http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJSnozJ4LVg

Congressman Buyer is my congressman here in Indiana. He is an American hero, served in the Army as a Colonel and is retiring this year to spend more time with his family (his wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer last year, a type that runs in her family and took her mother away)

That being said, this video is awesome....

Today he was on the house floor....just watch the video.

The democrat acting speaker has no clue what to do, and has to rely on assistance from another member (maybe a clerk?) as to what to say or do.....This to me is a great example of what has been going on for the past 4 years. Democrats taking total debate out of the spectrum and playing politics with SIMPLE, SIMPLE procedure in minor bills and regular order through congressional committees.

This was awesome...and Buyer was so on target that this "acting Speaker" was completely clueless on how to handle it.

I am happy beyond words to describe it that Madame Speaker Pelosi - the one who would allegedly bring civility back to the House floor - will be the one begging Speaker Boehner for a chance to be recognized.

This shit is unbelievable.

Dude was correct. This type of shit should be infuriating no matter what your political views.

Our federal government has become a joke. It is high time for a revolution. I am not advocating a violent one. Hopefully the people will rise up and demand peaceful revolutionary change. I for one am sick of these clowns. They are leading us into financial ruin and behave like fools on the floor of our legislature. This is not the first time. I have little faith that the current crop recently elected will bring the needed change.

Maybe some states should divorce themselves from this insanity. I don't no what it will take. Some major change has to happen. Disgusting.

God save the republic.

majorspark;583046 wrote:Our federal government has become a joke. It is high time for a revolution. I am not advocating a violent one. Hopefully the people will rise up and demand peaceful revolutionary change. I for one am sick of these clowns. They are leading us into financial ruin and behave like fools on the floor of our legislature. This is not the first time. I have little faith that the current crop recently elected will bring the needed change.

Maybe some states should divorce themselves from this insanity. I don't no what it will take. Some major change has to happen. Disgusting.

God save the republic.

The last time a few states attempted to divorce themselves from this insanity nearly 620,000 Americans lost their lives over it. I highly doubt this scenario would happen again but there is indeed a need for a "quiet political revolution" in this great nation.

The political divide between the left and the right in this country is so profound right now that it would take an act of God to right the ship.

The childish antics being employed by both parties on Capitol Hill is a national embarrassment. Open and honest debate is what has made this country great. Now both parties spend too much time attempting to muzzle the opposition.

It's my hope that Boehner will truly bring a sense of fairness back to the House but I have a hunch it will be more of the same.

Is there no one in the Beltway with vision and courage to do the right thing these days?

majorspark;583046 wrote:Our federal government has become a joke. It is high time for a revolution. I am not advocating a violent one. Hopefully the people will rise up and demand peaceful revolutionary change. I for one am sick of these clowns. They are leading us into financial ruin and behave like fools on the floor of our legislature. This is not the first time. I have little faith that the current crop recently elected will bring the needed change.

Maybe some states should divorce themselves from this insanity. I don't no what it will take. Some major change has to happen. Disgusting.

God save the republic.

Ditto.

believer;583049 wrote:The last time a few states attempted to divorce themselves from this insanity nearly 620,000 Americans lost their lives over it. I highly doubt this scenario would happen again but there is indeed a need for a "quiet political revolution" in this great nation.

The political divide between the left and the right in this country is so profound right now that it would take an act of God to right the ship.

The childish antics being employed by both parties on Capitol Hill is a national embarrassment. Open and honest debate is what has made this country great. Now both parties spend too much time attempting to muzzle the opposition.

It's my hope that Boehner will truly bring a sense of fairness back to the House but I have a hunch it will be more of the same.

Is there no one in the Beltway with vision and courage to do the right thing these days?

Agreed, the moderates are all but extinct now a days.

And no, no one has the vision or courage to bridge the gap.

Congressman Buyer my new hero .............This is the type of guy that can be called with honor and respect "Congressman " and a Public Servant

ptown_trojans_1;583224 wrote:Agreed, the moderates are all but extinct now a days.

And no, no one has the vision or courage to bridge the gap.

Serious question.....Do you see anyway that anyone can bring the country together? Or, are we so polarized that we should indeed split and go our separate ways? Is there enough "middle ground" to save the republic?

BGFalcons82;583241 wrote:Serious question.....Do you see anyway that anyone can bring the country together? Or, are we so polarized that we should indeed split and go our separate ways? Is there enough "middle ground" to save the republic?

Yes, eventually. The country has been more split in its history (1968-1972 being the most recent) and we made it out of it. The thing is it will take a new generation of leaders that will need to rise above and take back the message from both sides. I see that shift in the retirement of the baby boomers and the rise of the "Generations X, Y and Z". It may take a few years, but we'll be fine. We have been through this before.

ptown_trojans_1;583224 wrote:Agreed, the moderates are all but extinct now a days.

And no, no one has the vision or courage to bridge the gap.

Moderates are not what is needed. Were the founders moderates? No, they held strong political beliefs. Strong enough to take up arms if necessary to achieve them. The last thing we need is a moderate or any of these pussified politicians we have today. We need strong leaders that can bring consensus on issues for the good of the nation. Leaders that have the balls to tell the American people what sacrifices need to be made for a better future for this nation. Leader that can transform the legislature into a functioning branch of government, not Romper Room.

Everyone should look at the front page of the Wall St. Journal today.

That is where we are headed if we do not completely rid from power the liberals in Washington.

majorspark;583261 wrote:Moderates are not what is needed. Were the founders moderates? No, they held strong political beliefs. Strong enough to take up arms if necessary to achieve them. The last thing we need is a moderate or any of these pussified politicians we have today. We need strong leaders that can bring consensus on issues for the good of the nation. Leaders that have the balls to tell the American people what sacrifices need to be made for a better future for this nation. Leader that can transform the legislature into a functioning branch of government, not Romper Room.

Wrong. The Founders were of all different ideologies, from Jefferson to Adams to Madison to Hamilton. The differed on many issues, yet they somehow came together and wrote the Constitution and governed the country. They did not have radical views, but moderate views on driving the country forward as they knew if they went too far one way towards Jefferson or toward Hamilton, the country may split apart.

Moderates are what is needed to get things done, to solve the SS crisis, the healthcare issue, bridge gaps on ideological issues that divide both sides. One will never get rid of conservatives and liberals, so the best thing to do is to have moderates in the middle that can obtain enough support to take the best ideas from both sides and govern the country.

majorspark;583261 wrote:Moderates are not what is needed. Were the founders moderates? No, they held strong political beliefs. Strong enough to take up arms if necessary to achieve them. The last thing we need is a moderate or any of these pussified politicians we have today. We need strong leaders that can bring consensus on issues for the good of the nation. Leaders that have the balls to tell the American people what sacrifices need to be made for a better future for this nation. Leader that can transform the legislature into a functioning branch of government, not Romper Room.

Agreed- but we need two more things: 1) a responsible, accountable mainstream media that isn't in the tank for liberals and their policies, and 2) an intelligent, informed electorate that recognizes this kind of crap and holds their leaders accountable.

IMO, I don't expect 1 to change anytime soon, and 2 is still up in the air at this point. Sadly, American Idol & Dancing with the Stars are more pressing issues for average Americans than being involved in political debate & discourse.

ptown_trojans_1;583281 wrote:Wrong. The Founders were of all different ideologies, from Jefferson to Adams to Madison to Hamilton. The differed on many issues, yet they somehow came together and wrote the Constitution and governed the country. They did not have radical views, but moderate views on driving the country forward as they knew if they went too far one way towards Jefferson or toward Hamilton, the country may split apart.

Moderates are what is needed to get things done, to solve the SS crisis, the healthcare issue, bridge gaps on ideological issues that divide both sides. One will never get rid of conservatives and liberals, so the best thing to do is to have moderates in the middle that can obtain enough support to take the best ideas from both sides and govern the country.

The "moderates" of 1776 would be labeled wacked-out, right-wing, fringe nutjobs by today's society. Yeah, they compromised and worked together differing opinions to "get things done", but they would laugh at today's "moderates".

ptown_trojans_1;583281 wrote:Wrong. The Founders were of all different ideologies, from Jefferson to Adams to Madison to Hamilton. The differed on many issues, yet they somehow came together and wrote the Constitution and governed the country. They did not have radical views, but moderate views on driving the country forward as they knew if they went too far one way towards Jefferson or toward Hamilton, the country may split apart.

Moderates are what is needed to get things done, to solve the SS crisis, the healthcare issue, bridge gaps on ideological issues that divide both sides. One will never get rid of conservatives and liberals, so the best thing to do is to have moderates in the middle that can obtain enough support to take the best ideas from both sides and govern the country.

The founders were of all ideologies. They had strong held political beliefs. I disagree that they were moderates. Moderates do not bring about radical changes when needed. Strong leaders do. The founders were able to come together because they had strong leaders. The federal government needs some radical changing. Radical changes need to be made to bring fiscal sanity. These changes will not come at the hands of a moderate. They will come at the hands of strong leadership.

majorspark;583297 wrote:The founders were of all ideologies. They had strong held political beliefs. I disagree that they were moderates. Moderates do not bring about radical changes when needed. Strong leaders do. The founders were able to come together because they had strong leaders. The federal government needs some radical changing. Radical changes need to be made to bring fiscal sanity. These changes will not come at the hands of a moderate. They will come at the hands of strong leadership.

I disagree that one cannot be a moderate and a strong leader. I think someone can be both. Dick Lugar in the foreign policy world is one example, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska was another.

My gosh, now you guys are arguing that moderates arent moderate enough! lol

Wow, I for one want rid of labels, I dont care what letter follows your name, do what is best for your constituents, and have the guts to tell your constituents to suck it up if need be!

majorspark;583297 wrote:The founders were of all ideologies. They had strong held political beliefs. I disagree that they were moderates. Moderates do not bring about radical changes when needed. Strong leaders do. The founders were able to come together because they had strong leaders. The federal government needs some radical changing. Radical changes need to be made to bring fiscal sanity. These changes will not come at the hands of a moderate. They will come at the hands of strong leadership.

Strong leaders have a vision, a driving will to accomplish their vision, the ability to communicate clearly, they are honest and tell the brutal truth, they are very charismatic, and they have the inate ability to create other leaders within their ranks to amplify and spread their vision. This doesn't sound like someone who walks down the middle of the road. Lugar and Hagel are good soldiers, but they're not strong leaders.

Going back to my question to ptown....I agree the 60's and early 70's, from JFK's murder to the end of Nixon's regime were traumatic times. Our nation was indeed torn apart by tangible definable events. From the cold war with an enemy of freedom to racism across the land, we had to resolve very serious issues. Today's issues aren't as clearly defined as who among us clearly understands the financial industry, TARP, Quantitative Easing 1 & 2, and "stimulus"?

We have the most volatile economic issues of our lifetimes right in front of us and there are 2 very clear paths to take. We either turn over all control of the economy to government that can't even run a post office, or we return to what made us great, live within our means, and let the individual prosper, not the state. We have been traveling down the government-controlled economy path for so long that it is extremely unlikely we'll ever get off of it now...so that leaves us at a crossroads between those that fear the future, love security, hate risk, and want "social justice" and those that love America for the opportunities it provides, the freedom it allows, and the right to be rewarded for risks taken. I don't see how anyone anywhere at anytime can sew us back together.

BGFalcons82;583346 wrote:We have the most volatile economic issues of our lifetimes right in front of us and there are 2 very clear paths to take. We either turn over all control of the economy to government that can't even run a post office, or we return to what made us great, live within our means, and let the individual prosper, not the state. We have been traveling down the government-controlled economy path for so long that it is extremely unlikely we'll ever get off of it now...so that leaves us at a crossroads between those that fear the future, love security, hate risk, and want "social justice" and those that love America for the opportunities it provides, the freedom it allows, and the right to be rewarded for risks taken. I don't see how anyone anywhere at anytime can sew us back together.

Thank you.

So people who disagree with you "fear the future, love security, hate risk" and somehow don't love America? That probably isn't what you meant to say so if you meant something else please explain it to me and then mock my terrible reading comprehension.

This idea that because there are difficult issues facing us that we must go to an extreme on one side or the other blows my mind. Now more than ever is when we need people willing to look past their particular preferences for how things are done and just do what needs to be done. This applies to both sides. Maybe it means that instead of going full bore on the health care bill right now we should have done some of the things, maybe went ahead with extending the time period for being under your parent's insurance, and tort reform/opening it up across state lines and returned to the problem in five years or so. It also means that we need to seriously think about paring down our defense spending. There are places we can cut without sacrificing what we stand for but it will take level headedness and compromise on both sides. Which is why I'm not optimistic.

I Wear Pants;583441 wrote:So people who disagree with you "fear the future, love security, hate risk" and somehow don't love America? That probably isn't what you meant to say so if you meant something else please explain it to me and then mock my terrible reading comprehension.

I wasn't referring to people as much as an ideology/style of government. It is very likely people that "fear the future, love security, and hate risk" do love America. Where did I write that they don't? They just love a different America than I do. There is no question our government is intruding more and more into our lives, attempting to control more people, and becoming more of a nanny-state to protect everyone from anything evil. There are those that feel comforted by this and want more of it. There are also those that want less of these things and would like to live free of governmental intrusion into what they are "allowed" to eat, what lightbulbs they buy, what cars they can drive, and how much health kare they're allowed to have (or not have if they so choose).

How do we get these 2 diametrically opposite views to co-exist in one country? Who can patch these differences and make everyone happy? Why try to keep a broken house together when divorce may be the best solution for all?

I appreciate wanting to live without someone telling you what to eat,but, drive, etc. Which is why I think that outright banning things is ridiculous. I think there are things that we could benefit from discouraging which is where taxing could be beneficial. If we want to move people away from drinking Four Loko then smack a $1 tax on alcohol energy drinks. That will lessen their abuse while still allowing innovative (yes, Four Loko counts) people to be rewarded for their efforts.

Same thing with the lightbulbs, just tack a quarter tax per bulb or something on inefficient bulbs and invest that money in renewable energy projects/efficient energy projects. Although people would move away from incandescents by themselves for the most part because CFLs are comparable in cost now anyway and last much longer with much less energy costs. Same will eventually happen with LED bulbs.

If you're going to do something to discourage the use of something I'd prefer a tax than an outright ban.

Pants, you support government bullying through taxation?

I Wear Pants;583595 wrote:I appreciate wanting to live without someone telling you what to eat,but, drive, etc. Which is why I think that outright banning things is ridiculous. I think there are things that we could benefit from discouraging which is where taxing could be beneficial. If we want to move people away from drinking Four Loko then smack a $1 tax on alcohol energy drinks. That will lessen their abuse while still allowing innovative (yes, Four Loko counts) people to be rewarded for their efforts.

I would say that you have the "compromise" or "moderate" solutions listed. These appear fair and reasonable to a lot of Americans. They allow for some reward and there is some punishment to be paid in the form of larger confiscation of hard earned property (in these cases, money).

My argument goes to the core....why are Four Loko, incandescent bulbs, Happy Meals, transfats, etc. taxed at all? What right does any government have to tell people what they can have as long as the products are relatively safe for normal consumption? I suppose the arguments from the tree-huggers is that incandescent bulbs lead to global warming yadda yadda yadda...but that is unproven. Hell, the replacement bulbs have mercury in them...a known carcinogen and poison. How are they safer than a hot wire burning in an inert gas? But I digress. Why does government have to regulate, tax, and control so much? Who gave them the power and authority? If I want to eat a Happy Meal or not carry health insurance, then I should be able to do so without some bureaucrat telling me what to do.