Article Comment 

Why liberalism is bad for America

 

 

In the article "Republicans have hot, cold feelings on Constitution," by Ben Evans, he states that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL, has proposed nine amendments to the Constitution. Among them are the RIGHT to quality housing and education.  

 

Hasn''t anybody pointed out to him those rights already exist? Every child in America gets a "free" education through grade 12. Free to them anyway, but paid for by somebody, somewhere. As to the "right" to quality housing, everybody has the right to get an education, so they can get a good-paying job, and buy their own quality housing. We also have Habitat for Humanity that gives new houses to those who desperately need them.  

 

Untold thousands of people across America already live in government-subsidized apartments. Someone also needs to tell Rep. Jackson that we''re currently in a recession, and we just simply cannot afford to give everybody everything. This is a prime example of why liberalism is bad for America, not to mention un-American. It will bankrupt and destroy America. 

 

Some are calling for an Amendment that ceases to automatically grant citizenship to anybody born to aliens on American soil. I think we''re about the only country that does this, and it needs to stop. The original amendment granting full citizenship to anyone born here was intended to bestow citizenship on the freed slaves after the War Between the States ended, not to create "anchor babies" for people who flaunt our laws. 

 

On another subject, I don''t doubt that someone in the striking work force from Omnova is responsible for the roofing tacks in the driveways of people who continue to do business there, but I would certainly hope that the majority and leaders of the union don''t condone these actions. This smacks of "union thug" activity, trying to scare people into supporting the strike, and I think it will backfire unless the union helps law enforcement to prosecute the offenders.  

 

If someone wants to strike, that is their choice, and if someone wants to work and support their family, that is their choice. Attempts at intimidation only shows how little argument you have. 

 

Cameron Triplett, Brooksville

 

 

printer friendly version | back to top

 

Reader Comments

Article Comment longmire commented at 8/24/2010 11:33:00 AM:

Well spoken Cameron.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/24/2010 12:27:00 PM:

The only thing that would be worse would be for the Republican Party to take back our country;Back, I might add, to ancient times.

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/24/2010 3:18:00 PM:

Every town has "that guy" who writes right-wing crackpot letters to the editor. It's kind of comforting, really. Like watching Andy Griffith.

 

Article Comment gogetum commented at 8/24/2010 4:39:00 PM:

Hey kent, we have many conservatives in Columbus who send letters to the editor to be put on the opinion page(voice of the people Ha) but somehow Birney will not print any from his Columbus friends. No problem though for the man from Brooksville. Must be an old fishing buddy or something. Or maybe he sends him a bill?

 

Article Comment melody commented at 8/24/2010 4:48:00 PM:

Hope , wouldn't that be good to go back when Columbus was truly a friendly city?? Too many libs in the works now trying to stir up trouble, putting everybody down with an abundance of hateful talk , name calling, etc, etc.

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/24/2010 5:05:00 PM:

melody is right. People should stop using hateful talk like "[ideology I don't agree with] is bad for America," or calling their fellow human beings hurtful names like "thugs" or "anchor babies." Then Columbus can truly be the Friendly City again!

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/24/2010 5:58:00 PM:

gogetum, maybe you should postmark your letters from Brooksville. You can eat at the Ole Country Bakery while you're down there too. Bring us back some cake!

 

Article Comment td commented at 8/24/2010 5:59:00 PM:

Hope - Please explain specifically what you didn't like about "ancient" times. What was so bad when the Republicans held power in Congress from 1994-2006?

Was it unemployment below the 8%?
Was it a strong housing market where sellers could expect a profit?
Was it a somewhat secure border with Mexico?
Was it a strong stock market?
Was it paying less taxes?
Was it an individual retirement fund that makes a profit?

or was it something as simple getting a lump in your throat and a tear in your eye when singing "God Bless America"? (rather than hearing Rev (ah-hem) Wright's sermon on America.)

Just what is it that you loathe about ancient times?

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/24/2010 7:11:00 PM:

What I meant was the last time the Republicans, under Bush and friends, took us all the way back to the "horse and buggy" days. You know like a depression in the '20's.

 

Article Comment melody commented at 8/24/2010 10:49:00 PM:

hope-it is pretty obvious you don't read much about history. I wasn't around in the early 1900's but I do know about the ROARING 20's. You ought to read up on Calvin Coolidge , our 30th President. 1923-29. Your knowledge of our current history is lacking too---the dems have been taking us down the river since 2006 when they won control of both houses. Where you been?

 

Article Comment stormy commented at 8/25/2010 4:17:00 AM:

If I have the "right" to have to take and pass a drug test to get and keep my job, I believe you have the "right" to have to take and pass a drug test before you collect SSI checks, live in public housing or get food stamps that my tax dollars go to pay for; and I can add to that you have the "right" to become a legal American for any of the above also.

 

Article Comment td commented at 8/25/2010 7:21:00 AM:

You still have not answered my question Hope. Under a liberal president and a liberal congress the unemployment rate nearly doubled in the last 20 months to about 10% (although promised to be under 8% by this president). The liberal solution failed to remedy an existing problem - unemployment. In fact the liberal solution made the unemployment problem worse.

The Republicans have an answer to reducing unemployment - lower taxes and cut government spending.

 

Article Comment kj commented at 8/25/2010 9:52:00 AM:

And Republicans are going to cut spending how, specifically? We saw how they cut spending after Bush was elected. We saw how they drew down the national debt after Bush was elected. We saw how they resisted the urge to borrow money from the Chinese and throw it at their buddies in the military and oil business. We saw how they didn't pass the largest increase in entitlements with a huge unfunded Medicare prescription plan. We saw how they protected the public interest by making sure financial institutions were properly regulated.

So, what do they intend to cut now? Are we going to stop funding two wars? Are we going to take back prescription drug benefits? Or are we going to cut a few million from arts and education, drop the tax rate to zero on every penny made over $200k and borrow more money from the Chinese and chant, "deficits don't matter" in front of the GWB memorial?

Posters can rewrite history as much as they like, but no amount of lying will make their lies true.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/25/2010 10:04:00 AM:

kj, You and I both know there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Until we get rid of the professional politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats and power brokers, nothing is going to change. It's business as usual regardless of who is in control. It's not power to the people, it's power over the people.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/25/2010 12:02:00 PM:

td......What was so bad when the Republicans held power in Congress? It started showing up as a recession in 2007, and a full blown depression in 2008. Unemployment went above 8% because Bush and the Republicans left the economy in much worse shape than President Obama and the Democrats had judged. Six weeks before Bush asked for 700 billion dollars to stabilize the economy, Bush was telling the people the economy was doing just fine. This is no ordinary recession that we are going through. In the last depression, unemployment was 25%. It took 8 yrs. to recover.
This Republican Tea Party that is pushing their agenda for lower taxes is made up of millionaires and billionaires. They would love to have lower taxes for themselves. Unless you are in their category financially, at the close of the polls on election day, they have forgotten about the people.
Now, answer my question about Phil Gramm and DCI corp!

 

Article Comment observer2 commented at 8/25/2010 1:21:00 PM:

hope: after all the good info from melody about the liberal dems, you continue to pretend the repubs were in control in 07 and 08. You need a quick review lesson. The liberals have been running the show since Jan. 07, from both houses, completely ignoring the repubs. So, take that to the bank, hope. You need to face the facts, ok. You should start watching FOX news for one month and forget about the thrill up my leg guy on msnbc. After one month's worth of the Beck man , Hannity and Gretta, your whole life will be worth living. You'll start seeing blue skys and hear birds singing again, your entire outlook on life will improve.

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/25/2010 1:27:00 PM:

Hope-Liberal Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress for 4 YEARS!!!!!! Here's a civics lesson for you - the President can't do a whole lot without Congressional approval. So...in your post of 12:02 you cite that the recession "began in 2007", and since Pelosi and the gang had been in charge for a year...I think (hope) you can connect the dots.
Here's the thing for you and kj, Bush is not the Messiah of conservatives. I don't like the fact the he did not secure the border, or that stimulus number one was his idea. I'm sure that you and the rest of the mental midgets will hold Bush up as the voodoo doll of conservatism, hey we've had Jimmy Carter as the epitome of spineless idiots for years, and now we've got B-Rock Hussein

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/25/2010 1:57:00 PM:

Since the Democrats were responsible for our economic collapse, they were elected again. Good Lord,as sharp says, ya'll need to unhook your veins from FOX.

 

Article Comment kj commented at 8/25/2010 2:06:00 PM:

The problem, Pat, for conservatives in general and Republicans in particular is that the dots in this case are very easy to connect. Two poorly-run wars, reckless spending, even more reckless borrowing, even more reckless deregulation and a laissez faire attitude to corporate America combined with a penchant for pretending that lowering taxes means more tax revenue led us straight into this recession. Lying about how we got here won't change how we got here.

@doj, you're right to some extent that Republicans and Democrats (the politicians, anyway) are very close to the same creature. My question is more generally aimed at Republican voters who seem to believe that Republicans stand for fiscal conservatism because Republican politicians say they stand for fiscal conservatism without ever explaining how they intend to enforce fiscal discipline while lowering tax revenues.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/25/2010 2:31:00 PM:

kj, I understood your premise. I was just thinking that maybe it is time for the British to burn Washington again.

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/25/2010 3:25:00 PM:

KJ, where do you think B-Rock is borrowing Obama-bucks from - CHINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmmmm-"reckless deregulation" = Fannie/Freddie run by Barney 'Fun Bags" Frank, and Chris "I didn't take a sweetheart mortgage deal" Dodd.
"laissez-faire attitude to corporate America" - why don't you write B-Rock a letter and demand he give back the millions of dollars in campaign contributions he took from BP, GE, etc.
"lowering taxes means more tax revenue" - yes it does, and do you really want to take money out of your family's bank account to pay for more entitlements, wait, you are probably dumb enough to say yes.
You, as Barry, don't have a clue as to how a healthy economy functions. More taxes mean less jobs. Less taxes means that those who hire (evil corporate America) have more working capital to offer jobs to those who are qualified.
Please, kj, tell me you are some idealogical college student who has yet to have to provide for themselves, or someone on government assistance, otherwise Willowbrook has a room waiting for you and Hope.

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/25/2010 3:25:00 PM:

Republicans will "cut taxes and reduce government spending." Let's see, when have I heard that before?

Oh yeah - EVERY ELECTION EVER.

And when has it happened?

NEVER.

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/25/2010 3:31:00 PM:

Pat Henry, one of the only things Bush was successful at was cutting taxes for rich people and corporations. By the end of his presidency, the tax cuts were still in effect and the economy was circling the drain.

Explain.

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/25/2010 4:16:00 PM:

Nasal-I justify it by this. First, as I said earlier-Bush is not the standard bearer for conservatives. Secondly, I'll use a statement by a member of the CLINTON administration to support my point.
" The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues." - Christopher Frenze, Chief Economist to the Vice Chairman (from the Congressional Joint Economic Committee - April 1996).
Now, tax cuts were enacted at the beginning of the Reagan Presidency. Tax receipts had increased 50% by the end his administration. In 1980, inflation was at 13.5%, at the end of Reagan's second term it had dropped to 4.1%. Oh, and unemployment, tax cuts brought that problem down several points. Household income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan years.
You see, Nasal, when people are allowed to keep more of the money they earn, they willingly invest in society. Next time don't bring a palstic knife to a tank battle.

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/25/2010 4:21:00 PM:

Correction, Willowbrook cas called, Nasal, Hope, and KJ will be bunking together, ping-pong tonight, and vanilla pudding for dessert

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/25/2010 4:44:00 PM:

Now, tax cuts were enacted at the beginning of the Reagan Presidency.

That's right. The bill was called the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

Tax receipts had increased 50% by the end his administration.

That's because the ERTA tax cuts began to be rolled back almost immediately. Through the remainder of his term in office, Reagan signed into law ELEVEN tax increases. Even then, he ran huge deficits (which, to Republicans, only matter when Democrats are in office). That's because tax cuts lead to losses in tax revenue; which is what George H.W. Bush knew when he referred to Reagan's plan as "voodoo economics."

Now what was that about plastic knives?

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/25/2010 4:54:00 PM:

Here's your plastic knife, Nasal (WTH???), no economic policy will produce positive effects exclusively. However, point to ONE positive aspect of B-Rock's, uh policy, if that's what you want to call it.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/25/2010 5:30:00 PM:

Kent, I feel sorry for you, so I thought I'd add some figures for you to use in your arguments.
Net Jobs Gained or Lost 16 Months After Each Initiative
2003 Bush Tax Cuts--Gained (plus) +1.4 Million
2009 Obama Stimulus--- Lost (minus) -2.6 Million
Excluding Temporary Census Bureau Workers Hired in 2009-2010, net jobs lost under The Obama stimulus have actually been 2.9 Million
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
The above figures include all monthly revisions through May of 2010 and the net figure of census workers, hired and laid off. The number hired was 564,000 minus 225,000 laid off in June.
16 Month Comparison: Unemployment Rate
2009 Obama Stimulus 9.5%
2003 Bush Tax Cuts 5.7%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
Past, post-recession numbers have been not only been far better than these, the gains made, have come much sooner than these, without taking 1 penny of taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Claims that these present negative stats are less negative, than they were 16 months ago, is pathetic spin.
This proves one of two things. Either the administration didn't know what it was doing then, or it was intent on grabbing every dollar it could for redistribution, along with the enormous power it gives to government, and the votes it can buy.
Cost To Taxpayers
2003 Bush Tax Cuts---0
2009 Obama Stimulus---$862 billion
Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/25/2010 6:54:00 PM:

@doj-How many jobs were created when Bush asked for the 700 billion dollars that really got this depression going.
Revenue loss from Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 account for 1/4 of the current federal deficit, and by 2014, those cuts, if continued, will be responsible for 54% of our deficit.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/25/2010 7:05:00 PM:

hope, the figures speak for themselves. I didn't make them up. They are apart of the public record and I see no need for me to defend or deny them. The truth is that the recession was brought on by the greed of Wall street and world bankers, and various government bills that allowed them to feed that greed.

 

Article Comment td commented at 8/25/2010 7:30:00 PM:

Here is the problem with liberals DOJ - they don't offer good solutions for real problems. The only things they offer are blame and bad solutions.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/25/2010 7:56:00 PM:

Yeah td, they seem to conveniently forget that TARP was passed in the waning days of Bush's lame-duck presidency, by a majority Democrat Congress, or that that small amount was a drop in the bucket to what Obama and his congress have done for us. But, go ahead and blame Bush!! They deregulated the banks under Clinton, another Democrat.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/25/2010 7:58:00 PM:

@doj-After the GM encounter when you said they haven't come close to making a profit, I would have to say your figures are more fiction than facts. I would be a little leary of them, as in Bush.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/25/2010 8:13:00 PM:

hope, the references are there. Look it up yourself. As to the GM thing, go here.


http://grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/2010-04-22-Letter-to-Treasury-Department.pdf

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/26/2010 8:14:00 AM:

@td says the trouble with liberals is they don't have good solutions for real problems, left by Bush. The trouble with td's, they won't answer your questions. C'mon, how about Phil Gramm and DCI Co?

 

Article Comment kj commented at 8/26/2010 9:20:00 AM:

Yes, tax cuts that reduce high margin rates can increase tax revenues. But those marginal rate cuts that stimulated tax revenue were made in 80s. Further cuts to income tax rates have depressed revenue. Fiscal discipline was the order of the day in the mid 90s, but Republicans proved that was an aberration driven by their hatred of Clinton and the desire to see him achieve nothing during his presidency. Ironic how that backfired.

There's a lot of misinformation about cause and effect. And still, as yet, no specifics about how fiscal responsibility will actually happen or what it will look like from those preaching it. That's the other problem with today's conservatives: they don't have anything to offer the future. It's only the past that they care about, because they can't create anything and they have no ideas; but the past already exists and it can be misconstrued and exploited for political gain.

When a conservative has something to offer besides a handful each of wishes and excrement, I'll listen.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/26/2010 10:21:00 AM:

@td, or anybody, what's the Republicans alternative to Obama and the Democrats healthcare plan?

 

Article Comment frank commented at 8/26/2010 10:52:00 AM:

Question:
When does the blame game expire? I mean the Democrats have controlled Congress for 4 years and the executive branch for almost 2 years.

At what point does the party in control become responsible? How many years does it take? This is a serious question.

Hopeless, Nose, KJam, when is the state of the union officially no longer the result of Bumbling Bush and the GOP?

 

Article Comment melody commented at 8/26/2010 10:53:00 AM:

Hope, you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions if you'd get your news from FOX and conservative radio talkers. Was your question about the obamacare thing? The 3000 page bill that pelosi said it has to be passed so the dems could know what was in it? The one barry swore to you that it was not a tax and now he says it is a tax?? What a big joke you libs are!

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/26/2010 11:46:00 AM:

@frank-The damage left by Bush and the Republicans is still being assessed. It may take years, like the Iraq and Afghan wars, and to pull out of the depression that your good ole boy left for us to solve, without any help from the ones who caused it.

 

Article Comment frank commented at 8/26/2010 12:43:00 PM:

@Hopeless: The Democrats in Congress voted to enter into those wars. Don't they deserve just a little of your blame?

Another question:
Obama has gotten every program he asked for passed. He expanded TARP, Healthcare, FinReg, Cash for clunkers, first time home buyer credit, ditto for the appliances program, unemployment extension, aid to state employees, and other stimulus packages. Everything has been done that he wanted done, everything.

Now if his "Summer of Recovery" turns into a full blown depression as it appears to be doing, will that be Bush's fault too?

I really want to know when this guy will take responsibility for the job he is in. When does "The buck stop" on Obama's desk? With his approval ratings down to 35%, I think there are a lot more people on both sides of the isle that would like to know the answer to this as well.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/26/2010 1:29:00 PM:

If there was such a thing as chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

 

Article Comment gogetum commented at 8/26/2010 1:38:00 PM:

Hope, has anyone ever told you if your brain was in a j bird it would fly backwards? Those who are helping with the fight against the muslims over there are all going to vote for a Republican. The only one who voted for Barry was recently fired by Barry. What do you have to say about that? Now , Barry is trying to keep them from voting by not sending absentee ballots. Don't know about you but that makes me mad. You probably never served in the military, right??

 

Article Comment td commented at 8/26/2010 1:39:00 PM:

Several conservatives in Congress offered sensible cost cutting alternatives during the health care debate. None got out of committee - because the conservative alternatives were fimly opposed by democratic special interest groups like the trial lawyers and unions. Instead we got the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and other backroom deals that have nothing to do with health care but everything to do with bribery and pay-offs (excuse me - political negotiations).

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/26/2010 1:51:00 PM:

@td- would you please give us some of the cost cutting ideas offered by the Republicans.

 

Article Comment frank commented at 8/26/2010 1:52:00 PM:

@Hopeless: "such a thing as chapter 11 for politicians"

The Democrats are in full control. They can allow taxes to increase in the depths of recession if they want. The evil GOP can't do a thing to stop them.

Now are the Democrats ready to take responsibility for the consequences?

 

Article Comment melody commented at 8/26/2010 2:07:00 PM:

There you go again, hope , showing your ignorance by asking more goofy questions. You probably haven't head of the Fair Tax, right? Naturally you won't hear about it from chris chill up my leg matthews so try reading the Fair Tax book or just go to fairtax.org and check it out. There's a bill on the hill , HR 25 and S25 in the Senate. Guess who's in charge of the ways and means committee? None other than the rangle fellow who is probably going to get away with murder seeing he is black and a super liberal democrat. Let me know what you think about the Fair Tax after you read up on it. If you have any questions , I'd be glad to talk with you on the phone. Now, to answer the alternative for obama question of yours. The Repubs have a man called Herman Cain who would be a perfect alternative for barry. Let's hear what you think about Mr. Cain. Don't leave this thread until you do. You probably haven't heard of him, right? Do some research.

 

Article Comment kj commented at 8/26/2010 2:23:00 PM:

"Everything has been done that he wanted done, everything." Well, sort of. All of these programs contain a LOT of concessions to the minority party, who then contributed about 10 votes for all of the policies combined. Instead of getting what he wanted, what we got was weaker compromises on many of these bills that provide weaker benefits. For that you can definitely blame Democrats for continuing to reach across the aisle when it was obvious that a lot of these concessions were asked for in bad faith.

"The buck stops here" runs years behind the presidency in most policy matters. In some extraordinary cases it runs concurrently (real wars, environmental disasters) and in some extraordinary cases it runs even further behind than normal. I happen to think times of broad economic problems is one of the latter. There's a lot of argument about how you fix a collapse like this. It's important to distinguish between TARP and the stimulus package, for example. TARP was absolutely necessary to prevent a wider collapse. Our financial system came literally within hours of a complete and total meltdown that could have erased tens of trillions of dollars of value from Americans everyday and retirement portfolios. TARP was a response to prevent that from happening, and it did.

What TARP could not do was restore liquidity to the housing bubble created by years of unchecked systemic abuse (unchecked because of deregulation) by large Wall Street firms. The creation of that bubble was fueled by huge deficits and in turn fueled the phantom gains we saw in the economy through the Bush administration. Those weren't real gains, though, they were illusory. Unfortunately, the damage of 7 years isn't easily undone by simple (or even complex) policy changes. None of those policies--including the stimulus--were implemented instantaneously. It takes time for changes to work through the system. Blaming the sitting president for those policy changes not taking effect quickly enough, or doing enough, is rational to some degree. What's not rational is to try and blame the genesis of the current situation on the events since TARP.

"Now if his "Summer of Recovery" turns into a full blown depression as it appears to be doing, will that be Bush's fault too?"

I don't know. It's kind of like trying to stop a train by standing in front of it and pushing. If the train ends up being bigger than you thought, you're for sure guilty of acting in haste, but if it doesn't run over a few of the people that it would have had you done nothing, do you get some credit for that? If you don't manage to stop the train in an acceptable distance, is it then right that people suddenly blame you for the existence of the train?

 

Article Comment frank commented at 8/26/2010 2:56:00 PM:

@KJam: I'll take all that Bullsh-t as a NO. No we are not responsible for anything despite the fact that we hold the Presidency and a super majority in Congress. We will blame Bush from now until the cows come home. It ain't our dooin...uh unless somethin' good happens.

 

Article Comment observer2 commented at 8/26/2010 3:07:00 PM:

You're rigt there , frank. It was Obama who was always against the Bush surge in Iraq and bad mouthed him like a dog. However, now it's "look what I've done" I won the war and the troops are coming home. Truth is , it was all GW's plan and now BO wants the credit. When he is leaving 50000 troops there, it's hard to believe the war is over though. I have a friend who left for Iraq last month as a civilian employee. He'll be there a year doing little or nothing. Says it's the eaisiest 200 grand he'll ever get in one year, tax free too.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/26/2010 3:26:00 PM:

Man... I have been watching this partisan politics thing run on and on, get deeper and deeper, and stray farther from the subject. I have lost track of the subject matter. The title of "Why liberalism is bad for America" is somewhat misleading in light of what Cameron's letter is about. Why don't y'all go to the referenced article, and start over? "Republicans have hot, cold feelings on Constitution," by Ben Evans http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71444

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/26/2010 4:58:00 PM:

@all you people that are negative about President Obama and the Democrats policies, would you mind telling us why you think they got elected?

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/26/2010 6:37:00 PM:

I don't know, hope. Mass hysteria or hallucination?

 

Article Comment melody commented at 8/26/2010 8:25:00 PM:

Stop with all the goofy questions, hope. It's obvious you're not paying attention. Roscoe will probably have you back again next year for the 3rd grade. ans: He got elected because the majority of liberals were sucked into voting for him in all those liberal states. Florida just barely supported him but that was because of all those dam yankees from NY who like to retire there. Please do more reading other than the dispatch web site and give us a break. Everytime we turn around you're asking something else off the wall. Hope that was helpful hope. Bless your heart.

 

Article Comment stormy commented at 8/27/2010 3:48:00 AM:

Melody,
Have I told you lately that I just love you, you have such a great way with words! You go Girl!!

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/27/2010 7:52:00 AM:

@frank, you say the Democrats voted to enter those wars, but Bush says, I'm the "DECIDER."
@observer2, so I should watch FOX. No thanks! Your comments are enough propaganda for me. Thank goodness reality is immune to FOX propaganda.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/27/2010 8:09:00 AM:

@observer2;I need to fine-tune an earlier comment. Thank goodness reality is immune to FOX or they would destroy America like the GOP destroyed our economy. Thanks for your patience!

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/27/2010 8:47:00 AM:

@observer2, you're the only one that I've heard say, we won the war in Iraq. Do you really believe we have won the war in Iraq, or is that just some more FOX propaganda?

 

Article Comment kj commented at 8/27/2010 10:35:00 AM:

@ Frank: Of course you'll take it as a "No." But don't worry, you're in no danger of surpassing my expectations.

 

Article Comment frank commented at 8/27/2010 11:25:00 AM:

Oh my, KJ I am crushed...NOT! ROTFL...

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/27/2010 11:33:00 AM:

Obama was elected because of dumb asses like Hope and KJ.

Cost cutting suggestions from a conservative - end government assistance for those who can assist themselves - end government assistance for ALL illegal immigrants - end financial contributions to the UN - put a moratorium on any future disbursements of the two Stimulus Bills, at least until all the BS has been reviewed and slashed by a Congressional committee (money to study cow farts is not stimulating the economy) - tell Pakistan, and any other Islamic country who hates us to cry to Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc next time there's a crisis and they want American dollars. Tell them to pund sand -
Companies have had to tighten the belt in many creative ways. THose who didn't are no longer with us, yet the Fed still spends money like a drunken sailor in Tijuana.

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/27/2010 11:40:00 AM:

I really like Frank's comment - when are you libs and your messiah going to own up to anything- Bush is gone, Cheney is gone, It's the B-Rock, Nancy P show now, you guys sound like sniveling little kids who never can accept responsibility for anything, but want to claim victory for things that you didn't have a damn thing to do with. B-Rock votes against the war in Iraq, ctiticizes the surge, and uses the war as the clarion call of his campaign, now he actually has the dumb arrogance to claim it as a success for himself - Barry = Fail

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/27/2010 11:41:00 AM:

Hope, what are YOU personally doing to solve anythig?

 

Article Comment kj commented at 8/27/2010 1:45:00 PM:

"end government assistance for those who can assist themselves"

So does that include the extra money (twice as much as we pay in taxes) that the state of Mississippi gets from the federal government?

You managed to name one specific cut: financial contributions to the U.N. The rest is just conservo-babble.

 

Article Comment pat henry commented at 8/27/2010 2:04:00 PM:

kj, the planets have aligned!!!! You and I actually agree on something. As a strong believer in the sovreignty of the individual states, I'm all for the state of Mississippi telling the Fed to take their money and their input and stuff it.

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/27/2010 3:50:00 PM:

@DOJ two days ago (been busy): post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. Using that fallacy you could use your same figures to "prove" that the Bush tax cuts caused the present unemployment.

One thing it's hard to dispute is that Bush's approval ratings were in the low 20's when he left office, and that disillusionment with the way the Republicans were running things led to the Democrats' sweep in 2008. Now, if the Republicans were doing such a great job with their free tax cuts and bustling economy, why did they lose so badly in the last elections?

 

Article Comment sharp nasal kent commented at 8/27/2010 3:56:00 PM:

Obama inherited a bad economy and two wars from Bush.

Scanning the comments I see that the economy belongs to Obama, but the wars belong to Bush.

I guess when the economy recovers it will belong to Bush, and if the wars go downhill they will suddenly belong to Obama.

Figures.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/27/2010 4:55:00 PM:

Kent, you are using square logic in your equivotion. Your statement concerning the published government figures is an arguement from ignorance. What do you take me for...a Republican? Or worse, a Democrat?

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/27/2010 4:57:00 PM:

Kent, you are using square logic in your equivocation. Your statement concerning the published government figures is an argument from ignorance. What do you take me for...a Republican? Or worse, a Democrat?

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/27/2010 5:44:00 PM:

@kent...I take responsibility my errors, as evidenced above. I may not always be right, but I am seldom wrong.

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/27/2010 9:42:00 PM:

@pat henry, what am I personally doing to change anything? I'm pleading with everybody that I come in contact with:DON'T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN!

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/27/2010 10:10:00 PM:

@hope... Don't vote along party lines. Vote for the individual (Democrat, Republican or other) you think will best preserve the American way of life.

 

Article Comment doj commented at 8/27/2010 10:18:00 PM:

Hey Kent, Bush retired from public office nearly two years ago. Give it a rest! You can't do anything about the past. Look to the future...what's left of it!!!

 

Article Comment hope commented at 8/29/2010 9:04:00 AM:

How many jobs were created when Bush asked for the $700 billion?----------------A minus 9 million and still counting.

 

Article Comment common sense commented at 9/8/2010 11:06:00 PM:

I am sick of hearing how "everyone ha the right to own a home". NO!!! Everyone has the right to get a job and provide for THEMSELVES! Get rid of welfare! And yes I know everyone can meet with hard times and I am not opposed to paying taxes to help someone thru that but I am sick of paying for people that demand more and more and are too lazy to do anything other than complain about how someone needs to give them more. GET A JOB!

 

back to top

 

 

Most Viewed Opinion Stories

 

1. Lynn Spruill: A city Halloween policy? LOCAL COLUMNS

2. Voice of the people: Gerald and Alice Scallions LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (VOICE@CDISPATCH.COM)

3. Thomas Sowell: Predatory journalism NATIONAL COLUMNS

 

More popular content      Suggest a story

 

 

Follow Us:

Follow Us on Facebook

Follow Us on Twitter

Follow Us via Instagram

Follow Us via Email