Tea Party events coming April 15 to PTC and Newnan

This time last year a small handful of people in Fayette and Coweta counties decided to mirror similar efforts planned across America by protesting their dissatisfaction with the federal government at Tea Party rallies on April 15. Hundreds attended the local rallies.

Now with local mailing lists totaling a few thousand, the South Atlanta Tea Party Patriots, the Coweta Tea Party and the Fayette/Coweta 9.12 Patriots will be holding events again this year on April 15 in Peachtree City and Newnan.

The Peachtree City event will be held from 12-1:30 p.m. at Drake Field adjacent to Peachtree City Hall and Lake Peachtree. The event will feature radio talk show host Herman Cain.

The 2010 Tax Day Rally in Newnan will be held at Greenville Park from 12-1:30 p.m. The rally will kick off with live music followed by speaker Virginia Galloway, state Director for Americans for Prosperity, and comments from State Representative Billy Horne, State Senator Mitch Seabaugh and local businessman Rob Brass. Attendees are encouraged to bring tasteful protest signs and flags.

Fayette County’s South Atlanta Tea Party is the new name for the Southern Crescent Tea Party Patriots. The non-profit South Atlanta Tea Party is a grassroots non-partisan group concerned with the direction the country is headed. For more information on the organization and transportation to the rally later April 15 in Atlanta visit www.southatlantateaparty.org

The Coweta Tea Party is a non-partisan, non-profit social welfare organization dedicated to furthering the common good and general welfare of the people of the United States. CTP furthers this goal by educating the public and promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. CTP has not endorsed candidates for public office. Visit www.cowetateaparty.org for information on the organization and the Atlanta rally April 15.

The Fayette-Coweta 9.12 Patriots is a grassroots non-partisan organization of fiscally and socially conservative citizens dedicated to returning America to its founding constitutional principles. For more information visit www.fc912patriots.com.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Hey Hutch...
hutch866 wrote:

What's that pet phrase that snif uses, oh yeah, selective outrage, that's the one, I guess Dm has that. She never said a word when ol' snif was calling someone a punk 10 times or so in a post, nothing to say to him today either, go figure.

Hutch, before your righteous indignation goes supernova, you might want to revisit the entire flow of the thread. You may note that Lindsey threw a gratuitous insult about my "performance"...I simply threw his line back at him. I notice YOU never said anything about the original insult from Lindsey.

I know many conservatives feel justified in insulting their political opponents and are outraged...OUTRAGED, DAMMIT... when liberals respond in kind. They expect liberals to "turn the other cheek" and sing kumbayah and all that in the name of "bipartisanship".

Some people can dish it out, but can't take it.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Snif

I guess you are snif, or bas or Locke or Bacon,since you answer for him. Why the changes? I wasn't being righteous or indignant,and I wasn't passive agressive before when I pointed out you didn't give SL your schedule like you did Darth( of course SL is a mite bigger then ol' Darth) just pointing out something, and maybe tweaking your nose a little. When we get to the can't take it place, wasn't it you threatening a lawsuit once if someone didn't take it back. Just sayin.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Lindsey Lesson Learned

I hope this episode serves as an important lesson for you. Perhaps in the future you will not be so eager to rely upon the judgments of partisan organizations such as Heritage to make your opinions for you. Thinking for yourself is a skill I hope to see you develop in the future.

By now, I hope you have reconsidered your hasty opinion that the $123 billion in "government waste" could "easily" be cut from the budget.

Yes, you theoretically COULD cut the entire $123 billion from the federal government, but to do so would require cutting $48 billion dollars from Veterans programs. This, of course, would not be popular from a political standpoint.

I've made my point and will exit this thread now. I realize you have some sad need to get the last word in, and I expect you to use this opportunity to once again "declare victory" over me.

I'll let other people decide for themselves who has been, shall we say, "less than honest" in this thread.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well EXIT stage left..Sniffle

"I've made my point and will exit this thread now. I realize you have some sad need to get the last word in, and I expect you to use this opportunity to once again "declare victory" over me."

Yes we all see your point..

and I guess if responding to your post is "getting" in the last word then I guess you are finally correct.

I can't help but notice you failed to answer any of the other things I brought up and failed to even defend your own assertion about using "reference" material, but it was to be expected.

Like I said.. I KNOW YOU

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
We??

WE could easily start here.. and in fact we will.

Who is 'We'? And how will 'We' do it?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Well Bacon

While you are waiting for SL's response why don't you tell us which budget bucket(s) should benefit from an additional $1 trillion of borrowed money? Talk about deficit spending.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Help me out here, cyclist...
Cyclist wrote:

While you are waiting for SL's response why don't you tell us which budget bucket(s) should benefit from an additional $1 trillion of borrowed money? Talk about deficit spending.

What are you talking about when you say "an additional $1 trillion of borrowed money"?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Don't hold you're breath waiting on sniffles

for an answer.. Oh he's good at making a lot of noise but actually backing it up..well he is lacking in the performance department.. if you know what I mean.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Lindsey
S. Lindsey wrote:

for an answer.. Oh he's good at making a lot of noise but actually backing it up..well he is lacking in the performance department.. if you know what I mean.

Your mother never had any complaints about me in the performance department... if you know what I mean.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
There's the SNIFFLE I was trying to bring out..

Can I call you dad?

Being 6'6" and the rest of my family barely touching 6' I knew a bull jumped the fence somewhere..

Welcome back.. Are you going to change your name back?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist - Taxes often = Services

And federal, state, and local budgets are being cut dramatically - to keep taxes low. And everyone is whining. Are Americans willing to sacrifice to correct this mess? Are there any creative thinkers in America that can show that sacrifice will = improvement?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
DM

The federal budget is being cut dramatically??? I thought we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago. Remember "bleak". As for state and local budgets in decline; it's not about keeping taxes low it's about not spending more than revenue.

I do find it interesting that flim flam Geithner has said the current federal deficit is not sustainable.

BTW, increasing taxes to cover the US deficit of $1.1 trillion; how about increasing taxes federal taxes by 30% to make up the difference.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

ENJOY PARIS!! We won't settle this mess - and yes, I remember 'bleak'. Difficult to increase federal income taxes, when for too many there's no income to tax. Hope you're out walking and enjoying the sights - and just using your BB to catch up on this nonsense!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Definition of conservative

Just wanted to share the Dictionary.com definition of 'conservative'.

con·serv·a·tive
   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.
(often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.
(initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.
having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7.
Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8.
a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9.
a supporter of conservative political policies.
10.
(initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Liberal Hypocrisy

"Eliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would violate and destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check on the executive. The elimination of the filibuster would reduce any incentive for a President to consult with home-State Senators or seek the advice of the Senate on lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary. It is a leap not only toward one-party rule and absolute majoritarianism in the Senate but to an unchecked executive."--Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), Congressional Record, April 6, 2005

"Look, the Constitution says that 51 senators can confirm somebody. It doesn't require 60 senators. I don't think there's going to be any kind of a filibuster. You know, this last year we had about 100 and some-odd filibusters that--totally unprecedented. Actually, that's the lazy person's way out. The American people pay us and, and elect us to vote yes or no, not to vote maybe. Every time you have a filibuster, you're saying, 'I'm not going to vote yes or no, I'm going to vote maybe.' That's irresponsible."--Leahy, "Meet the Press," April 11, 2010

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Kawfi

The only Supreme candidate I can think of who the republican senators would vote for would be Sarah Palin!

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
Bonkers: One more candidate...

Mike Pence

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Pence, Why yes!!

but they want to win, I think!
He is a Christian, conservative republican, wants the Jews out of Palestine, no laws to protect sexual orientation choices, no amnesty for illegals but wants them here with labor permits, wants more fences at Mexican border, wants big tax cuts for corporations and the very rich, doesn't like Katrina spending, no stem cell research to cure anything, no pork barrels, no date out of Iraq, ever, keep Guantanamo prisoners at least ten more years THERE, no gambling, and he is supported by Eastern Indiana (Kentucky border!) and Limbaugh and Ingraham!

Sounds TEA and red-nek to me!

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
I love rednecks!

Bonkers are you dissing the rednecks? They provide free entertainment (ever see a tractor pull?) LOL!

I think Congressman Pence will play a major role and yes if he runs it will be a landslide victory for this Congressman.

And I will go out on a limb to say that in future years look for Congressman Paul Ryan but in the meantime check out his www.americaroadmap.org site. HE'S BRILLIANT!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Congressman Paul Ryan?

Why yes, a wonderful fellow:

Wants to terminate children's insurance program--issue vouchers begged for.
Privatized social security---401-k's I assume.
Replace Medicare, Retirees buy own insurance.
Wants a flat tax 10% (EXXON could pay 10% not 35%
Across the board tax reduction.
No capital gains taxes, investment taxes, interest taxes.
No corporate tax if so small.
No estate tax (none now up to a million) who is that for?

What are the states supposed to do without federal money as grants?
I know, raise their own taxes for roads, dams, bridges, unemployment, schools, even the army!

He should have proposed a "chicken in every pot," every day as did Hoover.
Or "let them eat cake," as did Marie.

There is a gray area between socialism and no central government.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Conservative Hypocrisy

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
"Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote...Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday that he would not rule out employing a filibuster to block Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee despite having vehemently opposed the use of the parliamentary procedure over judicial appointments four years ago.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff.. Do you want to compare the Democrats record on that one?

Being BORKED adds a whole new meaning to the term..

Remember this one..

"A quick Senate session blocks Bush appointees
By Damon Sims
May 23, 2008, 4:46PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is famed for its longwinded debates, but on Friday it took Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown just seconds to stop Republicans in their tracks.
With the Senate entering the first day of its Memorial Day recess, the Ohio senator was briefly in the chair, before a near-empty chamber, to gavel in and gavel out what is called a pro forma session. Without that procedural move, the Senate would technically be adjourned and President Bush could install administration officials or judges as "recess appointments" - without Senate confirmation."

Come on Jeff Politics is a contact sport you are only Hypocritical if you are a conservative?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Sure SL, I'll compare records

Thank God Bork got Borked! And no way about the hypocrisy being limited. Its just with Joe, every political deal is a bribe, every political statement is hypocrisy, every unlegislated promise is a lie.

Ready to compare?

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
"I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/12/05]

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)

"By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition...The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word 'filibuster.' Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

"It's important to note that the Constitutional option is still on the table. If one of the president's nominees is filibustered at any point in the future, I will support the Senate leadership's implementation of the Constitutional option. [...] All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." [Brownback.Senate.gov, "Brownback Statement on Judicial Nominees," 5/24/05]

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. [...] I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote." [Bunning.Senate.gov, "The Duty To Vote Up-Or-Down," 5/29/05]

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

"If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman's agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took [...] What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

"But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/20/05]

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) & Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

"We both wholeheartedly support discussion and debate regarding judicial nominees. It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision. [...] Like many Americans, we believe that our nation's judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty." [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, "Filibusters obstruct the Senate's duty," 5/24/09]
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

"For the first 214 years of our nation's history, the president has been able to nominate judges and expect that those nominees would receive the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. During this time, the Senate operated within its Constitutional 'advice and c onsent' role. The president would nominate judges of his choice with advice from the Senate. The Senate would then either consent and confirm that nominee by a majority vote or reject that nominee...In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn't like the judicial philosophy of one of President Bush's nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster. Never before in American history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote." [Coburn.Senate.gov, "President Bush's Nominees Deserve a Vote," 5/11/05]

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)

"There should be no question in anyone's mind about my intentions. I will work in concert with our leader, and with the distinguished Majority Whip, Mr. McConnell, to end filibusters of judicial nominations in the Senate." [Cochran.Senate.gov, "Senator Thad Cochran Announces Support," 4/14/05]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

"I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President's nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]

"And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat... We need a permanent solution to this problem. And I believe it should be along the lines that I suggested, that each president's nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote." [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees," 5/9/05]

. Mike Crapo (R-ID)

"I think it should be clarified to the American people that the fact we are now seeing a filibuster sustained against nominees of the President turns the Constitution on its head and begins a very dangerous precedent with regard to how the nominees for the judicial branch are treated by this Senate." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

"We are pleased that three of the President's judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes - it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." [Craig/Crapo Press Release: "Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal," 5/25/05]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

"How can I advise and consent without the ability to cast a vote? Forty-one senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. In 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations - all had bipartisan, majority support. This was unprecedented. [...] We need to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees, which is why I have urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to consider the constitutional option. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct." [The State via Demint.Senate.gov, "It's Time for Votes on Judicial Nominees," 5/22/05]

"My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote," [US Fed News "Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters," 4/20/05]

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)

"We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/11/05]

Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)

"One has to wonder what Justice Marshall would think about what is going on in the Senate today. Would he agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is all right to put partisan politics and partisan bickering ahead of the rights of judicial nominees if those impacted are just a small fraction of society. Would he agree with them that justice denied for a few was acceptable? Or would he hold true to the basic tenets of the Constitution that all men are created equal and that everyone has the right to their day in court? [...] I think this is wrong, and I sincerely hope we move off this obstructionism and have an up or down vote on these highly qualified individuals, whose talents, experience and integrity can easily be considered the ideal for what we want in judges. [...] If you don't agree with them, or feel they are not qualified, then vote against them. That is your prerogative and duty as a Senator. But do not continue to deny justice for the nominees or the courts any longer." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

"History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor." [Grassley.Senate.gov, "Talking Judges to Death," 5/8/05]

"The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It's high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/23/05]

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)

"'There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago... It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers' intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison." [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]

"From a constitutional perspective, judicial nominations have the right to an up or down vote in the Senate, and the filibustering of these nominations is inconsistent with over 200 years of tradition in the Senate and distorts our system of checks and balances." [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

"All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]

"...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." [NPR, "Orrin Hatch Discusses Debate in Senate," 5/19/05]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

"In all these cases, she had a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation, but she is not on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today. Why? Because her nomination is being filibustered by Democrats, and she has been held to a standard of 60 votes instead of 51. That is changing the Constitution of the United States. [...] It is not the rule that is being changed in this debate. It is the precedent of the Senate, for 200 years, that was changed in the 108th Congress, by requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges. And we are now looking to reaffirm the will of the Senate to do exactly what the Constitution envisions; and that is, a 51-vote majority for judges. Two hundred years of Senate precedent is being torn apart. Through Democrat majority control and Republican majority control over the years-the filibuster was not used as it was in the last session of Congress." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]

"They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush's nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve." [San Antonio Express-News, "Senate showdown looms on judges," 4/22/2005]

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)

"But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution," Inhofe said. [Senate Floor Speech, 3/11/03]

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)

"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. [...] This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05]

"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote... These men and women are great Americans who have devoted their lives to public service, universally regarded for their intelligence and integrity...Calling them names like 'radical' and 'extreme' is a partisan affront not only to them personally but also to the voters who have supported them and organizations like the American Bar Association that have declared them well suited for the bench " [Capitol Hill Press Releases "Kyl Calls for 'Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/18/05]

"No. It's not a religious debate at all. I know that some of the media have portrayed it as such. I think that both Democrats and Republicans are talking to all kinds of folks, but I know because Sen. Durbin and I have both discussed this in the Judiciary Committee that neither of us believe that there should be any religious litmus test. This isn't about religion at all. This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

"Well, as a member of the bar, it's not my inclination to criticize justices by name or even decisions that they've rendered except on the merits. I don't agree with all the decisions of the Supreme Court. But it is wrong to believe that because people of faith happen to disagree with pronouncements of the Supreme Court and choose to call some of those decisions arrogant to therefore suggest that they don't have a part to play in the national debate. Again, let's not get focused on that issue. It has nothing to do with the rules of the Senate and changing 214 years of tradition here in the United States Senate. That's following a tangent that's really not relevant to the debate that we're going to be focused on here." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

"Just quickly respond to one point here: There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee that had majority support in the history of the United States Senate. The incident that was mentioned by Sen. Durbin was a situation in which Trent Lott - the then majority leader - worked with Tom Daschle the then minority leader to be sure that two controversial choices of President Clinton got a vote up or down on the Senate floor. And we voted to allow them to have a vote. Now I voted for one of the candidates and I voted against one of the candidates. That's what we ought to allow here is an up or down vote. But we didn't stop those candidates from being voted on. They're sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals right now." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Gwen Ifill (PBS): "Well, let's talk about what Sen. Durbin just outlined in which the Democrats would allow debate only on the issues which they cared about and they would basically close off debate on anything else. What do you think about that approach?" Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, I don't think it's productive obviously. And it kind of reminds me of the schoolyard bully. When the umpire makes a call against him, he picks up his ball and goes away. I don't think the American people will really appreciate that. [...] But what my colleague is talking about is using among other things the legislative filibuster. That's not going to go away. Senators want their right to filibuster. And they'll have it. But what would occur as a result of the question that will be asked to the presiding officer in this debate is basically, is it the tradition of the Senate to have an up or down vote to give these nominees an up or down vote with the majority vote prevailing or is the last two years the real precedent of the Senate to require 60 votes? And I think that the presiding officer will say no the tradition of the Senate has been that a majority vote prevails." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, I'll tell you what is shutting down the judiciary is not filling vacancies. We have according to the commission on the courts several emergency judicial emergencies, situations in which we need to put judges in to vacant positions. They're not -- we're not being able to act on them. It really is true that justice delayed is justice denied. So we need to give these judges an up or down vote. That's all we're asking for, and if some of my colleagues think that they're too conservative or in some other way unqualified then vote against them." Gwen Ifill (PBS): "And should there be legislative oversight over individual judicial decisions?" Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "I don't think the Constitution allows us judicial oversight over individual decisions. Our authority under the Constitution is to define the jurisdiction of certain of the courts. That's really the only thing I think that constitutionally we can do. Now, I mean obviously we could change federal laws that the court has made pronouncements on." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)

"As part of my duties as Senator, according to the Constitution, I have the obligation to provide 'advise and consent' on judicial nominees. I am unable to fulfill this duty when qualified judicial nominees are denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor [...] It is an integral part of maintaining a high-caliber judiciary that nominees are treated fairly and with respect. If we continue down this path and leave nominees in limbo for years - as has become common practice - we will be unable to recruit high-level attorneys to leave private practice and serve our federal judiciary. These people deserve their vote on the Senate floor." [Martinez.Senate.gov, "Judicial Nominees Deserve An Up Or Down Vote," 5/19/05]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

"Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.' [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

"What we're talking about here is not the filibuster rule overall, but getting back to the practice of allowing judicial appointments for judge candidates who have a majority support in the Senate to have an up or down vote." [CBS News, The Osgood File, 4/25/05]

"...I don't want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader. What is unprecedented is the fact that the Senate, for the first time in 200 years, last Congress chose to filibuster judges for the purpose of defeating them. That had never been done before in the history of the Senate. That's what's new...What Senate Republicans are contemplating doing and what I think they should do is to get us back to the precedents that were established prior to the last Congress, in which judicial appointments were given an up-or-down - that is, a majority - vote." [Fox News Sunday, 3/27/05]

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

"I take very seriously my obligation under the Constitution to provide the advice and consent to the judicial nominations of individuals who are nominated by the President to serve on the Federal bench. I have heard repeatedly over the hours the term 'rubberstamp,' there is a rubberstamp approval. Those on my side of the aisle would automatically take the President's nominees. I do not take part of my job to mean that my vote is intended to be a rubberstamp of approval for the President's nominations to these critical judicial positions. I am frustrated that after serving in the Senate for almost a year, and contrary to what some Members may assert, the Senate has not been permitted to vote up or down on the merits, on the qualifications of the individuals who are embroiled in this current dispute. Rather, we have been prevented, I have been prevented as a Member of the Senate, as an individual, from voting for or against a nomination by a legislative procedure, legislative procedural rules unique to this body." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

"Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/23/05]

"This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster," 3/15/05]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)

"As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President's nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them. Federal judges are invested with extensive power and are given lifetime tenure. Therefore, I pay particularly close attention to the records, backgrounds, and philosophical views of all judicial nominees prior to voting. Given the tremendous shortage of federal judges, it is my hope that the Senate will move quickly to confirm judicial appointments." [Shelby.Senate.gov, "Issue Statements: Judiciary," accessed 4/15/2009]

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

"Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/05]

"You're getting my dander up now. It's not only Estrada; it is a new standard. If this sticks, if the filibuster sticks, it will mean that you will have to have 60 votes for any nominee. We are really changing the constitutional design of what it takes to basically nominate and approve any judge." [Fox News Sunday, 03/03/03]

Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

"I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor." [Thune.Senate.gov, "Senator Thune statement on judicial nominee compromise," 5/23/05]

"According to the Constitution, the President is entitled to nominate the individuals he desires to have on the courts, and we in the Senate must determine whether the nominee is fit and qualified. There should be no ideological litmus test for nominees. If a nominee is fit and qualified, he or she should be confirmed." [Senate Floor Speech, 9/28/05]

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

"This issue is primarily one of fairness to these individual nominees. As stated by our Majority Leader on numerous occasions, this chamber can confirm or reject nominees, and we will accept the outcome. We insist, however, on a yes or no vote on judicial nominees. [...] I think that every nominee deserves a vote. It's a matter of fairness." [Vitter.Senate.gov, "Vitter Supports Senate Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/19/05]

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)

"Comparing the Senate now to the Senate prior to the 108th Congress when filibustering of judicial nominations first occurred, I have to say that I think the old system was a lot better than what we saw in the 108th Congress. Under that system, a nominee who had the support of a majority of Senators, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, would get an up-or-down vote after review of the nominee's record and a robust debate. That was the fair way to proceed. It has been that way many times. It has been that way, as a matter of fact, for 214 years. No judicial nominee sent to the Senate floor who had the support of a majority of Senators was denied an up-or-down vote. There were no judicial filibusters. Thus, I do not consider the constitutional option as a change in the rules but a restoration of a Senate tradition, the tradition that filibusters." [Senate Floor Speech, 05/19/05]

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
JEFF C

Welcome home!! Very informative post.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
For the sake of brevity I will forgo the naming of names

"On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony.[6] There was immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice.[7][8] Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was "trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation."[9]
From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[10] However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlledSenate Judiciary Committee.[11]
With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad,Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress."

Sorry for the C&P time is short right now..

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Obama ratings hit new low.....

Obama Job Approval

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 3/25-4/11 -- 46.3 47.0 -0.7
Gallup 4/9-4/11 45 48 -3
Rasmussen Reports 4/9-4/11 48 51 -3
FOX News 4/6-4/7 43 48 -5
CBS News 3/29-4/1 44 41 +3
USA Today/Gallup 3/26-3/28 47 50 -3
Marist 3/25-3/29 46 43 +3
CNN/Opinion Research 3/25-3/28 51 48 +3

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
MOC,LINDSEY,HUTCH

You were absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong. Thanks.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm.. Thanks for the correction

We all make mistakes from time to time.. Just when everyone points them out not all are trying to be know it alls..

americanpatriots
americanpatriots's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/05/2010
Bonkers comment

The only spelling error I found was your spelling "patroits" - the correct spelling is patriots! Were you smoking something or having an adult beverage when you wrote that blog?

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Americanpatroits

It was my intention to see if some could tell the difference!

However some errors are not ignorance, just carelessness. But to deliberately form a web page to convince others of your points and have so many errors on it and a sentence that is non-comprehensible, shows even less care!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Tea Parties

Why do they need so many names for their tea parties? I thought they weren't "parties," but just arisen people.

Anyway I check the web site of the "Fayette-Coweta 9.12 Patroits," And on the Home Page alone was found 4 misspelled words and the last sentence made no sense!

Better be careful of this bunch! Even Dr. Paul wouldn't be interested, I don't think!

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
So Bonkers and DM only believe eloquent writers and speakers

should have opinions! If you can't spell...you better not have an opinion, or try to assemble to protect your individual rights. Oh, that's right...you couldn't possibly understand your rights if you can't spell. So you should just sit down and shut up! The Liberals will do all the thinking and talking for you. It'll be alright...."Trust Them!"

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
1bighammer

Certainly you can find a better retort than 'spelling'. We do have young people who MAY be reading this - and the use of the spell checker is not difficult. My statement pretty clearly states that labels should not be used to divide us - but our ideologies/philosophies should be used to provide us with the best government possible - not one that relies on who has the best sound-bite or comeback. All ideas should be viewed and considered. . . even yours and mine.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Dm you and bonkers said it

not me. You two couldn't find anything of substance to ding them on other than spelling! Your always spouting off about not being divided, "we must work together" I think is your favorite statement. Well they are saying that too...right on their website! The problem is that they don't want to work together to dismantle America like you Liberals do, they want to work together to make us strong and prosperous again.

There lies the problem Liberals think our strength and prosperity comes from Government not the PEOPLE!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hammer?

There lies the problem Liberals think our strength and prosperity comes from Government not the PEOPLE!

Really? I consider myself a moderate/liberal. I was not supportive of what happened under the 'conservative' regime of the previous administration - nor were the majority of American citizens. The persons who want to work TOGETHER to bring prosperity and strength back to our country - I hope they do get together - and distance themselves from the fringe groups that have attached themselves to the Tea/Coffee Party movements. Hammer - we the people are the government. Let's get representatives that actually represent US and not the corporations! The banks have paid back their 'loans' and have refused to work with persons who need assistance with keeping their homes. The rhetoric about 'helping' is just that. Why can't they lower interest rates so that those who are unemployed can keep their homes? Oh well. . . anything to prevent American strength and prosperity. . . and regain the White House . . .eh?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM some shall we say shortcomings in your post

1st.. Bush was a Progressive and the Republicans went over the line towards Liberalism.. No where would anyone call the Bush term as a Conservative one..
Now Reagan you could consider it one..

2nd.. People made bad loans.. People screwed up.. Why is it my responsibility to "help out" those that made bad choices? Failure is LIFE.. One must be allowed to fail for one to grow.. Did you never allow "David" to fail?

3rd.. Let me get this straight.. You want the Banks to take a risk by lowering their rates to "help out".. Isn't that what got us into this mess after all?

4th.. and finally your last line assault implies someone is at fault I can safely assume you mean the Republicans.. Just how have they stopped anything DM.. They are not in POWER.. The Dems hold both Houses and the Presidency.

Anyway my 2cents worth..

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

People made bad loans.. People screwed up.. Why is it my responsibility to "help out" those that made bad choices? Failure is LIFE.. One must be allowed to fail for one to grow.. Did you never allow "David" to fail?

The persons that I know did not make a 'bad' loan. THEY LOST THEIR JOB!! The financial industry should cooperate - with fiscally sound loans - but people without a job can't even apply. Small business loans would help so that people could be rehired . . . States should accept grants so that people can go back to work!
Whose at fault? WE THE PEOPLE - for allowing this to happen BECAUSE OUR 401's were doing great; we had a job; we had enough to 'save' for the future. We ignored the tragedy of Enron, etc. - since it didn't affect US. No simple answers here - but we can't continue more of the same . . tax refunds are helping; economy is moving ever so slowly 'up'. A decision, what can Americans agree to 'sacrifice' during these difficult times? What I hear you and others saying is: I made wise decisions/I still have my job/ don't bother me with trying to help out with a small increase in tax - it's not my responsibility.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hammer

How is the resurgence of the 'southern' strategy bringing us together? What about 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' do you not understand? WE have given our power over to private enterprise, corporations, and lobbyists by not VOTING. People throughout the world have died for the right to vote - and we appear to take it lightly. We did better in 2008 - and we'll do better in 2012. Georgia and other states can try all they want to limit the number of legal voters - but the law will win - and all legal residents will be able to vote throughout the United States. If you think there was a 'get out the vote' effort in 2008, just wait until 2012 when there will be more 18 year old voters who have watched carefully what divisive measures have been used to separate the American public.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
What are you talking about?
Davids mom wrote:

How is the resurgence of the 'southern' strategy bringing us together? What about 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' do you not understand? WE have given our power over to private enterprise, corporations, and lobbyists by not VOTING. People throughout the world have died for the right to vote - and we appear to take it lightly. We did better in 2008 - and we'll do better in 2012. Georgia and other states can try all they want to limit the number of legal voters - but the law will win - and all legal residents will be able to vote throughout the United States. If you think there was a 'get out the vote' effort in 2008, just wait until 2012 when there will be more 18 year old voters who have watched carefully what divisive measures have been used to separate the American public.

I haven't mentioned anything about Limtiting peoples right to vote, or who voted. But now that YOU brought it up I will. Your are right about on e thing, people for the most part have become complacent about voting. Hopefully there will be more people voting this fall and in 2012.

However, I think most 18 yr olds are ill-equipped to vote meaningfully in this country. Most of the 18 yr olds that voted for Obama had no clue who he really was or what he was really about, it was the "in" thing to do. Many of their votes were more a result of their buy in of the media hype than their knowledge of the candidate. At 18 yrs old there are few individuals who have taken the time to find out about our candidates. Our schools have bought in to the notion that everything must be for the good of the group, no individualism, that might offend someone. I'm not surprised that we are where we are now, this generation expecting to have the right to everything anyone else has although they didn't earn it.

The vast majority of 18 yr olds don't carefully watch anything that has to do with politics, they simply go with the loudest and flashiest candidate that promises the most goodies!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hammer

We'll see. The 18 year old of today will be 22 in 2014. Hmmmmmm. This Marxist, Socialist, Muslim, Black Theologian Christian, Communist, Kenyan that is currently described by some as our president is being judged by his actions - (bringing world leaders together; respected throughout the world; turning a failing economy around; (which Bush had started) finally going after Bin Laden; - achievements which are overlooked by a right-wing group in this country who have vowed that this administration will FAIL at any cost! (Including the loss of strength and prosperity of the American citizen) I believe you may have graduated from high school - but my little 'ole' contribution should not sway you from your researched beliefs.

Of course I would bring up the VOTE - and the attempt to limit that right - if we ever regain the control of our government in a non-violent manner. . .it will be through the VOTE. (I did bring it up and you agreed that citizens have become complacent about voting - right?) It's a beautiful day - enjoy it! (By the way, in your research, look up 'southern strategy'.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
You are absolutely correct

he is being judged by his actions.. That's why his approval ratings are below just about every President for the same time in office.. Even the much HATED Bush had higher approval ratings then BO.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
more of the same
Davids mom wrote:

We'll see. The 18 year old of today will be 22 in 2014. Hmmmmmm. This Marxist, Socialist, Muslim, Black Theologian Christian, Communist, Kenyan that is currently described by some as our president is being judged by his actions - (bringing world leaders together; respected throughout the world; turning a failing economy around; (which Bush had started) finally going after Bin Laden; - achievements which are overlooked by a right-wing group in this country who have vowed that this administration will FAIL at any cost! (Including the loss of strength and prosperity of the American citizen) I believe you may have graduated from high school - but my little 'ole' contribution should not sway you from your researched beliefs.

Of course I would bring up the VOTE - and the attempt to limit that right - if we ever regain the control of our government in a non-violent manner. . .it will be through the VOTE. (I did bring it up and you agreed that citizens have become complacent about voting - right?) It's a beautiful day - enjoy it! (By the way, in your research, look up 'southern strategy'.

DM you just keep drinking the Kool-Aid ok. You said just wait until 2012 when there will be more 18 year old voters not today's 18 yr olds. As you stated above, "todays 18 year olds will be 22 " and will have some life experience and should see that they have been robbed of their chance at prosperity by this administration.

Exactly what world leaders has he brought together? And what exactly on the foreign policy front has he accomplished? 15 months...still no Bin Laden (which of course your boy *democrat* CLINTON *democrat* allowed to go free)he's a little tough to catch, huh?

The loss of strength and proseperity of the American People will be a direct result of the success of this administration's implementation of their Socialist policies. We are about to begin the largest legalized robbery of citizens that the world has ever known.

If you think that wealth and proseperity are out of reach for the majority of Americans today....Just wait. The policies of this administration are about equalization, but its equalization to the lowest level.

I'm glad I'm not 18 again...I'd hate to have to suffer my ENTIRE life!

I still don't know where you get that I want to limit anyone from voting.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
1bighammer and tea party

The spelling errors on the website are a reflection of the ignorance that permeates the "tea party" movement--naive people led by conservative and libertarian ideologues and Republican Party faithful.

The claim that liberals want to "dismantle" America is an example of such ignorance.

You assume that liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives,libertarians, and the whole tea party crowd. What arrogance on your part!!

You and the tea party crowd do not have a monopoly on what the constitution means or a monopoly on love of our country.

Your idea of "working together" means giving up any views that do not agree with the tea party folks. Well that is not going to happen.

I suggest that you spend less time listening Beck, etc.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Really lion....spelling errors make you IGNORANT?

So if you can't spell you're ignorant? Talk about arrogance.

First off...where have you seen me mention anything about being a part of the "tea party" movement. I believe what I want and don't need anybody to tell me what I think. I paid attention in school and know how to read and process information. I also paid attention to history and know that if a government gets to much power, economies fail, freedoms disappear, and people revolt.

Also I never said Liberals weren't patriotic. I do believe the majority of them in charge now ARE NOT in cluding Obama! Call me what you want , its my opinion and I am entitled to it and YOU are entitled to disagree. That's the great thing about living in the USA where that right is guaranteed by the constitution.

As for the constitution and its meaning, its not really all that difficult to interpret. The framers of the constitution made it pretty simple, yet over the years its has been interpreted by both the right and left to fit their ideas of what it should be.

Who really has a problem with "working together"? The Liberals say, "we want bipartisanship", but what they really mean is that they want conservatives to change their position.

I'll stop listening to Beck when you stop drinking the Liberal KoolAid!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Lion.. guess what Liberals are patriotic

Progressives however are not.. at least not in the sense you nor I would recognize.

The Teaparty has many Liberals and Moderates..

"They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he's a "phenomenal speaker." Another who said she was a "knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal."
These two women are not alone.
Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past -- some even voted for Democratic candidates -- are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party -- a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it's not formally aligned with the Republican Party.
" CNN News

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/index.html?hp...

You say Teaparty members are ignorant?? Well look in the mirror.. Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Whites, Blacks all Mainstream AMERICANS everyday average CITIZENS protesting demanding to have their grievances addressed..

Isn't that what being AMERICAN is all about..?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Ignorant and stupid SL

I asked politely that y'all solve all of the world's problems while I was away. I see that you didn't. Thanks for nothing.

The misspelled words and bad punctuation do speak to ignorance. Say what you will, it detracts from the message. Its hard to take someone serious that post "you're and American" and won't correct it. Frankly, if you can't spell and punctuate, then it calls into question how much education you might have to form the basis of and to back up your other opinions. I mean if someone says to you, "we done went to Panama City on our vacation" do you really care what they have to say about national issues? However, mistakes happen so everybody should get a little break.

The 912 Fayette blog is stupid because it drive away Democrats. I feel decidedly not welcomed. I can go with lower taxes, constitutionally smaller government, free enterprise, individual responsibility, etc. Then you click on the News tab and its about some nut case in the Army refusing to follow orders because of Obama's birth certificate. They show their true colors and its stupid.

Hopefully, a 2012 candidate will provide leadership to the TEA Party and focus it. And kick the fringe groups who have overtaken it out.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Jeff, tsk, tsk

If one spends an entire blogging paragraph extolling the virtues of spelling, grammar, and sentence structure, then one would expect perfection for the rest of the body of work. But, alas, it was not to be. To wit, "The 912 Fayette blog is stupid because it drive away Democrats" should be "The 912 Fayette blog is stupid because it drives away Democrats" and "They show their true colors and its stupid" should be "They show their true colors and it's stupid".

Now I do believe that you are an educated man, even an erudite man. I am just pointing out inconsistencies of thought and action. Have a great day

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Sorry Jeff

I didn't notice that Tin Can took you to task on this already. Not trying to pile on. Cheers to you

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
No problem Wedge

I broke my rule about pointing out grammar errors and was reminded about how it got to be a rule in the first place.

However, to prove that I'm not just your typical liberal blogger, I will learn from my mistake.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Wedge, JeffC's errors.

I bet him did that on purpose.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Regarding semi-English

I had a conversation recently with someone working in a retail establishment that made me wonder how he ever got through fifth grade--much less high school which he did.

Whtca wont? He say.
I say, Uh, a cup of black regular coffee, please.

Whatcha mean regular, he say.
I say, your house blend with nothing in it.

Yawont whut size, huh?
Oh, sorry, a small, please.

Gonna takit wifya, he say?
I say, whutchya mean---uh, I mean what do you mean?

Gonna drinkit here or on thu street, he say.
I say, just bring it and I'll decide where I drink it.

I say, I've had somewhat of a difficult day today, many service problems.
He say, maybe itschew not the other fellows!

I say, maybe so...forget the coffee, OK.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Carbon,

What a great spin miester you are! I would go with that too :-) Have fun, it cannot be easy being a carbon unit like you ;-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Shrunk & White

Better get a copy and study it before you post again, you're beginning to look mightly foolish.

The fact is that intellectuals use side arguments like these to deflect truth, it is much easier to do this than face those nasty facts.

Or maybe being rational is not an intellectual forte?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"Shrunk & White" (sic) ?

"Shrunk & White"? (sic) "mightly"?

You might wish to consider spending a bit more time proofreading your own posts before you lecture anyone else on the importance of good spelling and good grammar.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
ChrisP

I thought I was lecturing people like you on deflection of facts, guess your post simply proves my point doesn't it?

Thanks for taking the bait.

Here's your link to The Elements of Style (1918) (aka Strunk & White), hope this helps you get your bearings.

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

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
If intelligence was a litmus test for voting

then who would get to set that standard.. I know a few I would not mind if they stayed home.. Then again it was never originally intended for the "Masses" to vote anyway.. Maybe they knew something we have forgotten.. ?

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2006
idiocracy

Watch the movie Idiocracy, especially the first 15 minutes.. I hate to say I think we are going that way.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Never a litmus test SL

My candidates wouldn't get elected.

TinCan
TinCan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/29/2005
Making a point or ???

The 912 Fayette blog is stupid because it drive away Democrats.

You may want to reconsider your paragraph immediately preceding this sentence.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
LOL TinCan

You got me! I did cover myself though with, "However, mistakes happen so everybody should get a little break."

TinCan
TinCan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/29/2005
Jeff, little break

I think the way I addressed it was "the little break". We get enough nasty stuff on here.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
How was your trip..

Bring back any duty free stuff?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Fantastic trip

We went to a Sandals resort. Seven restaurants, twelve bars, three night clubs, no children under 18, no boom boxes, two miles of sugar sand beach, diving on the reef just a half-mile out every day, five swimming pools, house Champagne was Blanche de Blanche, 85 degrees, midnight chocolate and wine fest, breakfast room service, over 200 species of flowers, swim up bar at the main pool, limbo dancers, palm trees, tropical sunsets, complimentary upgrade to a honeymoon penthouse suite. We were 90 minutes from Montego Bay over some truly terrible roads through the mountains so I chartered a helicopter back to the airport. Plus, I played the stock market while we were there and paid for the trip and came out over $2k ahead. Is this the best planet in the solar system or what?

Got back and read that my poor Dad was in Sudan for the election. Last time I was there it was 118 degrees every day. Awful place. They don't even have beer there!! The hotels serve mocktails, wretched fruit drinks with soda water. I can't wait to compare trip reports with him.

As to the duty free, maybe we brought back a little rum.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Sudan

for a little bit more info on what senior was doing in Sudan go to Public Television / News Hour and do a search on Guinea worm. You may disagree on the politics but the rest is pretty good.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff.. Glad your back safe

Memory's are the only true treasure we collect. Sounds like you collected a few coins..

Have a few to collect myself this May and July..

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Jeff--Lindsey

Makes you wonder what the poor people are doing today, doesn't it?
Leased a helicopter!

Who do you work for, Jeff? (As if I didn't know.)

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Working Bonkers

I'm basically a volunteer. I like the work.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bonker$

Stop the whining.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - Tea Party

For the record, I am not a member of the Tea Party and have never gone to one of their gatherings.

I do however agree with their stated goals: smaller central government and lower taxes.

What exactly refects "ignorance" in these two goals?

Do you believe in higher taxes and larger government?

Please enlighten us.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
PTC Observer

I ran across this speech by Sarah Palin while she ran for Governor, which sounds somewhat like what you are for. Of course the Teas are not for anything, just against everything.

Speech:

I am here today to tell you where I stand. To solve our money problems all we need do is work on them. They need work, and that is what I will do as soon as I can get organized. I will work on them.
I am also against non-Christians also. That does not include of course the Jews, Muslims, Hindi people, Buddhas, Orthodox and the Catholics. There are many fine people in those religions, even in our Eskimo brothers and sisters we find good Indians.
As to foreign relation, I do not intend to have any. If they want something from us they can come here and ask for it. We are Americans and owe no man any tolerance.
Now, although we all get a big check every month from the Alaskan Treasury as our share of the oil tax we charge the oil companies, we are might careful not to make it socially functioned. With that and all the fish around this place and the critters we can shoot from helicopters to eat, we can do fine without nothing from Washington, you betcha!
Hows them changes for you?
Yes, my church does speak in tongues and we do shout and dance to a frenzy once in a while, but it is fun, and also all our young kids are being married as pure and collect no welfare.

I am conservative, don't give nothing away to them what don't work except my husband who takes care of protecting my family from nasty cops. I will live at my home with my family when elected. I will go to the capital when needed on a airplane free with my kids. I believe in taking care of one's family. If I get short of money while governor, I will not burden the state further with my salary, I will quit and write a seven million dollar book about how cruddy the liberals are. Then I'll float around and end up doing a reality show of some kind. I will be rich.

We also need a smaller government and less taxes, but more oil revenues.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Bonkers you don't really believe

that is a real letter right? Reality sucks don't it.

She's more popular then the big "O" right now, she is getting Rich and it pi$$es you Libs off. Seems like every time you try to destroy a Conservative we just bounce back better off for it..

Don't forget the Country as a whole is Center-Right. The Country is more aligned with her politics then yours.

Sucks don't it.. November is going to be pure Hell for you. My Apologies in advance.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
PTC Oberver

The Tea party "goal" of smaller government and lower taxes is not so much a "goal" as it is a simple ideological mantra. I have no idea of what they want government to do for them or what level of taxes they would like.

We live in a very complex world and need an effective central (and yes large government) to address these common problems. The Federal government in terms of domestic policies has been a force for progress in America. Just to name a few examples; end of slavery, progressive labor laws, women's rights, end to segregation, clean air, clean water, healthcare, etc. I am glad to see the central government support these goals.

I am willing to pay taxes to address our common problems.

You want lower taxes. Let me ask you this: What level of taxes do you consider acceptable?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - Taxes

Maybe just maybe the world is complex because the government makes it so.

The role of the government, as I have stated many times, is to:

Protect life, liberty and property FROM the government, other individuals, and other nations' interests.

The government can't give us "rights", we do give the government some money to accomplish its role.

The end of slavery is fundemental to the protection of liberty. If we enslave someone against their will to provide for someone else, then this is wrong and against the concept of liberty. I believe this is what the government is doing now, forcing us use our labor and the payment for it to provide for others. I see no difference in the masters. One is an individual (slave owner) and the other is the state. In both cases people are robbed of their life (there time on earth), liberty (force of law to provide for others), and property (their money).

It is not government's role to steal any of these from their citizens.

We should all be willing to pay taxes to insure government carries out its role. See above.

Hope this clears things up for you.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Taxes, Government, and PTC Observer

Just curious....

Where in your copy of the U.S. Constitution do you find that the role of government is to "protect life, liberty, and property", etc? My copy does include liberty but is more expansive in stating the purposes of the Constitution: "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." The Federal Government has a larger constitutionally based role to play than you seem to believe.

If you equate paying taxes for purposes you object to as slavery, I think our concept of government is so far apart that it is useless for us to argue the point.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - read

some history.

The Constitution is a document to establish a government framework for protecting life, liberty, and property. If you can't see this then it is you that have totally missed the point.

Remember the whole separation of powers issue? What exactly do you think the framers were attempting to do, if not to protect us from our own government?

I did not say that paying taxes is slavery, I said be being forced to pay taxes by the government so they can redistribute it to someone else, is slavery.

I don't believe you will find a clause in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to social engineering by the government. The government has no rights, and it can give no rights. It can only protect our God given Rights. This is the role of our government, lost.

Paying taxes to the government to protect me from people like you is entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, it has failed miserably at this role.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
PTC Observer

You can pretend the Constitution states whatever you want if that makes you happy. I try to follow what the Constitution actually says but recognize that it has been interpreted and evolved to meet changing times. The Constitution does not include a "right to social engineering" but it also does not include a "right" to capitalism, free enterprise, or free markets so are these concepts invalid also?

If your tax money is used to help someonehe else, you become a slave? Seems like a strange idea to me.

I never thought that you needed the government to protect you from people like me. If the government has failed at this, perhaps you are not paying enough taxes. Actually I am not such a threatening type of person.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - pretending

It seems that you are the one pretending. The Constitution is a simple document made complex by thievery.

I would suggest you read:

Capitalism and Freedom by M. Friedman.

It's a short book and may keep your attention.

I might add that the concept of free markets is based on individual freedom. Individual freedom is Liberty; therefore the Constitution supports the idea that individuals have the right to be free and protected from the government.

I have given a definition of slavery to you; you don't have to accept it. Nonetheless, it is fact. A social engineering government can only exist if it forces people to obey. By supporting your position you are supporting the enslavement of others to your vision of utopia. Socialism can only exist through force - remember the fascists?

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
The Preamble

The flowery prose of the preamble of the constitution does not really establish anything. Otherwise you could easily say that domestic tranquility is best provided at the tip of a bayonet with dissent stifled. It was pretty tranquil in a gulag and even more so in a mass grave

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Wedge and the Peamble

So you pick and choose which parts of the U.S. Constitution you like. Wonderful.

Domestic Tranquility does not mean bayonets, gulags, or mass graves.

Perhaps less fear mongering from the Right would contribute to our domestic tranquility.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
A goal can have a mantra...
lion wrote:

The Tea party "goal" of smaller government and lower taxes is not so much a "goal" as it is a simple ideological mantra. I have no idea of what they want government to do for them or what level of taxes they would like.

We live in a very complex world and need an effective central (and yes large government) to address these common problems. The Federal government in terms of domestic policies has been a force for progress in America. Just to name a few examples; end of slavery, progressive labor laws, women's rights, end to segregation, clean air, clean water, healthcare, etc. I am glad to see the central government support these goals.

I am willing to pay taxes to address our common problems.

You want lower taxes. Let me ask you this: What level of taxes do you consider acceptable?

Obama's mantra is "CHANGE"...where is it. Same ole washington politics nothing has really "changed".

The Federal Government hasn't been as much of a "force for progress" in the items you mentioned as you think. There were abolishonists and outside influences that started Lincoln down the path to the Emancipation Proclamation and ultimately the passage of the 13th ammendment.

Labor laws were a result of striking workers and uprisings during the 19th and the early 20th centuries. Many of those uprisings were quelled violently by the same Federal government you applaud for being a "force for progress".

Womens rights were a direct result of the "Women's Suffrage" movement.

People protested in the streets during the Civil Rights Movement, to end segregation. Ultimately, as a result, the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed.

The Environmental movement has gotten us to the clean air and clean water laws of today.

Notice that each of these came about as a result of "the people" being organized and demanding it. Not the other way around, like healthcare has been.

I am willing to pay some taxes too, but until the federal government gets to a point that they can be good stewards of those taxes...I'm not willing to pay any more.

I nor anyone else can tell you exactly what number it should be. What we can tell you though, based on all the waste and corruption within the current government, is that it should be LESS!

Oh and one more thing...Doesn't the fact that you couldn't spell "PTC Observer" right (you spelled it PTC Oberver) make you ignorant? That's by your standards not mine! I defend your right not to be able to spell!

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Progress and the Federal Government and 1bighammer

Progress for minorities, workers, women, and the environment did require the active involvement of citizens. But the Federal Government ultimately was the agent needed to secure those advances. Conservatives opposed progress in all those areas. If conservative forces had prevailed, we would still have slavery or segregation, child labor, no 40-hour work week, no women voting, dirtier air and water, no Social Security, no Medicare, and no health care for for all Americans.

The history of conservative positions on these issues is not something that I would brag about. Best keep it a secret.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Progress and the Federal Government2

But the Federal Government ultimately was the agent needed to secure those advances.

Only because as a nation of Laws the Congress passes them and ammend the Constitution. Without the will of "we the people" none of those things would have happenned. Once again its because of "we the people" not "we the government".

You better get your facts straight on some things. Democrats were the main obstacles in the face of the Civil Rights act of 1964. In fact, here's your breakdown of the votes on it:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

In every instance Republican support was higher than the Democrats.

Womens Right to Vote...opposed mostly by Southern Democrats.

Don't try to make it look like the Democrats are superior. The problem is that most of your supporters are to dumb to see what their own party has done to the over the years!

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
hammer

You obviously don't know what a southern democrat was in 1964!

Most, when it came to racism, were just that! Many still are except they now call themselves republican (no, conservative). Even Sonny was a democrat!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hammer

Have you graduated from high school? Your reasoning here - and obvious lack of historical knowledge is pathetic. So many here have tried to explain to you who the Dixie-crats were in the Civil Rights era. READ/RESEARCH/COMPREHEND. You sir - are the one who is exhibiting an ignorance of factual history. (and if you have graduated from High School - no wonder Georgia ranks 48 out of the 50 states in academic achievement. I'm sure you were not educated in Fayette County schools.

1bighammer
1bighammer's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Is the Truth too much for you to take DM?
Davids mom wrote:

Have you graduated from high school? Your reasoning here - and obvious lack of historical knowledge is pathetic. So many here have tried to explain to you who the Dixie-crats were in the Civil Rights era. READ/RESEARCH/COMPREHEND. You sir - are the one who is exhibiting an ignorance of factual history. (and if you have graduated from High School - no wonder Georgia ranks 48 out of the 50 states in academic achievement. I'm sure you were not educated in Fayette County schools.

I must have struck a nerve with you! Yes, that often times happens when one knows the truth yet refuses to admit it. To admit the truth would be to admit the very party you support doesn't have your best interest at heart.

To answer your question, Yes I have graduated high school. I have used the tools I learned there, notice I didn't say facts, to continue my education outside the boundaries of the Public School System. History sure looks different than it did in my textbook (approved by and printed for the Government School System). To say that I am "exhibiting an ignorance of factual history" is really a reflection on your limited education.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hammer

Congratulations on graduating from high school. Use your 'tools' to do your own research regarding what happened to the 'southern democrats' after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. My education is/was not limited. Learning is a lifelong commitment. What any advanced degree assures the recipient is that there is so much more to learn.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - really?

Rather vitriolic aren't you?

In the 1930s, the New Deal under Franklin Delano Roosevelt (a DM hero no doubt), a government/private enterprise realignment occurred. Much of the Democratic Party shifted towards economic intervention but rejected civil rights for blacks. However, white Southern commitments to Jim Crow grew stronger, and were indirectly challenged as two million blacks served in the military during World War II, receiving equal pay in segregated units, and equally entitled to veterans' benefits.

The Dixicrats were a short live party that peaked in 1948, well before the beginnings of the 60’s Civil Rights Movement. The social system in the South became increasingly based on Jim Crow, a combination of legal and informal segregation that made blacks second-class citizens with little or no political power anywhere in the South. The National Democratic Party tacitly supported this in order to preserve the “Solid South”. Thus, the Democrats won in 1948 in both houses and the Presidency against the Dixicrats and the Republicans.

Now here’s the good part, the Republican Party, nominating Tom Dewey of New York in 1944 and 1948, supported civil rights legislation that the Southern Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed. Many Democrats in the North decided not to push civil rights as they did not want to be seen as splitting the party over the “colored” question. Nonetheless, the extremists in the South decided to initiate a third party, the Dixiecrats.

Following Truman’s election the Dixiecrat Party fell apart. Though a member of the old Dixiecrat Party is still a member of Congress. Of course he was also a member of the Klan, but no matter, we don't want to have our feelings challenged by the facts.

Hope this clears up the history surrounding the Progressives of the Democrat Party.

Remember DM what I told you about public schools, they only teach what they want you to know, not facts. Public schools have their own agenda, preservation of the system.

It’s too bad an intelligent women like you is not more inquistive.

Don't go by what you think you know, it's likely to be wrong.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER AND LINDSEY

Thank you PTC for sharing the information that confirmed that after the Voting Rights Act was signed, the Democrats lost the 'solid south'. I know that not all Republicans or all Democrats are/are not racist. . .and so do the readers of this blog. PTC needs to read his/her contributions to make sure they are actually supportive of his/her argument. Again, Johnson signed, the south whined - and left the Party of the Democrats.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTC Don't waste your time..

I worked through all this with DM before.. She is going to come back Dixiecrats flipped to Republicans and therefore Republicans are Racist.. It's her Mantra.. never mind it's not factual.

It challenges everything she believes in and everything she has invested in.. Her identity is wrapped up in the flag of the Liberal/Progressive Party and any challenge to that ideology will be met with the same thing repeated over and over..

You know the old saying.. Repeat a lie over and over and eventually you began to believe it..

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
S. Lindsey - Oh

Yes the big lie, if forgot about that. Oh well.

Recent Comments