Like many of you,I've fed up with the way our politics work,so this is what I came up with:

Much is said every election cycle about the folks in DC wanting to work across the isle. Bipartisanship if you will.

But...what have the past four congresses done to improve on this? NOTHING!

All they have done is blow smoke out their asses,then when they have their first little diagreement,they act like little babies and go huddle in the corners. This goes for Democrats and Republicans,Left and Right,Liberal and Conservative.

When crafting a bill,instead of thinking,"Boy,those guys are trying to screw us,but we'll show them when we get power back",they need to think about that little boy in Appalachia who doesn't have enough to eat because his father just got laid off. They need to think about that little girl in Minnesota who has to go to school with a black eye because her parents think it's ok to beat her. Lastly,they need to think about that veteran in Atlanta who has to sleep on the street because politicians are too busy bickering over childish things to make sure he gets the care and respect he damn well has earned and deserves.

Have we really gotten to a point in this great and proud country where it takes a Tucson or a 9/11 to unite and bring us together? I think not my friends...

But....it can't start with our elected officals in DC or even in our state capitals. It has to start with US my friends. We need to be able to have calm,rational discussion that don't develop into shouting matches. If we can do that,maybe our friends in DC will take notice.

In conclusion,Senators,Representatives,and Mr.President....when the other side presents ideas that differ from your own....look that them and say,Let's take the best of both,and let's make the best bill for us,for Americans,and for this nation.

May God Bless America,and May God Protect our troops


Michael Clark
Feb 4th,2011

Thought some on here would enjoy this,I welcome any comments

Your post is filled with liberal bullshit. It's hard to come together on issues because everyone has their own opinion and it can be difficult to sway either side one direction.

I appreciate you signing your post though. Without that, I wouldn't believe it was actually you.

You also have to think about the man who has sunk 40 years worth of money into Social Security who will now not be able to retire because of that money ... his money, that he is counting on to support him when he's too old to support himself through employment ... being pissed away on a non-return program by the Federal government.

You have to think about the man whose wife needs surgery, but he has a modest jobs that barely allow them to survive ... living next door to a family on government assistance that owns a 60" television and drives a Navigator.

You have to think about the man who was laid off, and went into business for himself because he couldn't find employment elsewhere. He made just enough gross income to support his family, but now it's tax time, and he can't pay the obscene amount of money in taxes that are supposed to go toward governmental assistance that is widely abused.


You see, no matter what, life isn't fair, people get trampled, and the puzzle piece doesn't fit perfectly. Not everyone on governmental assistance is cheating the system, but many are. Not everyone who makes a lot of money is greedy or oppressive, but some are.

So no matter which group you're trying to dick over, you're going to crush and trample innocent, hard-working people in the process.

So, it really comes down to this: What do you trust more, the benevolence of random individuals in our society or the benevolence of the Federal government?

I know what my answer is.

I think what Ty is trying to get at is if we got rid of all Unions America would be a better place. The ironic part is, Ty is a democrat and they typically support unions so he's doing his best to cross party lines and for that I have to get him credit.

Ty Webb;664965 wrote:Michael Clark

So Gibby is Mike Clark? Who knew?

FatHobbit;668723 wrote:So Gibby is Mike Clark? Who knew?

This guy.

FatHobbit;668723 wrote:So Gibby is Mike Clark? Who knew?

Everyone?

sleeper;668669 wrote:Your post is filled with liberal bullshit. It's hard to come together on issues because everyone has their own opinion and it can be difficult to sway either side one direction.

I appreciate you signing your post though. Without that, I wouldn't believe it was actually you.

What exactly was "liberal bullshit" about what he said?

I Wear Pants;668750 wrote:What exactly was "liberal bullshit" about what he said?

they need to think about that little boy in Appalachia who doesn't have enough to eat because his father just got laid off. They need to think about that little girl in Minnesota who has to go to school with a black eye because her parents think it's ok to beat her. Lastly,they need to think about that veteran in Atlanta who has to sleep on the street because politicians are too busy bickering over childish things to make sure he gets the care and respect he damn well has earned and deserves.

All of this. They should take care of themselves. These are liberal sob stories.

Indeed, simply because such stories are not productive with finding answers. Hypothetical anecdotes can be raised to support all sides. Thus, they accomplish nothing.

O-Trap;668710 wrote:You also have to think about the man who has sunk 40 years worth of money into Social Security who will now not be able to retire because of that money ... his money, that he is counting on to support him when he's too old to support himself through employment ... being pissed away on a non-return program by the Federal government.

Cool story, bro.

believer;668776 wrote:Cool story, bro.

Knew you'd enjoy that.

Gonna be the story of my life.

Gibby, I really have to give you credit for thinking like this:

All they have done is blow smoke out their asses,then when they have their first little diagreement,they act like little babies and go huddle in the corners. This goes for Democrats and Republicans,Left and Right,Liberal and Conservative.

That tells me that you're starting to see the bigger picture. Although I still think there's a few "good ones" in there.

Here's something you have to work on though; and that is thinking that these circustamces are a federal issue and not a state/local issue:

they need to think about that little boy in Appalachia who doesn't have enough to eat because his father just got laid off. They need to think about that little girl in Minnesota who has to go to school with a black eye because her parents think it's ok to beat her. Lastly,they need to think about that veteran in Atlanta who has to sleep on the street

I mean, if you really want to think that should be a federal issue overall, I guess you can. But consider this: those people can't even handle their own issues in one building, let alone issues that span to all the varying states. Just take a look at all the shenanigans that those people are busted for: tax cheats, money laundering, backroom deals, drugs, etc. And those are just the ones who have been caught and that we know of.

The rest of your post, IMO, is a bit Pollyanna-ish, but at least you're hopeful. And who knows... it just may happen yet. We'll just have to wait and see. I think the first step to force that to happen is term limits. We desperately need term limits.

O-Trap;668710 wrote:So, it really comes down to this: What do you trust more, the benevolence of random individuals in our society or the benevolence of the Federal government?

CenterBHSFan;668791 wrote:Just take a look at all the shenanigans that those people are busted for: tax cheats, money laundering, backroom deals, drugs, etc. And those are just the ones who have been caught and that we know of.

You're thinking like me, it seems.

CenterBHSFan;668791 wrote:And who knows... it just may happen yet. We'll just have to wait and see. I think the first step to force that to happen is term limits. We desperately need term limits.

Hear Hear, Center. There are so many positives that come from electing citizen representatives as opposed to lobbyist-based ones.

sleeper;668753 wrote:All of this. They should take care of themselves. These are liberal sob stories.

So you believe that anyone who cannot take care of themselves should be allowed to die then.

I'm divided on term limits. Used to be I was like Center and thought it should be mandatory everywhere that people only be allowed to serve a few terms and then move on.

Then I realized that's not letting people decide for themselves if they want to keep someone in office or not. Picking an arbitrary number of years that people can serve doesn't really accomplish what I believe in, which is the freedom of choice by an electorate to decide who they want to serve.

If people are truly good at the job and their constituents want them, who am I to say they shouldn't be allowed to vote them in as many times as they want? Or vote them out after one term, for that matter.

As for what was posted: I still find it hilarious that when Democrats had all the power we never saw a hint of "bipartisanship" or heard more than lip service (if that) about it. But when the power is split or Republicans have control, then it all of a sudden becomes this all important goal.

Frankly, honest disagreement and fierce debate are a big part of our country's history and its political process. I think it goes with the separation of powers to keep those who are supposed to represent us as honest and forthright as possible AND most likely was done to keep the hand of government from reaching too far into our lives.

Of course, the latter has happened gradually through the years, anyway, so if public bickering and partisanship can keep the government from growing any more, or intruding further into our lives, then I say BICKER ON!

Writerbuckeye;668812 wrote:... if public bickering and partisanship can keep the government from growing any more, or intruding further into our lives, then I say BICKER ON!

Someone's doing it wrong then.

In regards to the passage some of you are questioning.....I was not trying to say the government should have to fix those issues,just trying to say no matter how bad yuo think you're getting messed with,someone else always has it worse

I Wear Pants;668810 wrote:So you believe that anyone who cannot take care of themselves should be allowed to die then.

There are exceptions to every rule, but yes I believe everyone has the capacity to look out and take care of themselves. If someone chooses to disregard their body and their life and expects someone else to take care of them, then yes, they should die. I don't know why we protect the lazy POS that exist, if they don't want to take care of themselves, that's fine, but there are consequences.

O-Trap;668818 wrote:Someone's doing it wrong then.

Not really.

Look at when the biggest, most intrusive pieces of legislation were passed. Two examples: FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. Both of these expanded the intrusive role of government by leaps and bounds, and it only happened because one party was in control of the government (liberal Democrats).

Had there been a split in these, there is a good chance neither would have passed because there wouldn't have been agreement on them from everyone.

The most damaging pieces of legislation in our country's history have happened when one party basically had all the power.

Ty Webb;668817 wrote:In regards to the passage some of you are questioning.....I was not trying to say the government should have to fix those issues,just trying to say no matter how bad yuo think you're getting messed with,someone else always has it worse

Fair enough, I think. Wow! I'm really suprised by you, Gibby! In a pleasant sort of way.

What's brought on all this change?

Just been doing alot of thinking lately Center about the state of our country

Ty Webb;668934 wrote:Just been doing alot of thinking lately Center about the state of our country

Well, if you're serious about this, I commend you for it.

It's hard to try and think out logical solutions without emotion.