Bryan, Let me take this one for you.... John, Conservatives look at the facts and make their own minds up; Liberals (Progressives, if you like) Finf the hate and divisivness in the issue and try to scare and divide the less informed.

Our Friends the Libertariams, challenge us on issues and help us to bridge the gap the literal interputation of the constition and how our socicity today needs to adapt without throwing thee constitution out the window.

So now John, show us how you will scare and divide with your next rant!

Sorry CC, I deal in facts on matters of budget, sound management practices in matters of governance, and strongly believe in individual liberties that are perfectly balanced with individual responsibilities.

Concerned Conservative: people like you are the reason bipartisanship is next to impossible these days. your "friends" the libertarians (like me) are leaving you in droves because of your biased hatred of anything which does not fit your skewed world.

Concerned: Your answer doesn't even remotely help the conversation. You're not helping your cause by being divisive and making broad generalizations that are not true about the majority of Liberals and Libertarians, and could be used to define some Conservatives even! *gasp* Your argument is the exact opposite of what Bryan said he was trying to do. Best of luck to him!

Joe, that's just good government. It has noting to do with being liberal or conservative.

Yep, Dad's right.
Conservatism and Liberalism each have their strengths,
but what Joe described is just plain good government. Nothing particularly left or right about it.

Tiverton Dad is right. I don't think any party/particular political bent is doing that well at all at the moment, but that's just how our government is *supposed* to work.

Mike can you explain what makes you believe you're a liberal ? I hope it's not just the Gay rights issue . One issue voters make me crazy.
PS you seemed like a conservative when you talked about the purchase of a home. Lots of research before you put down your money.

Making a distinction... I'm the liberal Mike who generally comments on the Tiverton-Little Compton Patch, not the Mike (conservative with several posts on this thread and a profile linked to the North Kingstown Patch. Will sign my posts Mike S. going forward.

Joe, equal rights and reproductive choice are my two biggest issues, but I'm not a one- or two-dimensional voter. Personally, I don't like the conservative or liberal labels, but stand as a proud liberal since it has become such a dirty word.

I see weakness and imperfection in humans, so I believe we need government to keep balance. I see government as imperfect, so I like to challenge it (and other institutions) on occasion. I see imperfection in capitalism because greed and corruption have undue influence. Greed and corruption exist within government too, which is why government and capitalism need to be balanced. Finally, I see imperfection in democracy because I do not trust imperfect human beings to do what is right or good. However, I support the three branches of government since I can't think of a better form.

I tend to over analyze an issue but think I understand (and see merit in) each side. My opinion generally sways to the left after the analysis, though. Not saying I'm correct or someone on the right is incorrect. It's my opinion and I'll vote accordingly.

That being said, I tend to be conservative with my own money but do not have a problem paying taxes. Do I wish government would exercise as much restraint? Of course, but I've seen far greater waste and destruction in the private sector that benefit only the very few.

BTW, my research has paid off. Signed a P&S on a home in Winnisimet Farms! Hope all goes well...

Mike S.

My current state of VA has a very strong Republican party. It's not solving anything. Every state needs more bipartisan cooperation and thoughtful politicians who use common sense, but that seems to be too much to ask for at the moment. Believe me, a swing state isn't any better off either!

I find it funny when progressives think they are "moderates" and then infer that everyone to the right of them are ideologues and subject to ad-hominem attacks using labels such as "fringe wing-nuts" and "racist." Love the left's vaunted "tolerance" of other people exercising their first amendment rights.

I'm not even sure if you understand what "conservative" means. Conservatives embrace critical thinking, which means we understand that both Speaker Fox and Don C. were for the Studio 38 debacle--perhaps why the Dems, the majority for 40 years in the GA, didn't stop it. We understand that George Soros is as involved in American politics on the left as much as the Koch brothers are on the right--but at least the Koch brothers are Americans. Conservatives also recognize that everyone, not just conservatives, have personal agendas. Conservatives also champion personal responsibility and accountability. This means smaller government, and a government that doesn't reward failure and punish success.

So Conservatives are "critical thinkers" when a Progressive is in office. I find it amusing that conservatives feel the need to rebrand themselves after the eight-year disaster of Bush 2.

Admit it Mike, you're one of those guys who thinks anyone not as conservative as you is "a liberal" and therefore part of the problem. There's no such thing as a "moderate" with you.

Mike, I have never met a conservative who embraced "Critical Thinking" other than critically thinking about how to make my life worse for their personal gain.

And I am also glad that these fringe wing-nuts and racists love their ability to spout off what ever mouth fart they feel like and then hide behind the 1st amendment. so much for the art of self censorship. But hey, if your base are these vulgar dim-wits that, then that just affirmed every point I made above. You have affirmed that you support the wing-nuts and racists, placing you at that extreme side of this discussion.

And I DO hold the Democrats in the state government accountable to the Studio 38 debacle. They get no pass from me; that money could have gone to help hundreds of local businesses, instead they gave it to a "Fiscal Conservative" hypocrit carpetbagger spouting that "government needs to stay out of his business, but give me another loan", who then squandered it and filed bankruptcy.

Those in office need to go, but let's make sure the replacements are not worse.

Rade- Capitalism is about maximizing profitability and gain. It's about opportunity and success. Money, fame, and success are effective motivators in making products and providing services that we want and need. Without those motivators life wouldn't be as enjoyable as it is today. From the car you drive, to the house you live in, to the computer you're using wouldn't exist if not for Capitalism. It is without question that some people abuse others in their quest for success. The great thing about a free market though is that people have choice. Employees have choices as to where they're going to work, consumers have choices where they shop, retail outlets have choices about which products they'll stock, and so on. Employers must compete with other employers for the best talent by offering competitive salary and benefits. Employers must also live up to standards set by their customers. Otherwise, customers won't shop there. Without good employees or strong customer base, the business cannot survive. Therefore they have a motive to "do the right thing." Is it a perfect system? No, there are imperfections, of course. But I guarantee you won't be able to name a single economic system that is responsible for providing more wealth or opportunities than Capitalism. (continued in next post)

As far as free speech, I'll defend your right and the rights of others to say anything they wish whether I agree with the statement or not. The only limitations of course is of course if your statements put people in immediate danger or threaten the security of the country; yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire or disclosing strategic military secrets shouldn't, in my opinion, be protected by the 1st amendment.
I do not condone bigotry or racism. At the same time, I have no right to tell you that you cannot be a racist or attempt to put you in jail because of your beliefs. I've heard awful, disgusting, and vile things said about my wife because she's a woman of color. I refuse to engage the racists because they're not rational people. I strongly disagree with their opinions and what they stand for but then again, they disagree with my opinions. They have every right to say what they say, that doesn't make them correct though. And we as rational humans have the right to be dismissive of their hate.

Bobby, I get capitalism; so please tell me where those wealthy few who bought the Bush II election for him and got huge tax breaks for the effort fall into? The only thing being worked on is writing a check, and I don't see many people below them benefiting from the effort. That is not capitalism, that's greed.

I support your statement on the 1st Amendment, I just with American society would be more... self censoring. Interesting; my parents were blue-collar. My father did not get his GED until he was in his late 40's. He was a mill worker who fought in WWII, my mother a home maker. Both simple people. He could swear a blue streak about minorities that would have embarrassed Archie Bunker. But you know... they knew how to self censor. I just don't see that today. What I see are people who live to blog (I am guilty of that to a degree), hiding behind nom de plumes and bold with polarizing statements, or using the power of the Internet to seek out like minds, for good and for bad. Safety in numbers and anonimity?

God forbid two people of opposite opinions sit across the table from one and other and have a dialog.

Actually, Brian Moran, you don't have a clue what I think besides what I post, but thanks for your uninformed speculation.

Rade- Putting money back into the pockets of those who earned it is a good thing. Remember, it wasn't only the wealthy who received tax breaks. The Bush tax cuts, which earned support of Democrats and has been embraced by President Clinton and extended extended during the Obama Presidency, was partly responsible for helping with the economic recovery following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I got to keep more of the money i worked hard for as did you and millions of other Americans; rich and poor. The fact is, the wealthy (however you choose to define it) contribute massive amounts in taxes. Our progressive tax structure targets those who've been successful and charge them a higher percentage. Meanwhile, those lower income earners pay no taxes and in some cases get more money back from the IRS than they paid in.

Bobby, 62% of Americans make less than $20,000. Are you saying they aren't paying their fair share, or what? Are you including retirees in that figure too? Don't tell me you're on that 53% myth? Nevermind that they still pay state taxes, on average at a clip of 11% of their total income as opposed to the wealthy paying 4%. Meanwhile, the tax rate for the wealthiest in this country has been dramatically reduced over the last 50 years while the average median family's has risen.

My only other question to everyone....in regards to the 38 Studios debacle is will Republicans and Conservatives join me in demanding a public comment from "private citizen" Donald Carcieri as he makes his way around the state using his political clout raising big money for his friend Mitt Romney? This is something all Rhode Islanders should be clamoring for, now that the still elected officials have rightfully done their walk of shame whether you buy what they said or not.

If the figure of 62% was actually real, this country would be in huge trouble. Considering that the median per person income (which includes children) is around $25k a year, that number becomes impossible.

Brian- What data are you basing your numbers on? Filing status makes a significant difference. Based on 2011 numbers released by TaxPolicyCenter.org, about 52% of those who file 'Single' earn less than $20,000 while 8% of returns filed as 'Married' earn less than $20,000 yearly.

Those earning 20,000 in income through employment are paying a significant less in income taxes as a raw value and as a percentage compared to someone earning 60,000 or someone earning 80,000 or someone earning 300,000 through employment.

RI has three tax brackets: 0-55,000=3.75%, 55,000-125,000=4.75%, >125,000=5.99%. The more you earn, the more you're taxed. You didn't source your 4% and 11% figures but I suspect they include income from outside employment such as capital gains and windfall taxes which are taxed differently.

Your last statement is correct about income rates changing but ironically enough, higher income earners today pay more in federal income taxes than ever before even with the lower rates!

Got that right, ronpaul is an isolationist, though some of his fiscal policies have merit, thats is about it in my opinion after watching him in debates..

John Stossel is about as close to the real definition of a libertarian I would guess.

Pretty accurate TD, oversimplified, yes, but very much true. Conservatives want to over-regulate moral issues and under regulate economic ones. Liberals want to discard all moral regulation and over-regulate the economy. Libertarians want minimalist and smart regulation over all. Many libertarians will describe themselves as economically conservative and morally liberal. the problem is the parties. Both parties use the constitution as a shield while trying to tear it up. Both try and regulate free speech, freedom of religion and the right to free assembly, when, of course, the speech, religion and assembly hurts their cause.

Actually, Just another Taxpayer, I didn't live at home at 18.

Is this what passes for thought these days? Just attack the person with a baseless claim so one doesn't have to think? Please explain the relevance of linking minimum wage to a two bedroom appt. IMHO, it's the "living wage" argument. The assumption is we need to raise the min wage so that people can afford what they want. My counter argument would be that minimum wage is a starting wage--entry level--not meant to live on, but to gain the skills/education required to move up the ladder; you get what you want by working for it. Additionally, raising the minimum wage is counterproductive. It often prevents younger men and women from getting these jobs as employers hire fewer employees. A "living" min wage could also encourage many to just stay where they are and not improve themselves. After all, all they have to do is complain that they can't afford a two bedroom appt....

Source? Relevence? I made minimum wage when I was 18 and had little desire to own a two bedroom house.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/hawaii/92510d1331932233-hours-minimum-wage-per-week-afford-424518_10101027175868172_5110593_61505802_1555686498_n.jpg

I said apartment, not house.

So you did....my error. I did with a 1 bedroom appt. Still looking for why it's relevant.

Mike, when you were 18 you probably lived at home, therefore you did not have to worry about having a roof over your head. One last point, TD referenced at two-bedroom apartment not a two bedroom house.

Actually, Just another Taxpayer, I didn't live at home at 18.

Is this what passes for thought these days? Just attack the person with a baseless claim so one doesn't have to think? Please explain the relevance of linking minimum wage to a two bedroom appt. IMHO, it's the "living wage" argument. The assumption is we need to raise the min wage so that people can afford what they want. My counter argument would be that minimum wage is a starting wage--entry level--not meant to live on, but to gain the skills/education required to move up the ladder; you get what you want by working for it. Additionally, raising the minimum wage is counterproductive. It often prevents younger men and women from getting these jobs as employers hire fewer employees. A "living" min wage could also encourage many to just stay where they are and not improve themselves. After all, all they have to do is complain that they can't afford a two bedroom appt....
...

If the Government didn't take SS money out of my check every week ,and instead I invested it. I could retire today. We have an army to protect us from invaders. We have roads and bridges for transportation and commerce. We have a food and drug administration to protect consumers. These are things we all agree are needed.
English first Do you have anything constructive to offer.

Joe,
I think SS is close to broken, and has many problems,
but don't fool yourself.
Hard-working and smart people who have total control of their money...there isn't any guarantee of a happy ending for them, either. That's an Ayn Rand fairy tale.

Just look around. Plenty of smart, hard-working people were prudently investing money for their retirement for decades, and many are now completely screwed, or would be without SS, broken and problematic as it is.

If you had been investing that SS money this whole time,
that nest egg would most likely be largely gone now, thanks to the economic downturn.

Most "investments" are either in property (most people who bought within the past decade have been burned on that investment), or stocks (ditto), or bonds (long-term, very low interest rates mean they have barely made a return for investors for some time.)
The profitable time to invest in metals is probably past at this point. Notice that the many radio and TV commercials for companies looking to buy your "junk" gold, have now transformed into many commercials
looking to sell you the "safe investment" of gold.
They bought at low prices in large quantities when the value of gold was initially rising and paid for it with a rapidly inflating Am. dollar,
and are now selling that same gold back to the public at premium rates.

I'm interested, though...knowing all this, how would you invest that SS money if you had it to invest today?

Federal level...defense. States can choose their own size of govt. 50 experiments...some do well, some will fail. And the should have the freedom to fail. People free to choose and move. How's RI doing?

My investments have not taken a hit, and I know enough to not rely on SS. I have no car payment or credit card debt. I paid my 30 year mortgage off in 15 years. I am debt free and saving for my retirement. I have no stocks or bonds Just cash saved in a safe investment. It' doesn't pay a lot of interest, but I haven't lost a dime. I live a conservative life stile. Cash for all purchases big or small. I shop and shop for a deal, but always buy quality. I learned from parents who grew up the same way.

The no-debt approach is extremely wise, as is bargain hunting and living simply!
You get two big thumbs up from me =) smart guy!

But, as for cash-in-a-safe being your only strategy, you're right, it doesn't earn interest. It depreciates.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Plus, the dollar has been really unstable...we've seen a lot of inflation over the past few years, and other costs, like food, are rising.
Your cash will buy a lot less if trends continue as-is.
If you plan to live much past 70, you're going to have one hell of a time making that money last =(
Even a little of your nest egg invested with a very modest return would help counter the effect of inflation eating away at your money.
If you see any modest, prudent, small investments, consider looking into them, just to grow your money a little!
Best of luck to you!

Good point--the meaning of words change, and people aren't always true to their core beliefs--if they have any. But it's still kind of sad, after 40 years of one party rule and the pickle our gutless, unethical politicians have got us in, that many people in this state reflexively pulling that "D" lever. Is it "D" for Denial? Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? :)

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”

Sounds like pansy liberal claptrap. Who said that? Al Sharpton? John Edwards? Mike Dukakis?

Dwight Eisenhower said that. Do you think he'd be welcome in today's GOP?

Ha.

Holy moly, Jack...and I thought *I* posted a lot of stuff!
my friend....I pass the "easy there, Tolstoy" crown to you, lol...

Jack, I understand the context, but the fact you would assert I'm using it as a way to say Eisenhower (or myself) is against the military shows a leap in conclusion that brings me to part of the point of why I posted it and why people can't let go of their political hangups. What I'm against is spending for the sake of spending on the military, which is something that many so-called conservatives can't seem to reconcile when it comes to wearing a tin badge of fiscal responsibility. And Eisenhower's farewell address, made some eight years after this statement, in regard to the military industrial complex, hits on this. I fully accept the fact that spending money on war is a necessary evil, but there are many "conservatives" who treat it as a sacred cow. And most of the time, it's for far from what I consider to be patriotic reasons.

As I said Brian, "most people" put that quote up with out the whole quote, which makes it have a totally different meaning without the rest of it and is in no way what he was talking about at all. It just irks me using the words of a great man by leaving parts out that twist the meaning into the total opposite of what he was talking about.

It also is not so many so called conservatives, it is so many so called politicians period. No party is exclusive of blame for spending on anything, whne it come to well, anything.

It is like the old blame the GOP for the stupidity of Iraq, Both parties supported it totally in the majority. One or the other could have stopped it. The House no matter who was in control and at various times both parties eachhad control, could have stopped it anytime they wanted.

Well I dod not consider it a nessisary evil as you do, it is a nessisary Peace deterent period. But it was never meant to be a police force around the world and that has to stop, only both parties can do that. Not an isolationist, just stay the hell out of the Middle east, let it explode and see what is left over to deal with. Thats my take anyway.

No money can be spent, without House approval and they do not need the Senate to do that, the house is the only one who can spend money per the Constitution. No budgeted money, no war. That simple and is what in the end, ended Nam.

Great post. Charity is important, and studies have shown that Americans are the most generous people in the world. It's sad, however, that many claim the moral high ground by advocating giving people "free" things. They ignore the second and third order consequenses of institutionalized welfare--just look at the out of wedlock birth rates in this country since we started subsidizing single mothers. It's simple human nature--if you tax it, you get less of it. If you subsidize it, you get more. These well meaning people are dooming entire generations of children to poverty and misery.

No, no, I didn't assume you liked Tolstoy;
"easy there, Tolstoy"
is what Patch tells you, in little red letters,
when you try to post something too long ^_^ I see it aaall the time...

la_mouffette

Yea I know, I get it all the time also and have to break things up lol.

Just thought I could use it to segway to Robert A. Heinlein
Since I forgot to put his quotes in my other post lol. Thanks for the help ;-}

Yes Joe, I agree. Every political historian has said Eisenhower was the last true conservative in office, with a like congress that actually made the RIGHT things happen for America. Ike built roads and airports, trimmed the military from a war-time militia to world peace keepers, and laid the ground work for social programs to get started. He was also elected by a HUGE majority of Americans (many who served under him in WWII).

Can we ever have another Eisenhower while politics continue to be influenced by corporations and the wealthy?

I like Colin Powell. He could be this centuries Eisenhower. Conservative, not an ideologue or a theocrat and not (at least, to my understanding) under the sway of big money.

Colin Powell would never run after George Bush threw him under the bus on the iraq war fiasco.

I suppose you missed us all complaining about how we, as Tiverton residents, hate the toll on the Sakonnet bridge over on the portsmouth patch. But thats ok, live in a fantasy world where everyone in your town is a commie peacenik. The reality is, some of us actually use our brains and do not just buy into a specific line of thought because a particular party told us to.

English first; i agree with you totally about the northern rhode islanders post. L A; with all of the writings about this subject and on, who is who, i dont understand a dam thing. i wish i knew who i was. english? l a? please give me a hint!

Jack, how do you know that I am not on active duty, or a war vet, or a disabled vet?Thank you Bryan for your service.

oops post got reversed, sorry. If you click on the name of a poster you can see the many post and articles they post on, not that that matter for most things, or you could ask. I just tire of a State this small where everyone is about half hour at the most from each other depending on traffic, thinking we are so different, because of where we live in the State. The distance is just not that much. In any case people are individual free thinkers I hope.

Please, English first, learn proper english spelling and grammar. It is PERspective. And "where the comments are coming from" is TIVERTON and PORTSMOUTH and BRISTOL. Not Boston, or South County or anywhere else. When you offer someone "PERspective" you should actually know what you are talking about first. Making wild guesses and accusations based on your own personal lack of knowledge is hardly PERspective.

Definitions:
Perspective: a way of regarding situations, facts, etc, and judging their relative importance

Prospective: looking towards the future

Don’t know and frankly don’t care it has nothing to do with anything I said. Point was that Bryan does not live here as of yet and is only from here (he is on a tour of duty to my knowledge) Which means he is protecting our butts, (everyone’s even in the vast expanse of the northern R.I.), and did not fit into your foolish post of people who somehow are not able to grasp the problems of people 30 miles away, or have an opinion on things 40 miles away, or know of people 50 miles away, all in the same State lol. What is your problem with this sudden vet thing?

If you are a vet say so, if you are the great gazoo, or nanuk of the north, I will gladly give you kudos’ if that’s what you want. The point was it matters not who or where you are, it is a free State and country. Geeze this is getting tedious.

How about this, I apologize for anything that may have or may not have offended you, in the previous post and comments I have made or will make concerning your foolish post.

Disclaimer; This is not to be taken as an insult to the afore mentioned person with the moniker of "English Only" and shall in no way impugn his character, job, past history, present history, ethnicity, religion, health, education,planet of origin etc or any other thing he or she can think of in perpetuity. Jack Baillargeron

That's a relief. I hope he's okay.

Friend of mine says he will be fine, still not sure what happened though.

Yes, Bryan, I agree. Politcal analysts have identified that even Ronald Regan and GHW Bush would not have been considered "conservative" enough for todays round of labled such. Where will we be in two generations?

I blame Bush II for the polarization we have today. I feel the "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" mantra has corroded America to the point that a dialog is near impossible. This "All or nothing" mentality is so... divisive. How do we step back up from that slippery slope?

As I've mentioned before, I am a democrat, not entirely liberal. In 2000, I worked for a moderate Republican in my office. He voted for Bush II because Bush was the guy he wanted to have that beer with, and I respected him for that.. He and I shared a lot of the same principles on life and living We both had the same beliefs on economics, social programs, spiritualty. We had great dialogs and a great working relationship. Today, I consider this person one of my closest friends.

Today, I work for a manager who is a gun totting, conspiracy theorist, Fox News afficinado and RIGHT WING Republican. We cannot have dialogs; what was shared is along the lines of "You're either with me or...". That door, sadly, is closed. Thank the maker that the work, of itself, is far more rewarding.

So... can we have a dialog? How about in the next go-round, we talk about what would we do to adjust the course?

So it's my facts versus your facts and my sources versus your sources. So much for an open dialog. And I am not quoting MSNBC, I am stating my observations on the people around me and the discussions therein.

So question: Why is anti-abortion the very first thing conservatives go after? [You] don't want big government, but you want to impose laws on reproductive rights.

My concerns are these:
- Fiscal accountability.
- Open government.
- Government not theocracy; keep church and state separate.

That's all I ask. But forbid you so called conservatives come to the table on that.

You, sir, have just shown your true colors.

Rade, I'll consider that for my question for next week, but I'll give a short answer now.

My question for you is, if you think someone is an innocent human being (and for abortion, this is the major difference between each side), would you advocate killing them outside of extenuating circumstances (Self Defense, protect others, Mother's health)?
Women do have reproductive rights, I agree... but you do understand that a woman has to undertake a certain action in order to get pregnant? It just doesn't happen by magic, nor does a stork appear out of the blue and drops a baby off. This is why rape is often one of those extenuating circumstances, because it does violate someone's "reproductive rights". A woman, and a man, do have a choice... but once there is a human being... well, you get my drift.

Also, if you read this first blog, you'll see that my point of view has nothing to do with religion. An organized religion does not play any role in my life. That said, the constitution states that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (from memory, sorry if it's off a little). It doesn't say that people can't vote based on their religious beliefs, nor does it say "keep church and state separate"

Finally, sorry for asking you to name an issue, then give your point of view using cites and logical reasons.

Bryan ignores 100 years of Supreme Court interpretation and precedent in his last paragraph there.

2 more points: Congress did pass and does pass laws based on religion. in 1952 Congress passed a law putting In God We Trust on paper money and in 1954 Congress put it in the pledge.

And let's not forget the Defense of Marriage act - what does that have to do with ANYTHING except for religious belief? It specifically excludes beliefs that some religions hold. About 15% of teh churches in the US will gladly perform a gay marriage. Apparently, their belief is invalid because it does not fit into certain other people's views.

Why is it that Conservatives that claim to want less government in our lives always end up wanting to control everyone elses lives. Conservatives just want less government on issues that effect them and want the government to force their ideas on those that do not agree. Abortion is a personal issue between a woman and her doctor and the government has no buisness getting involved if you do not agree with abortion don't get one but stay out of other peoples lives.

Wrong again Shill, Most conservatives want efficiency and a good economy. They don't care about marriage or abortion issues . The liberals want people to believe that . They like to divide people up in to groups so they can be the champion of cause. Most modern conservatives understand the issues and don't fight that fight. Next you will tell us we want to wreck SS. and throw people out in the streets.

Shill, Joe is right. While I am anti-abortion, and pro Same-sex marriage... I would not vote based on a candidate's stance on either of those two issues.

And Dan, the Supreme court's "establishment" and "Endorsement" clauses are what people call, "Legislating from the bench" neither of them are in the constitution. It is not the USSC's (or any court's) job to make new laws, that's the job of the legislature... as such, when forming my opinions, I ignore activist judgements from either side of the political spectrum.

Also, Dan, Congress did not establish nor prohibit the practice of a religion by putting "In God we trust" or "One nation under God" in anything. There isn't a "Church of the USA" nor do you have to believe in any certain thing to use money or say/not say the pledge.

Sorry Dan D, I missed your DOMA statement.

I am against DOMA because the constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate marriage and it's not a General Welfare issue. Neither does RI's constitution, for that matter.

On the other hand, while I understand how people like to put others neatly in a box (DOMA just has to be religious!), in this case (actually in a lot of cases) it doesn't work. While it's true that the Religious people are against Same Sex marriage, most of the opposition has more to do with semantics and they would gladly allow Civil Unions. They feel that we are basically trying to tell them that this word/institution doesn't have the definition they've always thought it had and others are forcing them to change it.

It's hard for me to explain because it isn't actually my viewpoint but so far most of the people I've debated about it that's the number one point they bring up. "What's wrong with civil unions?" Is usually where they end up going.

Bryan: read RI's civil union statute sometime and see if you and your wife would be ok with it. You would not.

And this is the first: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - Putting in the word "god" on anything establishes that the United States is in fact, not neutral on religion. It is offensive to think that is a-ok. It is not. Atheists, whose number is roughly 8% (more than Jewish and Islamic combined) are specifically excluded there. For numbers sake... that is roughly 24 million US citizens disenfranchised on purpose by congress passing those laws. and if you add in Agnostics and those who call themselves "non-religious" the number goes up to 18% or roughly 54 million citizens. 1/6th of the country. That group outnumbers Catholics.

Dan, I'll look up the statute. I'm interested to know what's in it now.

I think I'd fall into the agnostic category. Regardless, the first amendment doesn't say "neutral on religion" it says Establish one or prohibit the practice of one. No "Church of the United States" was established by putting the word god on money or in a pledge, so it passes muster to me.

If you want to track intent (other than the well publicized Virginia deal where some of them wanted to establish a "church of Virginia"), those same people that wrote it and then practiced it in the first congress said a prayer before every session and even had a congressional chaplain. Below is a list of them.

http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/chaplains.aspx

heh!

Joe, that's a pretty simple way of looking at it.

We've had enough "conservatives" (using the term loosely) in power (in the combination of House/Senate/Presidency) only ten years out of that time frame mentioned. Remember that Republican doesn't equal conservative... this is why the Tea Party movement came about, to replace the Fiscally liberal candidates with Fiscally Conservative ones. (See Rick Lugar for their latest casualty).

Adding those ten years together... you get $2.2 trillion in deficits, out of that time over a trillion of it was social security and medicare/aid deficits. Essentially the total amount is less than a trillion because congresses/presidents are so scared to touch those, that it keeps growing (43% of this year's spending is on just those two items). http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/embed?size=560&chart=budget-entitlement-programs

Yet, if you look at where congress/President is mostly liberal... (I'll just use the past six years so I don't have to add much) it's $5.6 trillion. Once Nancy Pelosi took over the house and Reid the Senate, our deficit spending per year doubled.

That said, the $2.2 trillion for the "conservatives" is unacceptable. The Democrats and Republican parties has turned into less of a choice between conservative and liberal, and more of a choice between "spend too much" and "spend way too much."

Forgot to add my cite. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Also, I mistyped and said that liberal number was over the last 6 years, it was over the last 4... apologies for any confusion. So 2.2 for ten years of overwhelming "conservative" power, to $5.6 for four years of overwhelming liberal power.

Reagans numbers were even worse since on his clock the SS Trust fund became a line item on the budget so its positives made the deficit lower.

Joe, if the pay was so good in the military, why didn't you make it a career?

Pryor to the raise a military family with two kids qualified for food stamps. Get a clue Just Another Taxpayer !

Joe, this happened again when I was in during the 90s, E-4 and below with two dependants qualified for Food Stamps as well. The pay raises didn't keep pace with the economy from when you were in until I joined in the early 90s, and they ended up having to increase our pay significantly once Bush came into office.

if only that was the case, they do not. A gay couple does not have teh same rights as a straight married couple, it is that simple. It either applies to everyone, or no one. Give marriage back to the churches and make it ALL civil unions or whatever. I do not care, most gay people do not care either, they just want the same rights and privileges afforded to straight couples. RI has civil unions, it gives gay couples about one tenth the rights of straight ones. If that is equality, I am a martian.

Definitely like that idea, Dan D.

Thats why the seperation into 2 licenses, and the State legislatures equalizing the benefits to match is the only true solution with out all this BS between, religion and some delusion of a civil right. It is about contacts and benefits as I see it. It is the States that determine the benefits, not the federal government, each State is different in its benefits and the federal government, would be trampling on State rights in my opinion, just getting involved in it anyway.

The federal tax code has not been a problem because there are already rules federaly that allow for peoplke living together to file jointly, single, dual income etc. Just have to file the proper forms for dependency and so forth.

You are correct on the civil union in R.I. which is why the way these supporter of marriage are not only barking up the wrong tree, they are not even close to what the real answer is, STATE LAW on Benefit equality. Ignore the gender issue and such, just stay on the inequity section and push civil unions.

That in my opinion would have negated most of this decent nation wide. Trying to make it a national issue on both sides damned them to decades of political in fighting, that in the end will accomplish nothing I bet. There is a reason for State rights, and this is one of them, for the State to have self determination by the citizens on their own local issues, Marriage benefits are local, again varied state to state.

On another note Dan, the churchs have nothing to do with the marriage contract, other than they must have the States permission to approve that the marriage contract is inforce, hense a marriage license issued by the State, and the power issued by the State for certain individual to conduct a lawfull ceremony, Priest, Minister, Judge etc. These powers have nothing to do wIth anything but the power to lawfully engage a contract required by the State in order for a citizen to secure thebenefits the State allows under the contracts.

I still do not understand why this got so out hand, cooler heads should have used forward thinking on how best to handle it, they obviously did not. It seems as if they looked for the best way to incite and divide people, which has worked sadly very well in accomplishing nothing at all. Rminds me of the old Dear Abby argument for decades, which is the right way to place toilet paper in the bathroom, so the roll come out under the roll or over the roll. Went on for decades and there is still no solution that makes sense, both way are equally usable. lol.

Maritine (not to be confused with Martians)captains is a world right back thousands of years to perform marriage or couplings, that is still in force lol.

Jack, I assume you mean maritime captains, with an M.
And interestingly enough, as it turns out--
No, captains don't ever seem to have an especial LEGAL right to perform marriages at sea...
who'd have guessed?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/546/are-ships-captains-allowed-to-marry-people-at-sea

Again Jack, you are not equalizing the rights, you are saying that is ok for states to make that determination. So, would it be ok wioth you if, say, Mississippi decided that blacks and whites cannot marry any more? They did not allow interracial marriage until lat in the last century. the term "marriage" has ALWAYS been a civil one, but has been co-opted by religions. fine, whatever, no one really cares. but you cannot have a legal contract, which is what "marriage" is right now apply to only some of the people some of the time. Ignore the word marriage, its all legal garbage. and lastly, all clergy should be removed from the ability to enact a legal contract. That is for lawyers and town clerks, not for clergy. You ever try to get married from a JoP or a judge? Yeah, good luck. Warwick only does it on Wednesdays between 1 and 3pm. I had to get "married" in a church. Chapel by the sea in Connimicut. Had to pay $200 to do it. all I wanted was a darned contract and I could not do it during working hours.

la_mouffetteI

My mistake I forgot to add that they must be certified as an "officiant" Many Cruise ship Captains do this still today. The link you provide looks only at a captain and not the whole picture, which is the added duties a captain has taken on, for many reasons, past and present.

"Marriage officiant" is a civil officer who performs acts of marriage, civil union or commitment. Their main responsibility is to receive and witness the consent of the intended spouses and to ensure the legal formalities, and hence the validity of the marriage or civil union, are observed. Unlike wedding and civil union ceremonies, there is no legal filing of paperwork required for commitment ceremonies.

United States
Further information: Celebrant (United States), Officiant, and Humanist officiant
In the United States, Canada and many other countries around the world, a celebrant is a person who performs religious or secular celebrancy services for weddings, funerals, child namings, coming of age ceremonies, and other rituals.
Most Celebrants are ordained clergy, while some are legal officials (usually judges), and others are Officiants empowered by the Humanist Associations around the world.

Well I am sure in the convoluted world of law now, there are numerous varibles to this lol. Probably part 1 through infinite.

But in the interest of fairness, we are both right to a point lol.

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

I should not have used the words rights Dan, I talking about the beneifits, which has been the complaint to my knowledge of this issue. The constitution says, all rights not expressly given to the government are reserved to the States. I say it should be handled there. The black white thing has nothing to do with the argument s that is obvious civil right violation federally. As you well know at one time that was legal, it does take time for humanity to get its head out of its butt as they say.

It is not the clergy that acts to legalize the contract any "officient" can who the state reconizes. I could be ordained the husky dog minister with the right paperwork and do it. That is why I say it is a contract issue not religous.

The history or precident if you will need not be changed at all. Merly the State adding another contract with the same benefits. I should have noted that this also stops the slippery slope. that some are afraid the re-defining of marriage will cause, like polgamy and animals and such. In the world of today nothing would stop that from being the next issue and then it would be here we go again.

I think my suggestion handles that even in the future, as most States currently honor the laws of other states and would be hard pressed politically to ignore this kind of change. Though I have no doubt there would be challenges to it.

Though we also have a chioce of where to live. I would never live in a few States because of the laws they have.

Jack--
A "celebrant" is the term for ANYone who performs a marriage ceremony, religious or secular, legally binding or not. The celebrant is the person who leads the couple in making their vows. Period.
Additionally, anyone can legally become an "officiant" by various means.
Some Vegas Elvis impersonators are legal officiants. It has nothing to do with a historical or inherent right of Elvii to perform legally binding marriages. It has to do with people wanting to be married by Elvis, and someone filling that niche by being both.
The same is true with captains.
We have a romantic idea that captains, as virtual Kings of their ship while at sea, have the right to marry people legally. It has been perpetuated in TV, movies and novels. Some people love this romantic idea and want to be married by a captain, so some captains jump through the hoops and become legal officiants.
In Massachusetts, ANYone can be an officiant for one day if they fill out some paperwork and pay a fee.

Since your point was, "Maritine (not to be confused with Martians)captains is a world right back thousands of years to perform marriage or couplings, that is still in force lol." I'm afraid I can't agree.
There is no thousands-of-years-old authority of sea captains to perform legally binding marriages by right of being captains.
Period.

But then, I'm not sure why you tacked that idea on anyway, and
we have gone far afield of our topic at this point, lol...

la_mouffette

I did it at the end half heartedly, because in the end marriage is in the eye or mind of the believer. And it is true that for thousands of years, the captain head of the tribe, medicine man or even gog who defeatef mog as lader of the clan, performed joinings, marriage, civil unions or what ever humans or cavemen want to call it. The bottom line is that is is a cntractual contract to the State in order to recieve the benefits the State allows for such a contract.

No different then State issuing a license when you make the choice to drive, which is a privilege not a right. Whether it is 2 men, 2 women, or man and a women, it is up to the State what qualifies for the benefits awarded to each situation. It must be clarified and codiied into law, to prevent abuse of the system, I.E people marry a cat and dog together to get the benefits. That is the sillyness to all this for me.

Call the contract for unions, well unions, between 2 adult (set age of consent) shall recieve said benefits equally. I still say that solves the problem, with out federal or constitutional BS. If some is against it for what ever reason, that is their choice and problem. Lot of people against taxes, but the law is the law. Evidently some are against elvis or a captain enjoining people also. ( I will assume that is Conservatives, since they are blamed for dinosaur extinction I heard recently or was it sun spots, but I digress lol)

Don't care about that either lol.

RE: Polygamy... whats the problem with it? The US recognizes polygamous marriages of people who emigrate here while married to multiple wives. To each their own. As long as all persons involved are consenting adults, who cares? This is the part I do not get at all. The libertarian in me does not under stand why everyone cares what goes on in other peoples lives and houses.

Jack, I do agree with you that gay couples should have access to equal partnership rights under civil unions. I'm actually with you on that.
I have the same opinion, but can't agree with your faulty reasoning and really poor examples. No offense, man.
Your history seems drawn from outdated pop culture, rather than any actual anthropology. ONE example: the complication of legally binding marriage in Europe during the middle ages developed because, up until that point in Christian Europe, NO officiant was required. Christian marriage was an act performed by the bride and groom by "plighting their troth". The only thing required was two people and their vows.
The concept of witnesses and an officiant came into play as an effort by the Church and some States to do damage control. Those simple private vows created a HUGE variety of problems.
Not the least of these was the tendency of too many young grooms to vow marriage in a bedroom, get it on, and then pretend it never happened--big problem.
Rich kids were marrying "unsuitable" mates, too,
though the entire concept that people weren't allowed to marry for love before modern times is very distorted.
Often, we are only taught the history of the small upper classes, and not the very different history of the vast working classes. When you don't have a lot of wealth or land or prestige or power, one of the upsides is,
you can generally marry whomever you want within your class.
That's been true for a long, long time.

la_mouffette

In order to accomplish most things in life, history show the simple and often most obvious solution is right in front of you. My example are just that. Nothing complicated, smoke, mirrors, religious overtones, prejudging, holier than thou, etc. All of that just obscures the basic principle. In order to have a free society, you have the right to be offended, but you do not have the right punish when the offence is a choice, that does not affect you in anyway shape or form in my opinion.

The case of all of this being historic, or religious, really has nothing to do with it as I have said so many times. It is about fairness and equity of a contractual benefit supplied by the State. It can only succeed through State legislative processes, because there is no right provided for it in the Constitution, and so in a republic, the minority rights are provided for by regulation and law, which is why we are not a pure Democracy, which is mob rule and denies rights to the minority.

I will not debate on who did what in the past, or why marriage should apply as I still think it was the worst way they could have gone about getting approvel for the benefits, in making it a religious issue that they did. People of faith have every right to oppose it as they do to want it. All they did was force people into 2 camps, leaving politicians to sit back and play football with it for votes, and that sadly will continue for many many more years I predict.

To continue and you knew I would lol. I take no offence to that, I will be the first to admit my growing up in the free love 60's affects my reasoning at times, though I don't recall it to much lol.

I will say this though, the evolution of society is allways going on. Not to belabor the religious angle, but the Spanish Inquisition lasted about 6 months, he time it took the pope in rome to get word of what was going on and stop it, the church had to evolve. The rise of Martin Luther and break away from the Pope also was an evolution to a difference in teching of he faith.

Roger Williams telling the Puritans to shove it, and forming R.I. Salem which trials which also only lasted a short time, and 16 people were killed shamefully. These are examples of the worst in humans, but they did get it right in the end. This particular issue, is nothng more than an evolution of society, that to me there is no argument to not do it. Take away the religious opinions or beliefs, the bigotry on both sides, the fear of the rest who oppose it and you have nothing to stop it.

Another poor example ;-}, we allow animals to inheirite illions of dollars, we allow same sex couple own a business together and both are responsible for it if it fails, we allow women in combat because we found out all sodiers really care about is that what ever living thing next to them can shoot and watch their back and vice versa. All of this is evolution of society. Do it now 10 years it will seem common.

Also think I give up on this particular gay debate. Beaten this horse to death I think, the poor thing shame on us all.lol

actually Jack, it is not just taxes. It is hospital visitation, rights to their mutual children, the right to adopt if they choose, inheritance, and many other spousal rights. Even in a civil union, a gay man's family can override the "spouse" on burial and take possession of the body. In oder for a gay couple to get put on each others health insurance, they have to fill out around 40 pages of forms and cohabitate for a certain number of years, etc. Even with civil unions. I know a couple that is going through this, here in RI, right now. there are literally hundreds of benefits afforded a married couple that gay couples are not entitled to. THAT is what they want. The same rights as every one else. And if it really is a religious issue, well, like I said, 15% of Christian churches are pro-gay marriage and will perform them. As soon as that happened, denying it became a violation of the first amendment.

As I said Dan tax and Beneifts, all can be equalized by the legislature. The benefits are the right to make medical, funeral etc, these are all rights given currently to what is called the marriage contract. That is what I mean when I say benefits, it is all the same, no difference, should be looked at as a beneifit package for the contract no the gender of sexuality of the people getting the contract, whether civil or the current marriage contract the State currently requires. I reall do think it is as simple as that, but now I have a headache and need to take a nap lol.

I agree, that is exactly what it should be, unfortunately, it is not what it is. I really think most people could give a rat's patootie what it is called, as long as they get the same legal protection and benefits.

Dan I agree with the "rat's patootie " but you are showing your age with that one lol.

My grandmother used to say that, I figured it would get through a filter much easier and not offend too many :)

Not until 1215 did the Catholic Church make marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage legitimate. Sixteenth-century Protestant reformers had a much more positive marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage attitude toward the blessedness of marriage than Catholics. But Protestant clerics were stricter than Catholics in enforcing the tradition that marriage should be governed by considerations of patriarchal authority and property rather than free choice based on love. In many Protestant regions, authorities forbade impoverished individuals from marrying at all. And Protestant officials often stepped in to dissolve marriages that had been made without parental consent, even if both parties were adult and children had already been born to their union.

Most of the "traditions" we associate with marriage are in fact comparatively new. It was only two centuries ago that people began to marry for love rather than for mercenary or practical considerations. Only 130 years ago did men start to lose their legal right to physically beat or imprison their wives. And only in the past 40 years have we established the principle that within a marriage wives and husbands have equal rights in decision-making. Not until 1979 did the last American state finally repeal its "Head and Master" law, which had given husbands the final say over many aspects of family life. Not until 1993 did marital rape become a crime in every state, overturning the millennia-old tradition that a wife was obligated to have sex with her husband whenever he demanded it. Trying to revert to antiquated and unfair traditions is not the answer. We need to figure out how to build on the opportunities and minimize the risks associated with the ongoing modernization of marriage. It helps no one to wage futile culture wars to return to a tradition that wasn't half as clear-cut or advantageous as many people believe.

I would have to say that the reaqson I continued the conversation with Dan D and others on the marriage issue, is that it is a benefit affecting ax payers, and the current waste of years of legal fights and tying up state legislatures as with these ACLU and other fights on Crosses and monuments etc. Gives these politicians reasons to say they are bust doing the peoples business, when in reality they are doing the special interest business.

I believe they should be locked in a room and come out with balanced budgets and cut the heck out of the fraud waste and abuse in the system, or do not feed after 2 weeks if they have not accomplished it them until they do. Watch how fast GOP DEM IND and special interest wont matter at all then lol.

Joe the only way you are going to balance the budget is to raise taxes to increase revenue or cut military spending. Defense equals 54% of the federal budget.

Incorrect, Shill. Defense accounts for 19% of the Federal budget in 2011. For 2012 it's going to be between 19 and 24%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

What we spend the most money on are entitlement programs, which equal 62% of Federal Spending for 2011.

Shill, I think you'd like this exercise. You don't have to do it, but it would help you figure out if we need to raise taxes or not.

Go to a page with the US Constitution then direct yourself to Article I. Listed are all the things that Congress HAS to pay for... what their duties are according to that article. You'll notice it has Defense, Postal roads (highways... which could also be considered defense considering what they were built for), the running of the government, the court system, ect.

Then look up the budget passed in 2009 (the last budget the Senate has passed)... add up all the things listed in the Constitution.

Next, go to a page which lists our tax revenue for that year (keep in mind it was the height of the recession). What you'll find is that that year our government had $200+ billion more in revenue than what they HAD to spend according to the law, yet we ran a deficit of over $1 trillion.

Oh, forgot the entitlement spending citation... apologies, and for 2012, not 2011.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/embed?size=560&chart=budget-entitlement-programs

That 54% figure gets thrown around a lot. They call it "discretionary" funding and say it is 54% of that. they call SS, Medicare, and other social programs "non-discretionary" to make their silly 54% figure.

Bryan wake up it's 2012 not 1790 we are no longer a rural agrarian society time change and governments need to change with the times also you can't live in the past. Governments that do not change and adapt with the time collapse. We pay more in defense the all the other major world countrys combined. the problem with conservatives is they only think of themselves and to hell the rest of society as long as you can put more money into your pocket you don't care if others starve. We are no longer a country but just a group of individuals only looking out for themselves.

Just correcting your data, Shill. Not trying to convince you of anything. Feel free to ask any question you'd like for a future week's blog.

Also, see Article V for how to amend the Constitution.

You do realize Shill that we also have a larger population the all of the EU, we have the most technologicly advanced military in History, We re by far the best military in the world and have saved more people in history than any other country, because of our military.
Contrary to popular belief by some, that we are not feared by they bad guys out tere, you can rest assured we scare the hell out of them, with our advance weapons. Like it or not we are the wall between another world war, because we can not be attacked on our own soil by any army in the world even combined.

The only way the US can be defeated is with total scorched earth of the country and that would destroy a country who feeds 25% of the world currently not including the 300 million people in America of which 87 million legal owners of weapons who have over 340 million weapons, not counting law enfocement or the military. You guess it, more than almost the whole world combined. Why? Because freedom is not free, and those who do not prepare for war, will never know peace.

Your blanket statement that all conservatives are of one mind, is nothing more than bigotry, as well as your distain for the military. You may have the right to have all that pent up foolishness, but remember it was those in the military and the civilian founders who gave it to you. You might reflect on that sometime.

That is not a conservative,liberal or any ideology, just common moral sense in my opinion anyway.

Well put, Jack. I saw those numbers when I was researching for Shill. Also saw 19% and 23% (for military). I think it's hard to get future numbers so each of those sources are doing a bit of estimation... which is why I used the 2011 hard number which was 19%.

it is 19% to an estimate of 24% in 5 years time I thought I had tht in there but left it out I guess lol. It is one of the hardest things to get a grasp on how our budget breaks down unless you look at actual numbers, as people who talk on it in the media, do have the time obviously to explain it in detail so they use talking points.

I remember when 60 minutes would do an hour show, every year or so on the budget. Now it is all hide and seek sadly. I do howeer get quite upset on any Vet issues or military with out a person stating the facts, which are available at many Government site including the Pentagon and CIA sites.

I don't understand it either. I see a lot of numbers thrown around by a lot of different people (from all angles)... it's not like before they write it they can't go to their favorite search engine and find it. It's not too hard to find.

I think it has to do with people seeing or hearing what they want to see and hear, rather than researching it themselves. I believe it has also infected the media a lot also. It is lazyness on these people in my opinion and even politicians are doing it all the time and then you see corrections 5 minutes later after an aid checks it, happens from the pres on down. Never use to be like this, but the web has a lot of bad information and suposition on it, to make it a real problem to the point, some people do not even realize they are living in a different reality then the rest of us lol.

Should add that all you have to do is ask your Senator or Congressman for the DOD budget when it is printed, and they will get you one, and it cost nothing and can be as fun a reading as it can be boring and piss you off when you see the little nonsense things they throw in there that have nothing to do with defense of any kind. They hide unbelievable stuff in it.

I don't get the hard copy for last 4 years as most can be found on the web, but talk about headaches lol.

I agree Joe

Iraq big mistake and we never should have gone in there, was against it from the start. As for Afghanistan, I thought we would go in there and bomb the heck out of them, showing them that every time they protect or harbor terrorist, we will drop Hades on them or anyone else in any country who dares to try and kill Americans. I figured we would do that and leave. Instead we went into this nation building under the guise of terrorism and like Vietnam, tied the hands of our military with the most despicable “Rules of Engagement” ever in history in my opinion.

As a Vet that really saddens me to think of how many of the deaths there and in Iraq were due to the Rules. Many of my fellow Vets have stories of it, but I will not get into that. Suffice to say they were not happy at all from the top rank to the bottom with this, and none of this would be going on still, had we unleashed the military properly. Which is; here is the mission, what ever it takes to accomplish it; that does not violate the Geneva Convention, and go to it. There is no such thing as a good war, there is only like Patton said; “paraphrase” “You do not win a war by dying for your Country, you win a war by making the other person die for his Country” That in a nutshell is war. This attempt at “Police Action” is not what a military is for period. Korea, Vietnam both police Actions in name only, we all know they were War. Korea Still in ceasefire truce. Not over yet.

I called it pre planning for the future that worked, when you are retired, You have time to spare mostly.

I have had a colorful life as they say, and a lot of life experience. I have a hard time shutting up, or in this case stop from typing lol. My favorite saying being is “never hurts to be nice”, it also pisses a person trying to rile you to no end. lol.

If what I write helps or informs, is wrong, which I will always admit if I am, then we all learn something. Nothing wrong with debate, with out the name calling and bigotry lol. No human is perfect. May start a blog someday. But I fear I would be the only one writing on it, kinda a nightmare. lol

My beliefs are Native American of which I am descended from among other things. We could all learn a lot from their wisdom, it is as astounding as the Founders. Hope this answers your post lol.

"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace.....Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.......Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty.” - Chief Joseph, Nez Perce

I feel like you have strong opinions, but I can't quite understand what you're trying to tell us here, Tim.
Can you help me?

oh! and btw, I'm a political moderate, so I'm not waiting to pounce on you and attack you, no matter what your position is.
I'm being genuine here, I'm not sure what you're saying.

This helps a bit...thank you.
I'm not sure why you would ever be sorry for how you communicate.
I just wanted to understand you better.
lol, and I can offer help, but I'm not sure you need it. You're pretty driven.

I agree very strongly, the city needs to work on building its tax base back up! Woonsocket probably can't financially survive in this economy with an ever-shrinking base.

As for cuts, I also agree, specifics are good.
I'd like to get ultra-specific, have a thorough, transparent, outside analysis of our budget, all our expenses, our different departments. I think that would give everyone a better handle on where we are, what we need, and how we can improve things.
The way we've made cuts in the past few years hasn't always made sense.
I think the burden should be spread as evenly and fairly as possible,
and done intelligently, so we all feel like we're in this together.

I think most people would guess, from some of your comments, that you've been poor at some point during your life, and climbed out of it.
It makes a big difference, doesn't it?
For people who have never been poor before, the experience seems a lot harder to deal with, much scarier.

But I feel bad for many, especially the elderly homeowners...I can't imagine working hard all your life, not being able to work anymore, and worrying you might lose your mortgage-free home to taxes =(

la_mouffette

I agree it is a shame there are these problems in this State, but the bottom line is we need to not only replace all of those in power for the last 30 years or so, with new blood, and frankly I could care what their politics are, as lond as they are for the people and total change of the systems status quo. Our problem are numorous and can be solved, but obviously not by the current brainiacs in office.

Business, business business is the key not tourism, waiters, waitresses, busboys, cooks, parking attendents etc; but real jobs, with real wages i.e. manufacturing, tech, longshore, off shore, and many others will follow etc. Also real help to small business in the State not a 38 or gambling which is no different than tourism dependency in the end in my opinion.

Wow a short one, lack of "Tolstoy" tonight lol

La_Mouffette,

Well written un seedy comment. On the subject of ultra- specific transparent outside analysis of the Woonsocket budget. I agree that transparency is good. What I personally have hesitancy is with shifting power from elected officials to appointed budget professionals. This I believe that you would agree with is a different subject than Bankruptcy as a solution to Woonsocket's fiscal problems. In my opinion bankruptcy would be the worst option for many reasons.

We may be in the minority on this one, but we both agree that Woonsocket needs to work on building it's tax base back up (through other means, than tax increases). Where you have more depth on the subject that I have is in the specific cuts in the past that haven't made sense.

What you also hit on target in my opinion is those who have lived in Woonsocket, worked, raised families in, and grown that no longer have - the elderly. It's a part of the cultural rift that I'm not sure how to answer. When their life savings have been washed away, government programs seems like a bitter pill to swallow.

Being raised poor doesn't mean that one has to stay there. Yes, I've climbed out of the bucket, and also got dragged back in. I will do so again, should the remote controllers shut their power off (joke). I believe what you are getting at is the city needs leadership. Leadership I would like all of you to define.

I have more to say, but I've done enough for now.

Part 1

The Shill

“But with lower taxes, the economy plummets” Better study some history on that Shill because you cannot get father from the truth on that one.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
By Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
August 13, 2003

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The only one following in Greeces foot steps is the current administration in Washington, and that sorry to say is a fact.

I agree, Greece is a socialist country that got in trouble.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Benjamin Franklin

I agree that Reagan was anything but fiscally conservative, lol =)

But there's one thing I have to correct--
when Reagan was supporting Hussein, Iraq was NOT our enemy, but our ally.

Hussein's regime did not become our enemy until we abruptly moved against him when he invaded Kuwait. (Additionally, much of the population of Iraq liked and trusted us up until we very badly bungled the aftermath of Desert Storm, but that's a story for another day.)

Now, I'm not particularly a fan of Reagan,
nor am I proud that Hussein was our ally.
He is one in a long list of vicious, oppressive petty dictators whom we have allied with and propped up to try to protect our safety (or worse still, our "interests") around the world. The decades of war-by-proxy we had with the USSR,
and its after effects (like al-Qaeda), encouraged us to support some pretty horrific puppet regimes. It was anything but "the American Way."

But, Reagan wasn't doing anything new or unusual by supporting Hussein.
We should keep in mind that Hussein was a comparatively Western-style leader and, considering he was the ruler of an Arab nation, he supported a fairly high degree of religious freedom and women's liberation. It's part of why extreme fundamentalists hated him so.
He was also willing to oppose the spread of the USSR.

Selling arms to Iran was aiding a sworn enemy.
Supporting Hussein, at that time, was absolutely not.

A long response, with some incidental defense of Reagan supporting Iraq at the time being somehow OK. Fine. I brought it up to indicate shortsightedness of someone who became a mortal foe from ally, in what, 4-5 years after Reagan left?

At least you partially answered the question: Reagan was not fiscally conservative.

Thanks.

Shripathi, I like your question. I already wrote the blog for this week, so depending on whether or not another crop of questions pop up, I'll answer this the following week.

Thanks for reading, I'm happy that someone from California has read the blog. I hope you like it.

See, this is typical. The topic is "Ask a conservative".

So I did

I cited easily verifiable facts about Reagan. I cited some references in case people want something handy. Reagan has a record. On basis on that record, is he a conservative? If you disagree with the citations I posted, fine, cite your corrections, and we can discuss that.

I then ask a simple question. Was Reagan a conservative? If he was (or was not) how about Obama?

What do I get for my troubles?

An oblique reference to Bill Maher, who curiously enough I have utter contempt for his ant-vaccer nonsense (and not just recently, either): http://bit.ly/theG1r

Why is Clinton even brought up?

Shri,

First the Bill Maher reference is a joke ( I have a sense of humor). My guess is that your a scholor student and an effective data dumper. While facts are easily verifiable, what isn't as easily seen are the political and social climates of that time. By today's standards Ronald Reagan is a conservative. So yes he is.

The Iran contra was a political and media nightmare for the United States. Shifting from rights to responsibilities, I would agree that it should have never happened. When I said that America won the cold war by having the moral high ground. I meant it. Somewhere along the way, it is being lost. The question how to get it back, I'd like answered.

President Clinton is mentioned because I believe that personal failings forgiven, he was a great President. Some would even argue that he was a conservative. Afterall he did pass Welfare Reform in 1996 that angered many, but had the strongest economy in 50 years (balancing the budget for 4.)

Shri - lets say that you lived in a city like Woonsocket. A population of 40,000. Unemployment rate in the 20's. Average income in the 20'000s. Forclosed homes, increasing crime rate, businesses in trouble, and big public debts. What's the answer? Keep in mind that this town is a former manufacturing city that lost jobs, first to the south and then overseas.

The Shill on Free Speech

Shill I thought the 1st amendment only applies to the Government like you said? What happened changed you mind? I thought a person can tell anyone to shut up anytime?

"The Shill 4:45 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012"

Jack the First Amendmnet only applies to the Government as a private person he can tell you to shut up any time he wants. you only have free speach when it comes to the Government that is why a movie theater can through you out if you talk during the movie or a site like Patch can deleate any comment they want they are not bound by the First Amendment.

By the way "la_mouffette"
Asked a question; “Shir, what on Earth are you doing posting here?”,

how did you come to the conclusion he was telling shir he could not post?

Also by the way, “Bryan Palumbo” is in the military and goes where the Government sends him, the basic rules are you are a resident of where you first joined the military and that is where you get your absentee ballot from. (reason being in a State like Texas, where there are 70,000 military alone on Fort Hood, they would decide every local election, because their population is larger than the surrounding towns) Not to mention they would swing any State election when you add all the other basesthere.

In any case who really cares lol.

Oh and thank you for a good belly laugh, I thik a few pounds fell off my single AB. lol

woah, Shill, calm down.
1. I'm not a conservative. Not remotely. (Though, I wouldn't say I'm a liberal either.)
re: my response to Shri, as I said, I'm not particularly a fan of Reagan's.
I was a child and quite poor during his presidency, and grew up resenting the very bad press he gave people who needed food stamps.

You're in attack mode, and that's making you read my tone wrong.

2. I was expressing laughing surprise.
Woonsocket is not exactly a famed and illustrious town anymore, and RI is virtually as far from California as the continental US gets.
I only wondered if he followed a link, or had relatives here, or once lived here.

Take a breath.

Ihear ya "LA" lol. On reagan I find people usually either love him or hate him, in the end though to me it is history same as Bush is now. Better to concentrate on the here and now. remember the past, but do not dwell on it, for it will only instill hate for that which you now have no control over. Better to not repeat the mistakes of the past then whine about them lol.

On the other hand the Shill seems to read things into post that are not there, so it is amusing at times. Think she means well just didnt get it was a question not derogatory, and of course read a hell of a lot more into it then was there lol.

Oh no sweat, I have enough mm on my epidermis to ignore.

Looked like an interesting topic, so I participated.

ohh, did you find this Patch via Tim posting on yours? Now it all makes sense! =)

Thank you for your kind words, Jack.

It should not matter if I am a libertarian (which is a good guess), or a green party member, or a transgender Republican.

The topic was "Ask a conservative". So I did.

I guess I will retreat shamefully to my humble abode in Southern California.

BTW, please note that I blog for the Mission Viejo Patch.

themindisaterriblething.com is a private blog, and has TWO other authors. Not all posts on that are mine.

" I must have said something compelling for Shri to follow along and post here. "

But of course! Why else would I not be responding to your compelling post over *there*?

Didn't say you did Tim said Shir does, just for claity, also was only giving an opinion of Shir and researching who we are talking to to be more informed.

I agree on the house manure, upside ;-}.

Hope you get a jobs soon, but sadly in RI. that does not seem to promising for quite a while now. Trudge on though most people like yourself and that I know do what they have to that is legal anyway, with self responsibility that is a noble trait and sign of integrity.

Constitution is working, just the politicians forgot about it, they work for us not themselves or special interest. wish a lot of them in this State woul read the damn thing along with the DOI, and BOR. Damn magna carta might not be a bad idea either ;-}

Also apologize for some of my Post, I though I read last night you accusing Shir of cutting and pasting and putting information, to much and such, unless it was on another blog I forget now, so appology is there ;-}. In either case it would have been your opinion ;-}

Self-Responsibity; Accepting responsibility for all the personal actions and choices that you have done that effect your life, and correcting them yourself if needed ;-}

Jack,
You seem like an intelligent individual. What is your stance on Economic Development? Do you favor blacklisting opinionated individuals?

These two post by you are your best yet. Your writing style is similar to Ken Landry (if you know who that is. across from your belief spectrum.) I agree that career blacklisting is wrong. Especially considering all of the things that some individuals get away with and are filthy rich.
I've been out of work for years and have a good resume. I have had thousands of resume's sent out. I've never worked on the public dime either.
Someone like me doesn't stay unemployed because if I either work physically or in business I'm productive. Anonymous posted on my behalf, but your answer was great. If the internet trolls aren't happy with opinions then maybe they should develop some themselves. Agree with me or not, I like the diverse opinions.

actuallyI do not know Landry, but wil look it up. Glad you liked the explaination, to me that would b common sense for most people I would hope. Well help from others is a great thing, it can be decrimental to some in that it creates a pattern and like has happened in this country a dependecy system. Not all but definatly enough to break the system I believe.

To the filthy rich, I really do not concern myself with that, as we have a justicw aystem that works better than any other, but like all it is far from perfect as all humans are.

I would say as John Stossel said to a bunch ofinterns yesturday, that a lot of people put out resumes and wait for a cal, never realizing that most company Human resources departments have people that just scan them lightly, his suggestion was bug them for an answer, if they do not like it, then you proably would not want to work there. Thought that was a good idea ;-}.

Wont get into me as it really irks a few who bug me endlessly with post of name calling and that ruins is for others.

I also tend to go on and on lol. Comes with old age lol.

I also do not consider working for the government or the State a public dime if that is what you mean. I will admit it is out of hand now though, due to union leadship in closed states such as this. For clarity I worked for the fed as a firefighter and retired from there. Never confuse the fed benefits of old with the State they are not even close and never have been. lol

Tim Cannot find the Landry you are talking about? Only one I can seem to find is the musician, but no writings ;-}. Could you point in the correct direction, thanks.