2009 at 1:25 a.m.

  • "Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government....Not allowing them to do that is like legislating from the bench...Or is that just for liberals?"

    Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government (and, speaking of TeaParties, so does EVERYONE - whether you agree with them or not.) Lobbyists and PACS should NOT have the right, nor the ability, to buy influence and results from the government and that is just what they do with outrageous contributions.

    They have the right to TALK all they want but the practice of contributing anything beyond words should be patently illegal. It isn't.


    May 11, 2009 at 7:18 p.m.

  • Mike: "Social Security was called "Socialism" by the conservatives when FDR first introduced it....It is now that the conservatives see the popularity of the permanent and federally controlled program that they somehow want to make exceptions..."

    This is just so wrong on so many levels.

    You're putting your cart before my horse again, Mike. (Or more correctly, putting my horse after your cart but the same principle.) SS was decried by some, not all, conservatives at its inception. But that's an absolute that, like most absolutes is just wrong. It's hardly worth mentioning.

    Remember, that's back in a time when most people still believed that they were responsible for themselves; when a man's word was his bond; etc. When those people were being coerced into giving a portion of the earnings they were working for in order to BE responsible for themselves to the government to provide for those who HADN'T provided for themselves, yes, they undoubtedly saw that as a step toward socialism.

    Try for a minute to put aside your firm belief that the government is your and everyone's caretaker and perhaps you'll understand where they were coming from.

    It would only be foolishness not to see the current "popularity" of the program but let's not confuse acceptance of the ideal with acceptance of what it's become and with the government's dismal record of administering it. (We'll leave the remainder of federal programs the government has FUBARed for another blog.)

    If I work and pay 7 1/2% - and actually it's 15% since my employer contributes a like amount so ostensibly I've earned those funds too - of my earnings over the forty plus years I've been doing so, you're damned right I expect to get something from it. If you picture that as "only now seeing the popularity" of a program I have been given ZERO choice about contributing to, you're being... disingenous. (Geeez, I love that word!)

    But again, do not confuse my acceptance of something I have no choice but to accept with elation over a system that is mismanaged, cumbersome, inefficient AND socialistic. Yes, socialistic. As you pointed out, many have received benefits well in excess of what they ever contributed but don't ignore the flip side - many have "contributed" much more than they ever have or ever will recover.


    May 11, 2009 at 7:11 p.m.

  • Sandwichh
    You read, see whatever you want to see no matter what I wrote…As I said before ideology does not make a difference both want complete and permanent control of government.

    The Democratic Party has a lot of conservatives, 45 Blue Dog Democrats (conservatives) in the house and about 17 senators.. This is the reason Obama cannot roughshod his agenda through the house and senate...All the current republicans call themselves conservatives; your argument is with them.

    Social Security was called "Socialism" by the conservatives when FDR first introduced it....It is now that the conservatives see the popularity of the permanent and federally controlled program that they somehow want to make exceptions...The word "Socialist did not just spring out during the last campaign....Many, many people collected a lot more than they put in...Onto Medicare and Medicaid...Same excuse?

    The Tea Parties, teabaggerr or CNN's response did not have any affect..Tea baggers might have gotten their feelings hurt but on a scale of 1-10...It ranks maybe a 1.5% as being an important event but you are entitled.

    Lobbyists and PACS have a constitutional right to petition the government....Not allowing them to do that is like legislating from the bench...Or is that just for liberals?

    May 11, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.

  • Mike,

    You keep going around in circles by one time saying conservatives and the next line saying Repubs.

    One more time,...they are not and have not been the same for a number of years. Just like the old Dem party is not what it use to be. Like Reagan, I did not leave the party, the party left me. The DNC of today is not my fathers conservative DNC of yesteryear. Nor is the RNC the conservatives I moved to and left also.

    People demand SS because it is paid into, welfare is not. You cannot just stop SS, but it must be phased out.

    When you progressives figure that out you will understand the Tea Party people and such. The Tea Parties were little about taxes like the bimbo woman on CNN thought. She must have graduated from the Three Rivers, Tx school of journalism, much like many nowadays. The same school they go to for economics.

    That's is also why the Tea Parties, ain't over yet.

    "Outlaw lobbyists and get rid of PACs - we need representatives that actually do represent our interests."
    GoliadChica,...the smartest statement on this blog post.

    May 11, 2009 at 4 p.m.

  • Goliadchica
    Those three democrats are in with several prominent republicans and they have been for several years…It’s their get out of jail card.
    The republicans know that the Bush administration violated the constitution with their eavesdropping and torture policies but instead of wanting a full investigation, they opted to threaten to investigate the Clinton’s administration rendition policy and Nancy Pelosi….That old playground game of “If you tell on me, I will tell on you.”

    I say declassify all the CIA documents that Cheney wants from that period, not just a selected 12 pages of thousands, let a FISA Court judge decide but we still don’t operate on a “ends justifies the means” principle…

    May 11, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.

  • There is certainly enough blame to go around - on both sides of the aisle. Democrats aren't off the hook - they could have stuck to their principles the way the Repubs did and at least have been a thorn in the side of the the ruling powers but noooooooooooo, they let the Repubs dictate everything and went along with it.

    Outlaw lobbyists and get rid of PACs - we need representatives that actually do represent our interests.

    May 11, 2009 at 1:53 p.m.