Join The Debate!

If the dems win either branch...

..it will be "An Inconvenient Congress" indeed.

Ah the wit

"goose bumps such as they have not experienced since "An Inconvenient Truth""

a movie about global warming... beautiful.

OK, I'll keep reading now.

Sekhmet

"Who cares how a particular politician likes it in the sack, as long as he or she governs well?"

Apparently, the Democrats and the Main Stream Media.

I'll be banned if I say his name, but you know who proved this recently.

Solar

I have an idea how we can band together for an Action Group.Someone ,(like you), needs to get a free mailbox at MyWay.com or someplace like that, using an address name that can't be
linked to you so your private e-mail address remains private.

Have Conservatives send you an e-mail so you can contact them.The e-mail should contain their TH name and a code phrase,Like;
Mountain Rose "God Bless America".
Next time Mountain Rose posts she adds the phrase "God Bless America" and you know the
e-mail was really from Mountain Rose.

I don't think any of us will be greatly elated with the outcome of this election. If we can build something out of this and KEEP IT GRASSROOTS we might lessen some of the damage these politicians do. Few of them intend to do what we want done.

I have other ideas too but I don't want to post them. If any Dastardly Democrat wants to use this idea to start your own group,, , Stay in touch in case we have a mutual project to work on. Everyone would have input. United we could speak with a loud voice.

Because we are adults and they are not

The main reason to vote Republican is to keep the adults in charge.

The biggest shock to any teenager is the realization that Mama and Daddy make mistakes, or in TeenSpeak, are "Hypocrites". Teenagers who are planning to become adults are upset by the thought that when they DO grow up, they WON'T have all the answers, and this makes them more rough on their suddenly fallible parents.

Teenagers who DO NOT intend to grow up are hysterical when their parents mess up, because they know their very lives depend on Mom and Dad continuing to crank the handle that makes their world go round.

This causes teenagers of both stripes to scream and kick about all the perceived "errors" of Mama and Daddy. This does not mean that because the parents make mistakes, the kids should be put in charge.

That's the main reason to vote Republican.

Comments on item 10 in Mona's article

As one who believes it was a tragic mistake to invade Iraq, we must now deal with the consequences were we to abandon it precipitously. It would break apart in civil war, and Iran would control the south and probably even Baghdad(after protracted bloody warfare between Shias and Sunnis). This would greatly enhance the power and prestige of the radical Iranian mullahs. The Kurds in the north would declare a separate nation, which would antagonize the Turks, possibly resulting in an invasion by Turkey into the area. The Islamofascists, including Al Qaeda, would see our departure as yet another example of a Western or European nation running away in humiliating defeat...much as it viewed the USSR defeat by Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the U.S. disgraceful withdrawal from Somalia in the early 1990s. This would greatly enhance the reputation and prestige of Islamoterrorists everywhere; and on the Arab street the U.S. would look weak, pathetic, and cowardly. Moderate Arab governments would be even more threatened by the rising tide of confidence emanating from Islamoterrorists. It would be a bleak future for the U.S. and the West.
Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of a protracted American presence in Iraq. I just say it is too easy to ignore the consequences were we to just walk away.

Not a Record to be Proud of

Republicans have had six years of total control and chances to make things work better. In that time I have not heard any mention of a balanced budget admentment or a term limits amendment. Whatever happened to the Contract With America. I think that we "fiscal conservatives" and "smaller government conservatives" were conned in 1994 by Newt and the Republicans.

You and other "conservative" columnists have been either supporting or making excuses for an incompetent Bush Administration for six years. And the Republican Congress has been guilty of aiding and abetting Bush's anti-conservative agenda for its entire six years. This includes record spending growth, record budget deficits, record numbers of special interest earmarks, record numbers of no-bid contracts to favorite cronies, record numbers of guilty pleas for congressmen and their aids, record numbers of jobs outsourced overseas, record numbers of illegal immigrants, and record trade deficits.

Then there are the expensive and inefficient new LBJ-type programs such as No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Drugs. Then there is the incompetent and wasteful response to Katrina. Then there is the record spending and record stupidity associated with the Iraq debacle -- the bull of the Bush Administration's white elephant herd.

I don't know many true conservatives who still think that Bush is really conservative. He is certainly not a "fiscal conservative" or a "smaller government conservative".

The President and Congress need to solve many problems for the American people during the next two years, but we can't trust a Republican Congress to provide any balance, guidance or oversight to this wacky White House. I think it is time to see how our government works when Congress actually acts as a check and balance to an out-of-control Executive Branch. That is what the founding fathers wanted, but it won't happen with a Republican Congress.

By the way, yours is about the fifth column that I've read on this "Please forgive us and Vote Republican" theme. It is amazing how all you columnists and radio hosts are now saying "Please overlook the mess that the Republicans and neocons have created and vote for us just one more time. We will be more conservative in the future. Just trust us again" Just who are you taking your writing orders from?

Selmo,

13. Clinton (with help from that other incompetent, Carter) CAUSED the problem in N. Korea. Clinton in general was a foreign policy disaster with respect to national security, as was Carter, as will be any Dem that gains the White House in the near future.

12. Delay has done NOTHING. He is the target of a purely political prosecution by Travis County (TX) prosecutor Ronnie Earle, who himself should be brought up on charges. Earle went after Delay solely because of a Republican Party rule (that is not a House ethics committee rule) that members brought up on criminals charges can't serve as leaders (the Dems, of course, have no such rule because they have no ethics and no standards), and had to convene SIX grand juries before he could get one to indict Delay. And then it was for a "crime" that wasn't even illegal at the time Delay is accused of having done it. The prosecution of Delay is an example of why Democrats should not be trusted with authority. And you hypocrite (re: Newt)! After succeeding in censoring Newt for ethics transgressions that pale in comparison to Whitewater and Harry Reid's land deals,(not to mention the political shenangians of Tom Daschle) liberals had the gall to accuse the REPUBLICANS of using what Clinton called the "politics of personal destruction" during his impeachment. Clinton and his lemmings invented these politics.

11. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both condemned the terrorist surveillance program. ALL Democrats, including those in the so-called MSM have not only condemned it, they've lied about it. FISA IS an "existing" law, and has specific language that address "surveillance without a warrant."

10. When the going gets tough conservatives dig in and finish the job. Liberals cut and run (See "Vietnam", "Iran", "Lebanon", "Nicaragua", and "Mogadishu" for more detail).

9.Jefferson was dead long before the first Geneva Convention was ever convened in 1864. Any assessment of Geneva attributed to Jefferson is at best misleading and at worst a lie. If you would study Geneva comprehensively (you might start by actually reading it instead of reflexively spouting "Geneva Convention" whenever you want to undermine the war effort) you would know that the motivating force behind it is to minimize to impact of war on non-combatants. That means if you're a combatant you don't attack civilians, you don't use Mosques for cover, you don't dress in civilian garb, and when you surrender you don't keep fighting. If you do any of these things (all detainees have done at least one of these) you have NO RIGHTS under Geneva.

7. More blatant liberal hypocrisy!!! However much nuclear mat'l Bush has collected is that much more than Mr. Wonderful. Clinton GAVE nuclear material to N. Korea. A couple of years later he GAVE their sponsors, the ChiComms, the missile technology to enable them to attack our cities from Asia. If he could have had a third term he probably would have pushed the button for them too (in return for a BJ of course).

5. It has been more than 5 years since the last successful terrorist attack on US soil. During the term of Mr. Wonderful we had attacks against our soil in 1993 (WTC) and 1998 (our embassies in Africa). We also suffered unanswered (the key word) attacks against our military installation in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and the US Cole (Yemen, 2000). Bush has fought back and locked things down. Mr. Wonderful played golf and dodged the call when asked for permission to kill bin Laden. Enough said.

4. Bush signed the fence bill yesterday. More importantly, the House, run by conservative, is the only reason the fence bill even exists and is the only reason the amnesty bill written by Kennedy and McCain is not law. If you're arguing against re-electing conservatives to the House you should give this one up. It's a loser for you.

3. The mere threat of this program is what finished off the USSR and won the Cold War, but I guess you liberals don't consider the defeat of the Soviet Union a victory, do you?

2. "better than nothing." And "nothing" is exactly what the Democrats offer as an alternative. So you're going to vote Republican, right?

1. You say you haven't felt the effects of the booming economy. Well, you can be sure you would have felt the effects of a sinking one. Per capita income is up 9% from 2001 after adjusting for inflation. The economy has added 37 million new jobs and the current average WAGE is $16.84/hour (That's $35,000/year). But I guess nothing is ever enough for liberals. If you aren't doing better now than in 2001 look in the mirror.

Sekhmet

"Who cares how a particular politician likes it in the sack, as long as he or she governs well?"

Number one, I was not attacking the ability of the candidate, just pointing out the timing of said questions.

Number two: As others have eloquently said on here, only the MSM and the democratic party, unless the person is a democrat. The proper term for this is "hypocrite". I just find it a little unpalatable for the party who brought us Barney Franks, Gerry Studds, former governor McGreevey, San Francisco politics, etc., to be raising this is beyond the pale, in my estimation.

Number three: I intend to vote for Mr. Crist. Nowhere have I said he's unqualified for the job. What I do expect out of my leaders is to mean what you say, and say what you mean. If your position on something is "x", "x" better apply to you as well. That is why I could not ever vote for the democratic party.

Hypocrite - A plank in the democratic party's platform

#14

Nancy Pelosi 2nd in line to the presidency

Drawing "a line in the sand"

Looks like TH buried this article pretty quickly yesterday since the comments weren't very flattering to the administration/Republicans.

Border security: Drawing "a line in the sand"
http://townhall.com/Columnists/PaulWeyrich/2006/10/26/border_security_drawing_a_line_in_the_sand

Tanabear

"Bush is incompotent.
It does not matter whether the economy is good or not..."

I like it Tanabear; run with that one. It's not like it's the economy stupid (hmmmmm, where have I heard that one before?) or anything like that. Noooo, it's the party of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, and Hillary Clinton that has all the answers.

The best part of this whole Iraq thing is hearing the party with no clear idea on how to resolve the situation "redeploy", "reassign", "rearrange", "re-think", etc. to claim to be able to solve the problem. Based on what track record?

Vietnam? JFK and LBJ (both democrats)
Iran hostage crisis? (Carter)
1990's military? (USS Cole, Mogadishu [sic]abandoned training camps) (I can't remember, who was in charge through that?)

Yep, It's a no-brainer to me.

Another thing that fascinates me about this discussion (and I'm a veteran) is the talk of casualties. First of all, any casualty is heartbreaking, and for those who have lost someone I can understand what it is like. My oldest cousin was a casualty of Desert Storm.

We fought WW2 and our casualty count in almost 4 years was almost a half of a million soldiers. I just finished a book called The Story of World War II, by Donald Miller. It is a great read. It is told from the perspective of the soldier on the ground. One of the interesting things brought out in the book was the "censorship", if you will by reporters on the ground with the troops. For instance, in many of the Pacific campaign battles, when we would lose 5,000 casualties in taking an island, the news reporters wouldn't publish casualty numbers. The reason? They knew the American public would blanch at the number of men being killed half a world away. Had they published the numbers and "sniper videos" like we see today, there is a very real chance the war would have ended in a different manner. That's not me saying that. It was the leadership at the time saying that.

Vietnam: 53,000 lost over an eight year period.

Those two wars are used to bring some perspective on the total count thus far. Another thing which amazes me about it is, when we were going in, both in Desert Storm and in 2003, we were taking on on of the world's largest land armies. In 1990, Iraq had the world's (I believe) 5th most powerful military. Discussions of casualties were estimated in the 10's of thousands. In 2003, Iraq still had one of the world's largest militaries and some estimates were we would lose 10's of thousands just taking the city of Baghdad. At that time, everyone having been briefed on these numbers, were for going in and getting it done. What happened? In both cases, the casualties didn't happen. For that you can thank your military leaders and defense contractors who design and build the worlds' best weapons, and train the world's best military.

Instead, we have a group of people who know they can't win on the battlefield so they resort to guerilla tactics. Those tend to be less tactically effective, but strategically effective in the long run. If you can use America's morality against them, you can win any fight. They knew it in the 1940's and they know it today.

just to pick on one of these....

# 12, particularly concerning Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Governmental Reform Committee.

If the government were not in such desparate need of reform, this would be literally ROTFLOL, holding my sides, tears all over, red face, and crying "please stop, my sides are hurting!".....

14 THE REAL IRAQ...

14. CUT AND RUN from “STAY THE COURSE!”

WE GET THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE… and, boy, we’ve really been getting it for the last few years! Truth, values, competence and results no longer matter in America.

The problem: our President is not a rational thinker – his mind accepts information from only two sources: faith and experience. For example, he learned the "the enemy will follow us here" from Vietnam and the Domino Theory: “If we don’t defeat the communists in Vietnam, then we’ll have to fight them here in America.” Now just insert “terrorists” and “Iraq” into the one lesson Bush learned from Vietnam.

Because Bush is not rational (strictly empirical and subjective), objective facts and evidence such as the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) are meaningless to this anachronistic man of several millennia ago. The reality of Iraq is what he thinks it is, and so our country and our precious soldiers are in for more of this continuing tragedy, incompetent strategy and SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.

15. THE REAL ECONOMY... we sold our kids and grandkids down the river!

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS

George Bush’s $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich has been a disaster for average Americans. Supply-side (trickle-down) economics is a bogus theory promoted by those who benefit from it. In a mature capitalist system, supply side never rules, it’s always the demand side of the equation that governs growth and well-being. Think about the 1930s Depression, General Motors had plenty of supply, but demand evaporated.

Previous U.S. recessions have been cured with only $200 billion in tax cuts targeted to the middle class, because the consumer (the great middle class) spends that tax cut and primes the economic pump. But George Bush has raised the debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay from almost $6 trillion to almost $9 trillion for this current recovery, which is uniquely without wage gains, and which has shrunk the middle class that makes America strong and great.

Corporations (the supply side) are now loaded with cash, but there’s no place to spend it because they don’t see any demand. So many corporations are using that cash to buy back their stock – WOW, isn’t supply side wonderful in how it fulfills America’s needs? As the rich-poor divide increases, we’re headed toward previous shining examples of trickle-down economics: South America of the recent past and feudalism in the Middle Ages (South America and feudalism also had no wage gains). This is such good evil by our compassionate conservative, Christian President and his myriad of engorged friends.

undermining the effort

twodog is right.
the media and the democrats are undermining the war effort. think about the effects of Tokyo Rose and others during WWII. Tokyo Rose was trying to break the will of the soldiers and the American people.
Hasn't CNN done the same thing?
Sen Kennedy, Schumer and others have basically said that we cannot win, we are in a quagmire.
Again, the democratic leadership has engaged in providing support and comfort to the emeny.
the terrorist leadership must be playing CNN clips and these democratic senators to encourage them and show that they are winning.

That Fence, along southern border

Yes, the bill has been signed, but. There hasn't to my knowlege, been an appropriation given to finance the project. And, the bill also allows for not only (the fence) but for a list of other things supposedly to help with the immagration problems. Let's wait and see if this ever gets underway before we hail it's completion!

13 Reasons

There are more, but this should suffice for any reasonable patriot who sanely opts to vote all Republican. Perfect? Not really. Any plausible option for patriots? No. None at all.

Why does everyone forget?

There were anthrax letters mailed out a week after 9/11 which killed 5 people and made another couple of dozen pretty sick. That makes "#5: There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11" dead wrong.

It's bad enough that Osama's still running around, but the anthrax attacks aren't even on the radar of most Republican spin jockeys. Just because they've forgotten that there were at least three (and perhaps as many as SIX) terrorist attacks in September of 2001 doesn't mean that it simply didn't happen.

Kimberly

Go take your medicine and learn to think for yourself.

Bonus point: "Yes, the war in Iraq is a long, hard slog". As opposed to the bravura of 2003 when we were assured the war would be a "cake walk".

Show me the quote ANYWHERE by anyone with any reputation (I'd really like to see Rumsfield's quote along those lines) saying that. Read my above posts. NO ONE said it would be a cakewalk. This is from Wikipedia:

"Before the war Pentagon officials were estimating 30,000-40,000 coalition casualties."

Yep, sounds like a cakewalk to me. That quote refers to the first Gulf War. We didn't invade the nation that time. In 2003, we would be invading their homeland. How much harder would they fight? You can be sure much harder. We also had the fear of chemical/biological weapons which would be used. Estimates of casualties were in the 10's of thousands. The reason it went the way it did is because we wanted to AVOID those numbers of casualties. Sounds like pretty good planning, if you ask me.

Good grief, get a life...

blah blah blah

"1) The economy... Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations."

Just out: "New figures released by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis showed the economy grew 1.6 percent on an annual basis for those three months, compared to 2.5 percent in the three months before that and a rapid 5.6 percent for the first quarter of the year." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102700408.html)

Oops.

"...and the deficit is down."

Down from what? The largest nominal deficit in history? Nice accomplishment.

"Inflation has remained low."

Thanks not to the Republicans (or the Democrats).

"The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow."

Ha! The success of the tax cuts was to explode the national debt. Any positive in the economy from the tax cuts has been somewhat offset by the immediate cost of additional borrowing, and will be more than offset over time by the addition of trillions of dollars of debt that will drag the economy for decades.

"9) Those Democrats who do not want to close Guantanamo Bay altogether want to give all of its inmates the full panoply of rights Americans enjoy in criminal procedures."

This is just a blatant lie.

"10) Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq."

Hardly. I've seen Republicans attacking Democrats for not being unified in their "plan" for Iraq. Suddenly, Charen knows that all Democrats want to immediately withdraw? Based on what? It's a nice straw man, though.

"The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not -- and no one likes it -- we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis."

Based on this analysis, how can we ever take our troops out of Iraq?

"11) Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program."

Democrats want the government to abide by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Republicans have acted as if following the rules that form the foundation of our country is a matter of convenience.

"12) If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee."

As it stands, we have Bob "prohibition II" Goodlatte chairing the Ag committee, Jerry "I've spent $800,000 of campaign money on my legal defense" Lewis chairing the Appropriations committee, Peter "I'll slander your staffers if you leak that unclassified information" Hoekstra chairing the Intelligence Committee, Doc "scandals? what scandals?" Hastings chairing the Ethics Committee, and David "that indictment rule shouldn't apply to DeLay" Dreier chairing the Rules Committee.

"13) Democrats believe that the proper response to Kim Jong Il's nuclear test is 'face to face talks.' That's what the Clinton administration did for years."

Republicans have responded to Kim Jong Il for four years by focusing on Iraq.

"It worked out well, didn't it?"

.

A litany of reasons

Objectively perusing Mona's list, I'm convinced that I should vote Republican.

Tanabear, facts belie your posts. Clinton's unilateral talks with North Korea allowed them to proceed with nuclear weapons development. Obviously, that was the wrong way to go, but not to the leftists. They demand MORE unilateral talks with the DPRK. Go figure.

Tanabear, to define removing Sadam from Iraq and allowing a free government with free elections as "screwing up" makes me wonder just what YOU would consider as the appropriate strategy.

Tanabear, do you REALLY believe what you post or are you just a guy who likes sticking fingers in eyes?

How did we get here?

Living in the great state of Florida, I am always amazed when my liberal friends rant and rave about Republicans in general. They often then rant and rave about all the problems Florida has. Well things get really strange when one reminds them that the Democratic Party ran Florida from the days of Reconstruction (many young liberal have no clue what that was) until the late 1980s. All the environmental impacts, urban sprawl, and failure to improve and maintain infrastructure took place under Democrats.

The Democrats ran the US Congress for much of the past sixty years. By the by-if you have bothered to read the Constitution and contrary to the media, Congress is the branch with most of the power in our national government. They have the ultimate control, the budget.

The Republicans indeed have made significant mistakes since gaining control of Congress as well in the present Administration. Yet compared to where the Democrats had taken the USA in its moral leadership, overall safety and well being, when given the choice and comparing the long term record the Republicans win hands down. Would I change the way that Republicans operate certainly, but given the choice there is no contest. The lesser of two evils, no, it is just the way democracies work. Go study history!

As for most liberal Democrats and their base on the Left, it has been impossible for me to even understand what planet they live on much less comprehend their view of the world. I know I was in college with a whole bunch so supposedly they had the opportunity to receive a education but obviously they learned very little about the real world.

One liberal seriously tried to convince me recently that they hated war yet understood it was necessary but if and only if we were attacked and knew precisely who attacked us. When I suggested that the next attack might be nuclear or some other WMD and make 9-11 seem like a small event, I was told I had such a negative attitude that I needed help. When I continued that we might never know who was responsible for such an attack because the perpetrators would destroyed and even vaporized completely during the attack I was told it would then be all the Bush Administrations fault for not conducting better intelligence.

First of series of posts

First of all, I agree for the most part what the original article says. I would like to again, invite Steve, tanabear, Selmo, Kiberly, BS Detector and anyone else that feels a different view. It's impressive to see that Kimberly actually provided a reference to one post out of many. But I these individuals' opinions as simply that - opinions. And I hope that they realize that I equally can have a different opinion from them.

I'm going to repeat a post I made yesterday, because several comments have been made here in regards to torture and treatment of the people at Gitmo. Another individual in my workplace brought this up. We actually pulled up the following link:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

(I apologize if the link does not work, please just adjust and copy/paste as necessary)

After getting through this bill, which is now law, it was my opinion that the law pretty well spells out what is going on. And I've got news for you - the laws that this law is based on comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So I invite you to answer this: The steps that are listed in this act for the treatment of individuals is expressly listed out. These are the same laws that our military members abide by and if break, are punished by. Do you feel that these terrorists deserve the equal treatment which military members get? (which, by the way, grants almost every right that civilians get with certain exceptions. I'd be happy to research and cite examples if you would like) And if you're not OK with this, that what do you suggest? Because I can tell you this, the people that our military faces do not even go to these lengths.

Even if you could possibly justify these rights by saying that even one of the prisoners there is truly innocent, (As seen by the beheadings, sniper shootings, etc.) and that they deserve more, than realize you are asking our government to give more rights than our military members have. That's putting terrorists above our people!

Please, I hope that all will be willing to debate this with me in a respectable fashion. I'll keep the name calling out, and I am happy to cite my references - I hope you will do the same.

Thank you for your time.

On the topic of Iraq...

I know that these are multiple posts, and I hope that you bear with me while I share my two cents to this forum.

In Iraq, I can possibly understand why many, on both sides, believe that the war effort is not going so well. Now, I invite you, how many of you have actually been there? How many of you have served there or known people that serve there? Being that I just got out of the military about a year ago, I know well over 250 people in person that have served their time in Iraq - people that were there when we went in, and people that have supported since then. Are some scared to go there? You bet. Do a lot of them get afraid that they may die? Who doesn't? But do the majority of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines believe that we should be there? Based on my personal knowledge in asking these individuals about their experience, yes.

It's easy to forget that after WWII that the US spent a rather large amount of time, effort, and funds reconstructing Europe. Those efforts still continue. Do I think we'll ever really leave Iraq? Speculation tells me that since we pulled out of Saudi, we're looking for a new home. And that new home might be Iraq. There are several bases in place that we Americans are welcome there. There are countless stories of people that are thankful for us doing what we're doing. And if your main source for information in Iraq is purely the media - believe me, you're not getting even part of the story. Talk to the people that have been there. Better yet - if any milbloggers are out there that have spent their time in the big sandbox (or mudbox depending on the season), give a hollar and share your experiences! I hope that some people will be able to show, whether positive or negative, their own experiences there.

Thank you for your time.

In response to Kimberly:

You have made a good point. I posted to you on the comments to Ann Coulter's column yesterday, however I'll paste it again here again for clarificaition. Except this time, I will stress that I invite any individual, whether agreeing or disagreeing, to this:

If your agreements/disagreements with this administration can be organized into points, (i.e. "The administration lied to start the war with Iraq") and cite your references, I would love to debate you on this. Heck, jump on over to my blog, post anywhere through a comment on there, and I welcome to look at this with you in more detail. But I do ask one thing if you decide to do this: As you will see in the blog, I like to do a debate in a civilized manner. Please cite your sources that you have based your opinion on. If you do not have sources that you can site, or this is purely your opinion,
simply say so and I will accept that as well. I do ask that you keep the name calling out, and I will gladly offer the same.

And yes, I will gladly state that if I do not state a reference, it is my personal opinion based on experience or other factors. My blog will show you some of those factors. You (the reader) can agree with it or not, that's a choice left to you. But in Kimberly's invitation to review your points through research, I have not replied to them yet because I have written them down and plan to do so. Again, if you or anyone else wants to move this to my blog, go right ahead. I look forward to a good debate, again civilized, in the future.

Click on my name above or the link below to my blog:
http://usabeliever.townhall.com

Sekhmet What Will You Do To The Muslims?

Slap them silly?

Kimberly

9/11 Happened on Bush's watch.

1993 World Trade Center bombing,
Embassies in Somalia,
USS Cole happened on Clinton's watch.

Takeover of American Embassy to Iran happened on Carter's watch.

Get a grip!

two dog

Defense in 'Dog Bites Man' trial;

1. That's not my dog;
2. My dog does not bite;
3. I don't own a dog.

But my guess is 0% of Americans will vote for Bush next presidential election. Does that make Americans 100% Smart in England????

Buck

Good stuff!

I've always liked civil trial attorneys who argue issues like that...

"It wasn't my client that was driving at the time of the wreck.
But if you believe he was, he wasn't at fault for the wreck.
But if you believe he was, there was no damage to plaintiff.
But if you believe there was, the plaintiff didn't do anything to mitigate damages.
But if you believe he did..."

You get the picture.

And my guess is yes, our IQ will have improved based on that vote! :)

BS Detector

"You mean the Florida Supreme Court?"

Actually, yes that is what she means. That court was (at the time) considered a liberal court, by those of us who practice here in Florida. The make-up has since changed.

BS Detector

"You mean Bush didn't move into the White House on January 20, 2001? You know, Inauguration Day? I seem to recall him getting out of a limo and going inside..."

Are you implying that the second a person takes over a new position, everything immediately falls into place? That's good news for me, I guess. I seem to recall our country coming out of a recession in President Bush's term in 1991, http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Recessions.html
but of course he was voted out because "it is the economy stupid." Based on your suppositions, Bush 41 deserves credit for bringing the country out of recession and it "wasn't the economy, stupid" after all.

Seems to me somewhat inconsistent to give Clinton credit for something that occured before he took office and then blame GWB for something that took place within months of his taking office.

But the good news for me is this new position I have just taken over, will magically fall into place. I can't wait...I'm planning my winter vacation already!

Economy

Thanks for the questions regarding income growth through the massive growth of the US economy over the past few years. A few points:

1. With employment at 4%, lower than any time during the 90's BTW, your lives are affected daily by the fact that fewer people are sapping our dollars by lounging, rather than working. So, every person has been effected positively by this amazing economy, whether or not they wish to admit it (in fact, NOT admitting it shows an abject lack of knowledge about simple economics - typical of a leftist).

2. If you have not experienced income growth in this economy, then you must either be lazy, or work for the government - which are pretty much the same things. Though you could also be a union hack that has no real job skills, relying on Demo thugs to shake down companies on your behalf. If you want greater income, what have YOU done to increase the value YOU offer the marketplace?

3. Income disparity - In an expanding economy, those who have taken the chances by investing money and energy into unsure ventures, are the first to experience the benefits. Any person that does not understand this is an incompetent on all economic matters. The person that invests is going to take their profits before spreading money around to employees, as the employees did not take risks at the level of the investors. A job is easy to acquire. ROI is not. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. Gaps are filled in as the economy grows, after the investors are playing with the casino's money, which is where employee wages tend to rise.

If you do not find yourself in this investor class, why have you not honed your skills, or worked to acquire those skills more prized, and therefore, better paying?

I am amazed at the utter lack of economic understanding that emanates from leftists. Belive me, there are countries around the world that espouse your socialist world view. Please, stop trying to destroy America and find a country, invariably with much lower growth, higher unemployment and less political and economic freedom, and make it your home country. Please, stop trying to ruin our lives. Go ahead and move someplace where that is already underway, and join in their downward spiral, rather than trying to create one here. Please.

Reagenomics has provided America with unprecedented growth for nearly 30 years. We have seen what happens with Demos in charge of the government. Last time tha thappened for any length of time, we were waiting in lines for gas, gross unemployment, had stagflation, and unbelievable malaise. This is the Demo/leftist model. A vision of hell on earth.

tanabear - Landing the plane?

Tanabear writes:

"Wrong, if Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon, then he was clearly capable of landing an airplane. He was flying at 530MPH and he was not more than 6 feet off the ground. If he can do this, then landing is no problem for him. You believe way to much neo-con propaganda regarding 9/11."

You, sir or madam, are absolutely clueless when it comes to piloting a plane. To state that, because one points an in-flight plane downward, at 500+ MPH, and hits the ground, and is thus also capable of landing a plane, when that person has never before attempted a landing in a jombo jet, is to loudly scream, at the top of your lungs, what a fool you are.

It is plainly obvious that you have never piloted a plane, nor have the understanding of the complexities involved with landing a craft such as a 700 series jumbo jet.

I would like to thank you, as your post post pretty much renders every word you have written unreliable and completley ridiculous.

Tanabear, either you are completely lacking in knowlegde and understanding, or you are purposefully lying. Which is it?

Tanabear I take it back...

Last nite I commented about one of Pitbull's comments on "Shilary" being the funniest one ever posted
(it was a comparision to her voice and the martians on Mars Attacks: aaackk Aackkk YAAACKKKK!). I'm still laughing over it just mentioning it.

You, sir or madam, have just eclipsed that post in such a manner as there may never be a funnier post. I now nominate Tanabear's flying lessons as the classic comic post of all-time on TH.

I'm picturing you sitting at a computer typing the words and for the life of me can't stop laughing! That is one of the all-time classic images. The only one better is the befuddled look you have as anyone with any brain (including those on the left read the post and go, "wow! what a moron.").


Give it up for Tanabear!

P.S. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Pitbull, tell him he's now in second place!

No Reasons to Vote Republican

Mona Charen’s 13 reasons to vote Republican, reiterated by some lap-dog talk show hosts, are ridiculous.
1. The economy—Stop with meaningless statistics and answer why, if the economy is go good, the cost of living has skyrocketed, along with state and local taxes and fees to meet federal government demands, such as educating and otherwise subsidizing illegal aliens. While they’re at it, the talk show hosts can explain how the federal government cannot afford $4 million needed for updated healthcare equipment for the Los Angeles Veterans Administration Hospital but can afford to give free healthcare to illegal aliens.
2. The Patriot Act. A favorite topic of talk show hosts, The Patriot Act does not interest or engage the average American, more worried about the need for protections from the IRS than the government listening in on terrorist phone calls.
3. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty/missile defense. If the Republicans are so strong about defense, why do they allow the daily invasion of U.S. borders?
4. Immigration. See number 3. The Republican elites only responded to this crisis after the outcry by grassroots Republicans about this issue. Bush has been disparaging anti-illegal immigrant advocates as naïve. And what does the Republican Senate suggest? Amnesty for breaking the law.
5. The lack of terrorist attacks. How are the Republicans responsible?
6. Libya has surrendered its nuclear program. I can just see the average commuter, stuck in traffic on his way to work, forced to fork over almost half his salary to keep the wheels of government grinding, excited about Libya’s program.
7. A.Q. Kahn’s nuclear smuggling network. Huh?
8. Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Remember Harriet Miers? If not for the grassroots conservative outrage on talk radio and the Internet over this almost-fiasco, there would not have been an Alito or Roberts on the Supreme Court.
9. Guantanamo Bay inmates—What about U.S. prisoners of the tax system, government regulations and the out-of-control intrusions into daily life by bureaucrats?
10. Staying the course in Iraq. Even Bush is backing down on that one.
11. Terrorist surveillance programs. Oh, brother. Are the surveillance people in the mosques, too, or hiding from the ACLU?
12. Liberal Democrats in charge of committees. Did education, healthcare and disaster response do better over the last eight years for the average person without Democrats in charge of committees?
13. North Korea. Just what IS the Republican position, anyway?

This Republican Congress can blame itself for the coming sweep. The out-of-control spending, the corruption, the botched Katrina response, the Medicare drug fiasco, illegal immigration invasions, increasing the federalization of the schools and general lack of purpose and vision make them deserve to go down to the Democrats. Perhaps if these elites got real jobs, they would have a better understanding of the average person’s concerns.

USAbeliever

.....if you want to get a complete picture of how the ACLU operates...case history by case history...then invest in..."The ACLU vs. America" by Alan Sears and Craig Osten...

.....for instance they did not just come up with Roe vs Wade overnight on a whim....they carefully planned for Roe for years and set up all the precedents until the time was ripe to take a test case to the Supreme Court...

.....the ACLU is an insidious and very dangerous organization.....COLOSSUS

Mountain Rose wrote:

"You better go back and check the newspapers from 2001. The Bush Administration BEGGED to move in and start to work while Gore the Bore wasted huge amounts of precious time and money keeping him out through count after counts of the silly ballots."

Seems to me you might want to go back to the newspapers of 2000, rather than 2001. Because the Supreme Court made its fateful ruling on December 12 of that year, and Gore publicly conceded on December 13. Since Inauguration Day was scheduled for January 20, and Bush was in fact inaugurated on January 20, there was in fact no delay whatsoever in the beginning of the Bush presidency. Sorry about that.

P.S. Why are you so angry?

.

Tanabear- 535mph is a very hot landing

Speed while flying an aircraft makes it more stable and easy to control, like riding a bike, it is much harder to go slower for a rational approach.

This is Scary!

Alcee Hastings scares me. The Washington Times says: At the recommendation of a special investigative committee of the federal judiciary, which had concluded that Mr. Hastings, then a U.S. District Court judge, had lied and fabricated evidence to win an acquittal on bribery charges in 1983, the Democrat-controlled House voted 413 to 3 in 1988 to impeach him. Several of the 17 impeachment counts, reported Congressional Quarterly, "alleged that Hastings committed acts of perjury during his 1983 trial." Keeping in mind that Mr. Hastings would be told the most sensitive intelligence secrets, consider the fact that another impeachment count approved by the House "alleged that Hastings leaked information about a wiretap he was supervising and thereby forced a halt to an extensive federal undercover operation in the Miami area in 1985." In 1989, a Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and committing numerous acts of perjury at his own trial. Once he was booted off the federal court, voters in southern Florida elected him to Congress, after which Mrs. Pelosi — the quintessential San Francisco Democrat — appointed him to the House Intelligence Committee.

If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee. OMG

If Republicans don't turn out and vote to defeat the attempt to takeover the Congress by the cut-and-run tax increasing Democrats, then the adage "you get the government you deserve" will ring loudly and clearly. I say, if the Democrats win a majority in November, God Help Us because no one else will be able to!

Why 13 reasons?

Gee, to me, those are 13 great reasons NOT to vote Republican!

And, might there also be something prophetic for the Republicans having to do with the day this particular article was posted here....Friday....and that the number of reasons Ms.Charen chose to convince us all to vote Republican was...13?

Lexx777

You know you are screwed up when, as a democrat, you are impeached by a democratic party! That's pretty embarassing right there.

Of course there was a time in our country's history when the democratic party actually stood for some pretty honorable things and had some pretty honorable members.

But then again, Spain was a world power once, too.

Yea silly me

I'm the one here talking about landing planes at 500mph and the ACLU being "mainstream", as well as other pie in the sky conspiracy theories. By the way, did you ever look into why the ACLU never contacted me about any of my drug cases?

I'll save my reasoned debate for those who have a brain, AND choose to USE it for something besides a spacer for their ears.

Or could it be

There isn't enough time or room in the news to fit it in around the Mark Foley scandal?

Kimberly

I can't even believe I'm mentioning your name after I labeled you a persona non grata for your foolish remarks earlier, but I will at least answer your remarks.

I don't mind debating people around here at all. I have done so with different posters on different boards and have enjoyed the exchange tremendously.

The problem with you and Tanabear is you cannot debate. You have a closed mind. To debate, you must be able to intelligently articulate a position and give actual facts to support said positions. The standard "Bush lied, people died" is not a debate point. It is a stupid OPINION put forward by people who have no ability to think for themselves and cannot look beyond their own noses to see the big picture or even consider the other side. Even BS Detector will do that at times, as will I.

You asked me earlier what sort of lawyer I am. I'll be polite enough to answer you. I am a criminal defense attorney. I know a significant bit about constitutional law, governmental law, criminal law, etc. I am licensed in both state and federal courts here in Florida. I'm also very comfortable with the Patriot Act. You might be surprised at what your local law enforcement can do to you, outside of said Patriot Act. But for me, the Patriot Act is a necessary evil in the world we live in.

You also asked me what I thought of Bush's tort reform act. I think it's a great idea. Tort reform to an extend has already begun here in Florida. You wonder why that is? How about this for an example: Citibank was recently sued in a class action suit over some of the ways they were charging interest. I don't know exactly how, but anyway it happened. Citibank settled the class action and the affected members of the class received settlements of up to a couple of dollars. I received a check for 36 cents. I threw it away. The lawyers that filed the class action walked away with tens of millions of dollars for their fees. That sound fair to you?

Or better yet, a doctor commits malpractice and is sued. The jury finds him guilty and awards the plaintiff 2 million dollars. The attorney takes %40 percent of that award right off the top. So where the jury figured this plaintiff was entitled to 2 million dollars they get about 600k after taxes. Did the lawyer do a million dollars worth of work? Not in my opinion, and I'm a lawyer who has been on the defense side on those cases. I know how much work plaintiff's lawyers do. Yes, I believe lawyers should be paid for their services. Most of us have fairly large student loans to pay off and spent a long time in school (7 years).

What I also believe is that along with tort reform there needs to be insurance reform. Here in Florida the medical malpractice reform took effect in 2003, naturally pushed by the insurance companies. The impetus was so their rates could come down. The next year, they increased rates higher than they had in the past. That is something that is being worked on here in Florida. Living in Pensacola, we were hit by hurrican Ivan in 2004. Home insurance has gone up 500 and 600 percent since then. State Farm tried to get a 72% increase this year and the insurance commission said no. Is this a problem with me? Absolutely.

Do I have a problem with political leaders? Yes. There are very few I would trust with watering my lawn. I am also a realist. With today's "shock" media, the people who should be the leaders of our nation, won't run because they don't want to be subjected to the nonsense they are put through by the media, and I don't blame them. For instance, you don't know the first thing about President Bush, but I'm sure, based on your rants in here, were he to come to your home and say "Hi! I'm George Bush," you'd scream Bush lied, call him a banty rooster or some other insult. After all, why wouldn't you? The White House press corps insults him on a daily basis.

But, and I'll leave it with this, here is how I have to decide on how, or who I will follow. I must first decide what MY core values are. Core values are not something you can change as the polls change. They are what make you who you are. Then I must decide who, if anyone, best represents MY values.

Here are some of my values: I am for marriage between a man and a woman; I am against abortion (I have very personal reasons for it), and firmly disagree that the Constitution says it is a protected right (many liberal constitutional scholars agree on that, they just liked the way the decision panned out); I am an evangelical Christian (this does not make me perfect or better than you, despite what you may think; again, do some research); I believe the Bible is God's wholly true, inspired Word and love letter to His people, which is all of mankind (If on the inside you are laughing about this one, you shouldn't be surprised why we are not alike); I don't have a problem with prayer in schools; I don't like the government being involved in schools (results aren't very positive); I believe unions are generally pointless anymore and are nothing more than political action groups for the democratic party. Don't get me wrong; there was a time in our history that they served a very important purpose. That time, in my opinion, is long since passed.

I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable behavior; however I despise the behavior, not the person (remember as an evangelical christian, I believe God created everyone in His image, so who am I to hate His creation?). It's like this: when my children do something wrong, I don't dislike them, I didlike the behavior. I've never belittled a person who was a homosexual nor have I attempted to force my beliefs on them (a good friend of mine works in my office, call her for verification); I believe my best witness as a Christian is not "bible thumping" (don't believe I've ever done it), but is the life I lead; Along those lines I hate hypocrites (I'm sure this is the point at which you attack me for some of my posts; what can I say? I'm an imperfect human with faults; luckily my Savior is perfect!)

I believe judges should not legislate from the bench, but should rule based on established law and principles. It is the only way our system can work effectively. Take Roe v. Wade for example. It effectively created out of thin air, the woman's right to kill her child out of convenience for her. There was no support in any existing law for this decision. Even liberal legal scholars who are in favor of abortion agree the decision was poorly done, they just happen to like the outcome. Justice Scalia and I happen to agree on this one: Abortion is not a fundamental right under the US Constitution. Since it is not, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution says if it's not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states'. What does this mean? The individual states, through their voters get to make that decision.

Finally I believe my leaders should say one thing and do it. I like a leader who leads, not changes with the wind (or the polls; we as Americans individually are very strong and independent; as a group we are wishy-washy).

After all is said and done, I have to look at the parties and decide who represents me. Now don't get me wrong, both parties are full of morally bankrupt individuals. How do I know? There are people in the parties. That being said, I then must decide which, if any will best represent my views.

The democratic party? Well, they spend a lot of time making fun of us "evangelical christians" until they need my vote (ever watch Charlie Brown and Lucy? He ALWAYS gets the football pulled out from under him, no matter how many times she promises not to); they support abortion; they believe the judiciary should legislate from the bench; they also come across as very hypocritical (I hope I don't need to give examples of that one)

The Republican party has many of its own problems and rotten apples in the batch. In fact, there are members of President Bush's adminstration I'm not keen on (Rumsfield). BUT they share many of the same values as I do.

That is who I am and how I operate. Like it or not.

But the irony

Do you not see the irony in all of this? For over two weeks all we hear from Nancy Pelosi and the democrats is "protection of the children", etc, etc., when discussing Mark Foley, instead of "the guy's a dirt bag...good riddance."

Now it's nothing more than fiction written by a democratic senatorial hopeful.

I just happen to see some tremendous irony in it, is all. I'm sure you do as well, you just don't want to admit it.

BS Detector . . .

apparently you need some education regarding the "agumentum ad hominem" (argument to the man)fallacy.

In logic, that particular fallacy involves attacking the person, not the person's argument.

It includes attacking the character and conduct of people and personal abuse (your tactic, BS) instead of reasoning and rational discourse relating to the argument.

You claim (10/27 6:14 PM) that I engage in ad hominem attacks. With few exception, and always in response to ad hominem attacks regarding cowards like Jerry Newberry, I have attempted to use rational discourse on these boards.

Give a true, not fabricated, example of my illogical argument. I doubt you'll find any.

On a personal note, I'll tell you, BS, that I'm a stand-up guy who doesn't need to stoop (as you do) to personal attacks; my arguments stand by themselves. Please follow my lead.

DavidMac wrote:

"You claim (10/27 6:14 PM) that I engage in ad hominem attacks."

Really? Please quote my words from that posting; I wrote no such thing. Why misrepresent my statements?

"Give a true, not fabricated, example of my illogical argument. I doubt you'll find any."

Since I didn't make any such assertion about your arguments, why would I bother to look?

"I'm a stand-up guy who doesn't need to stoop (as you do) to personal attacks;"

But you do, however, misrepresent other people's arguments and/or assertions.

You don't think calling people "socialists" is a personal attack? If not, you can hardly complain when somebody points out your ignorance in specific areas, such as:

"You apparently don't know what 'objective' means," which was an assertion based on (a) your postings and (b) your claim that Charen's list is sufficient for an objective person to conclude that he or she should vote Republican.

"You apparently don't know what an ad hominem attack is" was an assertion based on (a) the definition of ad hominem (attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument or assertion itself) and (b) your posting, in which you said "Objectively perusing Mona's list, I'm convinced that I should vote Republican." My response was that you could not be objective, and that Charen's list would not be sufficient to convince an objective observer. Now, you may take it personally, but that's your problem. My response, that your statement was false, was directly related to your assertion, and therefore not ad hominem.

And just to continue the de-construction of your false statement: if you had already decided to vote Republican, then you were not convinced by Charen's list, and your statement was false and logically invalid. I think we can agree that you had already decided prior to reading her list.

.

The final analysis

I’ve listened to the pundits, I’ve read the arguments here and elsewhere, I’ve researched and analyzed (logically) the facts. This is my conclusion:

In any endeavor a little rain must fall. The key to minimizing the effect is to keep an umbrella handy. In this case, the rain (acid) will come in form of a democratic congress. What with lower taxes (although not permanent), two conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court, a growing economy, etc, a conservative cannot say the administration has failed us. On the contrary, in some respects, Congress has done a good job. Granted its not A++, but it not an –F either. In any undertaking of this magnitude it must be understood that progress is “always going to be incremental at best.” As is the Iraq war, it’s a long slow hard time consuming slog up a very muddy and bloody hill. But, that’s life in its more simplistic essence.

As for those of you who refuse to vote: you, will be throwing out the baby with the bath water. And that’s exactly what the liberals (Kimberly etc) want you to do. So, if you don’t vote, don’t whine. But, on November 8, blame yourself for this nation being once again pointed toward the Democratic abyss.

Voting Republican is the only way we, as conservities, have of draining the swamp. However, if the pundits are correct, and I hope they are not, I think I’d better pick up some very tall waders cause this swamp is sure to get deeper and deeper.

And Kimberly, why are you afraid of guns? There are an inanimate object. They don’t have any way of threating to you! What’s you problem?

laughs and lies

Interesting. I've got two problems with Charen's analysis:

Point 5: "There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?"

There wasn't a terrorist attack in this country between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. Can we thank Bill Clinton for this? What are we to make of this? The terrorists waited eight long years between attacks - why? Because they are both patient and meticulous planners. I'm thankful we haven't been hit in 5 years (obviously) but it is silly to argue that the GOP is the reason. Point #5 is laughable.

Point 11: "Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program."

Now, I don't normally like to call a person a liar, but make no mistake, Charen is lying. This statement completely misrepresents the position held by many Democrats (and Republicans). From day one, this debate has been about whether WARRANTLESS wire tapping is against the law. No one has argued that we shouldn't listen to phone calls from terror suspects. No one. Absolute period.

The record is incontrovertible on this point and this is why Point #11 is a big fat lie.

To: tanabear or whatever...

"It does not matter whether the economy is good or not."

Surely you jest...if you are not "jesting" then I'm will regress to the childishness that ya'll seem to understand and call you a most fitting name, "you do-do head!"

Honestly, you and like thinkers are sooo not getting it. "Grow up" & "get a clue" etc.

"It's Never Too Late For The Truth"

Attn: tanaber, kimberly et al

The Bill Clinton Show
By Roger Aronoff | October 27, 2006

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4975_0_2_0_C/

and then there's:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061027-084248-4386r.htm

I submit the above for your reading pleasure; read, learn, think (really think) and V O T E
accordingly. In other words, it's never too late to do the "right" thing! (I hope!!!)

Twodog wrote:

"I'll make you a little side wager on this one: How about we see how many (by Monday) of the major media outlets run with either story as a major headline (not A18 type stuff) My guess is we'll hear a whole lot more about Allen (if that is a story out there) than Webb."

How'd we do?

"If I'm wrong, I'll admit you are the wiser of the two of us."

I don't care about that. This isn't a contest.

.

The Economy

The productivity of American workers slowed to a standstill in the summer while wage pressures were rising at the fastest clip in more than two decades, a combination likely to raise inflation concerns at the Federal Reserve.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, showed no change in the July-September quarter while labor costs rose by 3.8 percent. For the past year, labor costs are up by 5.3 percent, the fastest increase since 1982.

In other economic news, the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly shot up last week to the highest level in more than three months. A total of 327,000 fired employees filed benefit claims, up by 18,000 from the previous week."

This is what you are hanging your hat on? What else ya got?

Why Conservatives Are So Angry

controlcongress.com

Debt Matters

We elect congressmen and congresswomen to represent our interests. We vote for self-described fiscal hawks who favor less government. But all we get is:

• A Congress that represents the lobbyist-money-changers in Washington
• A near $9 trillion debt
• An explosion in government spending that puts Liberal tax-and-spenders like Lyndon Johnson to shame

Integrity Matters

The moral lapses of the Clinton administration were, of course, distressing. We voted for self-described conservative representatives who claimed they would do better. But all we got was a never-ending chain of scandals ranging from sex crimes to bribe-taking to gambling promotion.

Each is driven by a combination of greed, power-lust, and arrogance. Of course, mistakes do happen. But even when individuals are caught red-handed, they refuse to take responsibility. All that results is finger pointing and excuses from congressmen hiding in rehabilitation centers. Misbehaving congressmen should be removed—period. Are we supposed to look up the definition of is again?

Immigration Matters

We are a country of laws. If you don’t like a law, change it. But a government that intentionally refuses to enforce select laws is weakening the whole “rule of law” and breaking its most sacred pledge to the governed.

Some employers are using illegal immigration to drive down wages and eliminate hard-working Americans from their payrolls. And of illegal immigrants gangs run roughshod over our communities, bringing with them:

• Violence (and the threat of violence)
• Crystal meth and other illegal drugs
• Prostitution
• And perhaps terrorists

Yet Congress and the White House repeatedly turn a blind eye in exchange for big business campaign donations and lobbying loot. The best they’ve done is pass a lame fence bill that covers no more than 10% of the problem (and they aren’t even obligated to follow through on that much). Yet many existing laws remain un-enforced.

What Should We Conservatives Do?

The Democratic Party is not the answer. It is at best beset by the same corruption as the Republican Party, and at worst completely at odds with our values. The only practical solution is to challenge Republican incumbents who fail to:

• Vote against bloated spending bills
• Demand immigration reform
• Hold their fellow members to the highest level of ethical conduct

We must stop giving money to any candidate who represents special interests over our interests.