Seriously? Calm down...that is all you have to add to this debate? Bet you are believing everything that CNN, NBC and ABC are telling you too. Just keep looking for spelling errors.

Bernie Sanders is a good case in point. Sanders is a U.S. Senator from Vermont who runs as an independent, and claims to be "An Independent Voice." In his last election, he garnered 65.4 percent of the 262,419 votes cast for U.S. Senate. A lot of Vermonters probably voted for him because of his "independence." Yet once he got to Washington, he was anything but. Bernie Sanders received a 95

What is wrong with the spelling, maybe it just you...hum

Names, at least not all of them, aren't in spell check.

lol

Dan we don't need a three party system we need a no party system the problem is these politicians first alligence is to their party and not their constituents. the reason the economy is not improving is that the politicians are doing what is best for their party and not what is best for the country.

I don't think you get what Mr. Zane is saying. That even the people who are "independent" vote along party lines once they are elected, so they are not true independents at all.

In our state (in our region really), our Independents are usually from the left side of the aisle because most of the time the Democrat Party candidacies are taken already. I'm sure it's similar in a place like Texas, just the reverse.

Good luck with your vote to Mr. Johnson, you may as well just vote for Obama however.

I'm also a conservative who plans to vote for Gary Johnson in the November elections. He's far more fiscally conservative than Romney, who is a candidate I don't trust at all to reign in spending once he gets to Washington.

I'm not sure how anyone could say this is a "vote for Obama." If anything it's more like not voting at all -- which is exactly what I would have done if faced solely with the choice of Romney or Obama.

regardless, there will always be parties, throwing a 3rd one, a viable 3rd one, in the mix ensures that the person voted in cannot simply rely on his party to get elected, they must court ALL the voters, not just get in touch with "their base" - currently, 10% of the voters choose who will be running for president and then we get to vote for them. Thats it, just 10% are choosing your candidates. And they are almost always teh more extreme members of their parties, so who do they choose? The extremist of course. So we get to vote every 4 years on the choice of the most extreme partisan elements of our society. A 3rd party would make sure they had someone who could actually deserve votes, or they would be marginalized.

Bryan: if i had to pick either Romney or Obama, I would have no choice but to pick Obama. and in this state, it really does not matter. i have read stats that a full 30% of this states voters walk in and pull the Democrat lever. The Dems simply cannot lose here. I am throwing my vote away on Johnson, just as you will throw yours away on Romney. My hope is that Johnson will get enough votes to make people take notice that a 3rd party is viable, even without spending $2 billion. Yes, that is what the two combined nincompoops running for Pres will spend. $2 billion.

Can't argue with that, Dan. Very well sort out position to take. It would be nice to get rid of those levers.

Very well stated and I agree with your position. We also need to implement term limits at every level of government to get rid of career politicians and wasted time and money campaigning. I never understood why someone would spend millions of their own money to land a job that pays $200K a year unless there are untold benefits attached. The president should only serve one term, period.

Politics=show business for ugly people.

I love that "unintended consequences" line. some issues are incredibly simple and the unintended consequence is manufactured by that party. Take gay marriage for example. What are the unintended consequences for that? the right likes to say that it will lead to people marrying children and animals. Absolutely intellectually dishonest there. They simply do not like it and think it violates their religion. Yet no one is forcing them to enter into a gay marriage. 2 gay people getting married violates your religion the same as someone having a donut violates your diet. Yet the right still is against it. there are dozens of these stupid issues with no "untended consequence" that both sides are alternately for or against arbitrarily. This is why we need a 3rd party. To remove the "they are for it so I am against it" mantra of the 2 party system.

Dan,

Every issue is simple from the advocates point of view whether it's senior rights to every medical gizmo on the planet, homeless dignity, non documented rights to a college education, and on and on.

What always makes it an "incredibly simple" matter is skipping over the "how to pay for it" part.

We leaned that when we found out that public employee survivor benefits actually do cost a lot more to provide than we were told.

so, Lorraine, what does gay marriage cost? This isn't a "social service" this is ultimately a rights and religious freedom issue. This is not "gun control" where there are many different consequences for each train of thought. This is not abortion where people are using religious demagoguery to suppress science (which is incomplete on the data). This is a matter of legal standing for minorities. In 1960, it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person in nearly every state. What were the unintended, and complicated problems with allowing interracial marriage? No, the issues are all more simple than the parties and partisans make them out to be. Including economics.

Lorraine you make a great case for getting rid of all marrage not a very good one to prevent gay marrage.

Let me see if I can dumb down the explanation.

Gay marriage is not the issue.

A state on the verge of insolvency is the issue. We have already taken steps to take away "earned benefits" (some of which were mine) in order to prop up a failing system.

ANYTHING that changes the above calculus should be done ONLY after the state restores some of my stolen benefits.

A system which has to absorb newly acquired "significant others" will cut into my promised benefits. Everyone seems to want a piece of a pie they didn't contribute to.

Is that easy enough to follow?

That is the most ridiculous reason to deny people equal rights. And how much would it increase? 1% maybe? Ridiculous. There are no unintended consequences for allowing gay marriage, especially since married people pay a higher rate than unmarried people. so, the "unintended consequence" would be more income for the state?

Dan,

It always depends on which side of the argument you happen to be standing on, the takers or the taken.

Thanks for being so warm and understanding as to refer to what I had to sacrifice as "ridiculous".

What did you have to sacrifice that has to do with gay marriage? Did the gay gangs invade your neighborhood and drive down house prices? What could the "gays" have possibly done to you simply by wanting equal rights? so you lost a little of your pension. Boohoo. So did just about everyone. I lost 2/3 of my 401k because of Barney Frank and his stupid mark-to-market rules and Bush's stupid bailouts. Gay people being equal doesnt make a darn bit of difference on your pension.

Perhaps a course in remedial math might help you out Dan.

Hey Dan D. Sorry I'm late to the game. I'd like to offer a perspective on gay marriage. The obvious end to the battle will be: gays win right to marry. Just as blacks were freed and woman made equal. The question is when will this happen. There in lies the sticky part. As history teaches us: with every major social change comes decades of blow-back. Sorry, it's human nature. The two ways for gays to win equality are either a gradual cultural shift or sweeping legal challenges. The first takes longer but with reduced hostility. The latter is sure to stir up mass contempt, usually unfounded. I suspect the road ahead with see a mix of both strategies. Be prepared to see some awful headlines on the way.

I also want to introduce you to irrationalism. Owning and breeding pets is unnatural, unethical, and selfish. To take an animal from the wild then breed it to become dependent on human masters and to strip from it the qualities that make it special is an abomination to natural selection. Dogs are now bred to carry recessive traits and many are created with shortened lifespans and greater susceptibility to cancers. The great wild dog has been dumbed down to a tea-cup corgi with no more than 8 years to lick it's scrotum-less nethers. This is animal abuse at the highest level. We have created another disposable commodity. If you support breeders, legal or not, I question your ability to judge anyone else's morals.

The funny thing is, I wouldn't trade my black lab for anything.

See "Razor, Occam's"

As far as I can tell,
if Ockham is invoked ten times, seven of those times he is invoked incorrectly.

Dan, Occam's Razor applies (generally, it is not irrefutable or infallible by any means) to *explanations and hypotheses*
NOT to the appropriate reactions to a problem.
In the latter, subtle or more complex responses are sometimes better than simpler ones.

For example, if a man suspects someone is trying to seduce his wife away from him,
locking her in the house, or hitting the rival with his car,
are both very simple responses,
but not very useful ones.
They only complicate the problem or create new problems to deal with (i.e., evading the police, lol).

*raises eyebrows in interest*

I don't think it could be done, but I'd be very interested to see the result!

There is no mention of political parties, pro or con, in the Constitution.
EVERYTHING party related - such as the extraordinary powers of a committee chairman derived from being in the majority party, are 'rules' drafted by incumbents to solidify and enhance their power.
Any of these 'incumbency / two party system protection' rules could be easily changed without any Constitutional reference, merely with the stroke of a pen, as they have no Constitutional basis.

or maybe we just do not agree with either party platform. The near-communism of the Democrats, or the Theocratic oligarchy of the Republicans. How can you "get involved" if you disagree with nearly everything about the two parties? the problem is not that people do not get invoved, the problem is that people just plain accept the two parties and are resigned to vote for them. There ARE other choices, like Gary Johnson. But he does not have tens of millions of dollars in support from corporations like Obamney does.

Here's something I definitely disagree with you on, Dan.

You can't really call a party a "Theocratic oligarchy" when their nominees are a Mormon and a Catholic. That's pretty silly, even though it is the standard line for those on the far right and left, it's not really correct.

Bryan: that Mormon and Catholic still want a christian nation run by Christian rules. That is a theocracy. The nuance in their differences is irrelevant to those of us who are not Christian and or those who desire freedom of religion, such as Christian gay and lesbian people. Neither of those two would sanction gay marriage, and for religious reasons.

Again, I disagree with that, Dan. Most of the people I know who are against same-sex marriage use reasoning that has nothing to do with religion. The media does focus on the religious reasons, but we all know how are media is in this day and age.

Also, we've had religious people as President from Washington up to Bush... still don't have a "Theocratic Oligarchy". Not to mention that an absence of religion has just as much chance for there to be a "Theocratic Oligarchy". As evidenced by Obama forcing Catholic institutions to give out free contraceptives... a violation of their first amendment.

Personally, I'm for same-sex marriage, the Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate marriage so I think DOMA is unconstitutional. However, that wasn't always my opinion.

you are mistaken. No one is forcing Catholic institutions to give out free contraceptives. And pray tell, what reason, besides religious ones, do people have against same sex marriage? I have not heard one yet, besides the whole "burden on pension" argument above, which, when examined properly, does not hold water at all. What in the world would you have as a valid non-religious reason for not allowing gay and lesbians to enter into a legal contract with one another and to allow hospital visits and property transfer at death? This country was founded on religious freedom. And the last 20 years, the public at large is all for it, yet our government is slow to catch on. Only the courts, when using historic precedent and the law, have allowed real religious freedom. These are not "rogue" judges and "legislating from the bench" - these are laws, which those who are not in the majority must sue to have enforced. And then, what do our legislators, Dem and Republican do? They try and pass laws to remove religious freedom. (DOMA is a prime example). Same sex marriage IS about true religious freedom and equality for those who live differently than most. Every single argument against it was used 50 years ago to decry black-white marriages.

Dan D, I'm surprised at you. You seem very well informed yet don't know how the whole "War on Women" thing started by the left in this country.

In the PPACA, all health care plans MUST offer free birth control. The Catholic church tried getting a waver since it is against their beliefs, Obama turned them down. That's how the whole mess started.

The non-religious reasons are many. The easiest to explain here is that it isn't what they know marriage to be. Imagine if you tried forcing them to call Cats, Dogs or Tables, Chairs. To them, that's what you're trying to do. It does hold a lot of precedent since through out recorded history marriages have always been opposite sex.

Also, all those reasons you mentioned can be done without marriage. Heck, even married you or I can have papers drawn up (and a will) that does exactly what you say gay people can't do.

And you're wrong about trying to compare it with race. For the "religious" aspect, where in the bible does it say that you can't marry someone outside of your race? It doesn't... prophets in the bible themselves have married outside their race... but it was always opposite sex. Also, for those that oppose it for non-religious reasons, mixed race marriages have always been prevalent through out non-religious history.

And the court certainly does "legislate from the bench" in regards to religion. I challenge you to find the "Endorsement clause" in the 1st amendment.

Bryan no one is telling catholics they have to use contraceptives but the catholic church is trying to force their religious beliefs on ther employees and they don't have that right. The catholic church already can not refuse to hire non catholics it is ageinst the law this would be no different. You can't always hide behind religious freedom or else the church could have said charging pedophile prieists violates religious freedom as we handle our own and once he goes to confession he is forgiven.

Robert E, no one is forcing those people to work for a Catholic institution yet you are forcing a Catholic institution to go against their religious beliefs. Also those working there can still buy contraceptives on their own.

This isn't even touching on whether it's within the government's power to force a private entity religious or secular, to give something away for free to begin with.

Also, comparing a religious belief with a crime is silly at best.

There is no "kicking out" of the extremists from either party, they have far too much money on their side. The best way to do it is join the Libertarians. And Joe, really, a Blue Dog? Blue Dogs (and RINOs for that matter) are typically fiscally conservative and socially liberal, really, just Libertarians. You, sir, are not a Libertarian from your viewpoints.

It's hard to label someone who actually thinks for themselves.

Joe, since you're so eager to label yourself a "blue dog democrat" you should be all over Gary Johnson for President in 2012 as his platform contains just about everything you "claim" that you want.

Why throw your vote away on someone like Romney when you could make a powerful statement about exactly the type of candidate you keep saying you want?

And what can the Republicans do to clean up theyr'e act??

NK Parent , I will not waste a vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning so the incumbent gets back in.

Very interesting Mr. Sousa-In one post you call yourself a democrat, and in a second post you call yourself a teabagger, and in a third post you're saying that you're voting for a republican.

What are you Mr. Sousa, a democrat, republican, or teabagger?

Bristol, I know your media masters tell you that the Tea Party are only Republicans, but as you can see, that's not the case.

Also, I flagged your comment for using that offensive description again.

Joe, so you'll happily throw your vote away for the lesser candidate (because, face it, a vote for Romney in RI is a thrown away vote) rather than vote for the candidate who exactly meets your stated guidelines.

I hope you enjoy your short-lived political aspirations -- I doubt you'll get many votes when your voters find out your as spineless as the rest of the dolts in Washington or the statehouse.

Independent thought?

Often, but not always, Jim.
That's part of the problem. A binary, black-white, two party system is way too simplistic.

You are correct I was being sarcastic. Independent thought is almost entirely missing from left right confrontations.

As an independent I often see my views labeled one way or the other when in fact they are what I believe as opposed to some 'party' belief.

The two party system has imo an unconstitutional strangle hold on national and regional politics.

if that was the case, Blue Dogs would have voted against DOMA and for same sex marriage and legalization of marijuana, or would have abstained in every vote. Since they never do and always pick a side, which is usually fiscal conservative, social liberal, then your argument falls short. If you REALLY do not get involved in those things and do not have an opinion, then you would be a very unique individual indeed.

Mr. Hutnak, every time Bristol02809 uses that term, he's using it for a reason. Joe didn't need to explain to him what it means because Bristol02809 already knows what it means... that's his whole purpose for using it. That's why whenever I see the term used, I flag the comment as inappropriate.

Sorry, Mr. Hutnak. I also blog on here, and I've yet to see Bristol ever submit anything constructive. I invite you to go look at his profile.

If you wrote an actual opinion on anything, it would be a welcome change... contrary to mine or not. However, just being offensive or belittling people don't count as opinions.

Hi all. Comments that use derogatory names for individuals (Obama, Romney, anyone) will be deleted. Please don't use them. Thanks.

Joe if you want it to stop than tell the poster to not call people that name ,since we all know what it means.

Joe Sousa:
Please re-read this portion of our Terms of Use:
"... even if you disagree with or object to a comment or review, Patch typically does not remove comments or reviews in response to requests from users. Patch’s role is not to arbitrate disagreements between community members and local businesses, or among community members."
As Elizabeth and I have both requested, please stay on topic, and let us handle the moderation of the comments.
Thanks.

This is actually quite ridiculous. We have only had a 2 party system for about 100 years. Before that there were 3 or 4 major parties. What happened was money. Money created the 2 party system. A viable 3rd party would, in effect, keep the other 2 honest. something neither party is these days. Remember, Obama was the anti-war candidate and we have had more military involvement in more countries under him since WW2. Bush ran as a fiscal conservative and basically gave the Democrat congresses a blank check as long as he got his war funds. Vote for Obama vote for Romney. You are really voting for the same person. You are voting for the more corporate control of our government. You are voting for a politician who is beholden to religion. you are voting to spend more of your hard earned money on a continued bankruptcy spiral of this country. The only people who really hate the idea of a 3rd party are those who have a vested interest in the other 2 parties. you can say it is a "union tactic" all you want, but it is not true. What it is, is people who are sick and tired of the political machine. At what point did I "threaten or intimidate"? Attacking those with a different viewpoint by using THOSE tactics is a typical "2 party" strategy to maintain their chokehold on our government and economy.

Correction;

"I also disagree with your assumption that voting for the person is somehow wrong. Most people who say that like myself usually end with, the issues of that person is our determination for the vote."

In the case of this election and I have voted 3rd party many times. But this presidential election, there is but one mandate in my mind. That is to get the administration in office out on its ear.

It has proven it has no clue on what needs to be done to fix the economy, create jobs, or even allow Budget bills to be debated from the House. To deride bills and idea's with out debate is wrong! To not even bring them to the floor is tototarianism!

I allways say if you find a canidate who you agre with every issue on, then you ned to run for the hills, because he is lying or you are delusional. No people agree on everything or think the same.

Before anyone starts with the, but, but ,but ,but, the GOP does it to. 2 wrongs do not make a right, and believe it or not time travel does not exist. So you are stating an excuse that means absolutly nothing.

I disagree Paul, they would answer tourism industry, the plan that keeps the people under the thumb of government and entitlements, with low wage and seasonal jobs. Until we get them out of that mindset waste of time, we will never have true high wage jobs and industry like you suggest sadly. At every turn this State has made it impossible for industry to florish. These Quasi-Government agencies, like the EDC, BCWA, and 21 others to include the recent attempt of the EBEC so called renewable energy criminals. Thier goals are also status quo for the rape of taxpayers by one party rule. We are after all the only State that can blame a single party for 78 years of failure. DEM!

how many people, though, are actually for all those ultraconservative ideals that would actually join the Dems? wouldnt all of those people already be members of the Republican party? even Libertarians and <gasp> blue dog Democrats are not for most of those things.

Mr. Sousa,

Excellent points!

"Ideas like Everify, Right to work, Work fare not Welfare.... The sales, gas ,and business taxes get lowered."

You mean like those educational and economic engines Alabama and Mississippi? Is that where our aspirations lie? Ad astra!

Once again Mr. Palumbo, it's not the word teabagger, but the way you interpret it. Apparently Joe Sousa feels the world needs to know about his favorite sexual positions, as he has posted numerous times. He uses the term teabagger in a sexual way, when the dictionary clearly states the word can be used to describe someone who carries bags of tea for shipment or a group of aristocratic race car drivers.

The next thing you know, someone is going to innocently use the word "titmouse", and Mr. Sousa is going to add his sexual spin to it.

Bristol it is not the way Mr. Palumbo or Mr. Sousa is interpreting it it is the way the world is interpreting it except you. You have come up with your own defination of that word even though you know full well what it means. If it is not your purpose to use the turm for a vulger sex act the now that you have been informed prove it by not using that term anymore and using the term tea partiers. What are you a five year old if you want to play with the big boys then grow up.

Robert E-You have it completely wrong-Just because someone uses the term teabagger, some people immediately refer to the word as profanity. It's no different than someone using the word "cracker"-some people would interpret it as a biscuit made from wheat which people sometimes eat with peanut butter, and other people interpret it as a slur against people from the south.

In the case of teabagger, THOUSANDS of mainstream media outlets use the term every day. It's not as if they are using the "N" word to describe an African-American, or using the "F" word to describe someone. The "N" word and "F" word are definitely off-limits, but that is surely not the case with the word teabagger.

Once again, it's all about people like Joe Sousa, who get some sort of sick sexual thrill using the word teabagger , similar to a third grader using the word "titmouse" and giggling about it. And that, Robert E, is the type of person running for elected office?-Shameful

Bristol lets be honest here if you were talking to someone from the south and you called them a "cracker" everybody knows you are not calling them a food item. If you are not using a term for a sex act to insult people then you would have no problem using tea partier insted. Correct? I am proud to be called a liberal and a Democrat but you turn even me off when you refuse to stop using that term. Quit using the excuse that it's ok for me to use that term because other people do.

Robert E-Once again, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. The term "teabagger" is used just as often and just as commonly as the term "cracker". Sure, there are people that are going to be offended by both "cracker" and "teabagger", but many people would also be offended by the terms "demorat", "libitard", and "Obongo", which are terms Joe Sousa uses in his every day language.

Sorry Robert E, but if you want to roll over and give in to teabaggers such as Joe Sousa, Jack B, Palumbo, etc., that's your right. But these teabaggers have their radical right wing agenda they love to shove down everyone's throat, and reasonable people need to stand up to them.

Once again, there are certain words that can never be used in a family oriented public forum, but "teabagger" surely is not one of them.

Bristol02809; is an example of”Internet Troll”.

“An (Internet troll) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion".

BristolRI02809,

1. I'm not in the Tea Party, I am not allowed to be.

2. (I'm breaking my own personal code) You know why you use the term, "teabagger", you know what it means. You use the offensive term, because you are intellectually deficient. You are fool, and you do not have the capacity to debate on behalf your beliefs and opinions on an adult level.

The deepest your opinion gets is, "Teabagger Romney/Ryan is going to lose" and that's because it's really all your brain can handle at one time.

You stalk Jack and Joe around as if the first thing you do when you log into the Patch is see where they posted so you can call them more offensive names. So to go along with your diminished intellect, you also have some strange stalker psychosis.

As a friendly gesture, here is where you can get some help.
http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/state/RI/Bristol.html

This is my last time ever responding to you. You are persona non grata.

Bryan Palumbo writes: "I'm not in the Tea Party, I am not allowed to be." Obviously, this is a thinly veiled attempt to let everyone know you're in the military, in the hopes you can garner the old sympathy vote. While nobody will argue that it's nice of you to join the military and serve your country, please keep in mind you joined the military BY CHOICE. At last check, the draft had not been brought back, so please don't try and play the military card to try and curry favor with the readers. It may work with mental midgets/teabaggers such as Jack Baillargeron and Joe Sousa, but anyone with half a brain can see right through you.

Getting back to the topic at hand, good luck in your support of teabagger Romney and teabagger Ryan-you and them are definitely going to need it. Hopefully after your boys go down to defeat in November you'll take off those rose colored glasses and come to your senses. In the meantime, keep on drinking that teabagger kool-aid, but don't drink too much-it clouds your judgement.

Woderful comeback there Jack-very original. At last count, you have copied and pasted the same stupid post about 20 times-congratulations. And you wonder why David and Kenny ignore you and mock you at town council meetings? At least your fellow teabaggers Marina Peterson and Gary Morse can express themselves both in written and verbal form in something above a third grade level, as opposed to yourself, who can only cut and paste.

Please keep up your childish antics Jack-it only reinforces the fact that you're just an insignificant political gadfly who will never be taken seriously by those that make the real decisions-the politicians on the local, state, and national level.

Well put, Robert E.

It's funny, you, I, Dan and a few others can discuss different viewpoints without using offensive names or calling a party's candidate a name. It doesn't seem really that hard for us to do. I wonder what their problem is?

I find no reason to insult anyone, personally. I may insult their opinion on occasion. But not them personally. I also believe that the facts are far to often buried and people are quick to form an opinion on "party line facts" or obvious, as Bill O'Reilly calls it "bloviation" - exaggerated statements that people actually believe. Glen Beck, Keith Olbermann and other conspiracy theorists are famous for this. I dig for facts before forming an opinion. I do quite a bit of research, often on people as well. I absolutely feel that Gary Johnson would be a great president. And I absolutely feel that neither of the parties has anything more than the next election on their minds and will win at all costs. the "Tea Party" started as a bipartisan movement to control costs. It was quickly taken over by a very religious sect of the Republican party and now has some significant ultra-conservative ties. but a label like that only emboldens them and gets people who may not be on their side, on their side. Fight against those you disagree with using facts, not slurs. It is no different than the far right saying people only voted for Obama so they would not be thought to be a racist.

I would agree with with dirogatory labels and those that are all inclusive such as all conservatives are christians, or all liberals are athiest, that is obviously not true of either ideology. But in politics, history has shown you cannot take the labels out of it. It has been a documented tactic used since the Roman Senate.

In the day of 24 hour media, the gotcha moment to get a label on someone is king. Until people get over the delusions their party right or wrong. I suspect labeling will continue forever. It accomplishes nothing, discontent in a debate. It is also very hard not to use labels by any person when it is so common place in everyday life now.

The tea party does not want to save the children's future. They want to shut down schools and make parents send their children to good Christian schools at their own cost, just to save a few bucks off of their property tax bill.

Come on now, Dan. You're being sarcastic I hope.

While the spirit of that thought is good, it violates many WTO rules.

I agree Joe, as the son of an Immigrant who followed all the rules and time limits to get citizenship. Her proudest moment being the right to actually vote, she would tell you she is appalled by the current illegal immigrants situation. Who do they think they are?

If you violate the law, hence illegal immigrant, then you are deported and back of the line. Any city or State who has these so called sanctuaries should be cut of from any federal or state aid and fined $100,000 dollars a day until they comply.

Stop this insanity and waste of taxpayer money of the Justice Department suing States like AZ who are merely trying to fulfill their duty to protect their legal citizens. There are other States with laws a lot more strict then AZ. But because they are not on the border where the so called Hispanic vote is, no mention of that. A lot of illegals are also from every ethnic group you can think of, through our southern border. They never mention that.

There are problems with illegals in almost every State. To the Tea Party it is not some hate group that I have seen in any shape or form. Like all groups people pick one nut that may be or claim to be a member and label the whole group. Can't have it both ways, groups on the other side have just as many nuts if you want to be honest about it.

Those are the theories in NKorea and 3rd world country’s where the whole family is put in prison for the action of one family member. Not exactly an American value.

Joe Sousa said:

"Many black Hispanic,and Orientals are joining as they watch illegal aliens flood our country taking jobs."

Sorry to burst your bubble Mr. Sousa, but the term "oriental" is considered to be profanity by those of Asian descent. To an Asian, calling them an "Oriental" is as demeaning to them as calling an African-American the "N" word.

Shame on you for degrading Asians in that fashion.

Bristol02809; is an example of”Internet Troll”.

“An (Internet troll) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

Nuff said.

Congrats Go she is one of the nicest people I have met and a great addition to the Country.

Hi Jack, interesting point you make about the states name and about celebrating VJ Day. I was wondering though, why don't we still celebrate VE Day (Victory in Europe) in RI with state offices and banks closed? After all isn't VJ Day and VE Day essentially the same type of holiday in that VJ celebrates the US victory in Japan and VE celebrates the US victory in Europe? Why the double standard by the state?

It is not a double Standard actually, it is the facts that the US Navy Started in this State and many people here lot relatives in the Pearl Harbor Attack and took it personally as well all americans did.

VJ day was and still is to me and many others Victory over Japan day and that will never change in my mind. I met many a survivor of Pearl Harbor when growing up in Newport and it was not hate for the Japanese, it was hate for the Japanese Military and the cowardly act they perpetrated.

Yamamoto was quite correct when he Stated " All I fear is that we have awakened a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve". after he found out no declaration of War had been made prior to his attack. That as they say is that ;-}

Oop sorry sorry forgot VE day. Reason being we were allies there, not quite the same thing compared to a sneak attack on our military. Could go into a lot more detail but War is war after all and how any idividual celebrates a Victory in the end is their own choice would be the best answer.

Actually the state does not celebrate VJ Day the state celebrates Victrory day. The holiday commemorates the end of World War II in both Europ and the Pacific. The people of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations celebrate VJ Day.

There you go Joe. Tough times call for tough measures, the chance to throw enormous amounts of money has been tried and failed as it allways does.

Nthing will change unless the current administration is thrown out on its ear and a new system is put in place in my opinion. Path to Prosperity is a start, though for me there needs to be even more changes, which I am sure can come if we dump this admistration currently in office. We cannot afford 4 more years of incompitence.

I'm not sure how tolerant the new editor is regarding your plagiarism, Joe. You may want the cite the source of your copied material:

(http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/contrastinvisions.htm)

Not to worry Joe, inorder to do "plagiarism". You have to pass it off as your own work and be in a position where you are using it to benifit yourself. Does not really apply to a blog of opinions lol. just saying.

"pla·gia·rism/ˈplājəˌrizəm/Noun: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own".

The President's Budget
Doubles down on health care law, allowing government bureaucrats to interfere with patient care; Empowers an unaccountable board of 15 unelected bureaucrats to cut Medicare in ways that result in restricted access and denied care for current
seniors, and a bankrupt future for the next generation
The Path to Prosperity
Repeals President’s health care law; Advances bipartisan solutions that take power away from government bureaucrats and put patients in control; No disruption for those in or near retirement; Ensures a strengthened Medicare program for future generations, with less support given to the wealthy and more assistance for the poor and the sick

Jack:
On the subject of plagiarism: If you have posted material that someone else wrote first, please cite the source to avoid any confusion as to whose work it is.

Once again Mr. Sousa, you have not answered a previous question asked of you. In other posts, you have portrayed yourself as a democrat, a republican, and a teabagger. As a candidate for office, it would only be fair to let the voters know of your party affiliation, so they can make an informed decision at the voting booth.

Lorraine, your heart may be in the right place but your suggestions are a little off. There is a current attitude in our society that refuses to accept responsibility and tends to blame that which they think they can't control. Convenient huh? Have you ever heard teachers say the reason kids are failing is because parents need to be more involved, then the parents say the teachers need to be dedicated. Cycle of blame, nothing gets done. 

Apply this to the national level. The banks screwed the people, the government tied the banks, wall street screwed the government, government screwed the businesses, etc. These are the headlines we read day after day. The average person is content to accept that the problems in their community are too big and out of their control. The funny things is, all these issues start from the ground up. The housing market was not destroyed by Big Banks, it was created by your local mortgage shop (you know the one that isn't there anymore). It wasn't Bank of America that gave you a 15% mortgage...it was your neighbor. BofA, et al, just bought those naughty notes and weren't expecting to eat so many foreclosures.

You can apply this method to any of the big national issues. They all start small. Walmart is a beast? You shop there. Gas is expensive? You literally drive demand. Cutting school activities? What happened to fund raising?
 
Change also comes from the bottom. What have you personally done to affect change? "But I vote". Big whoop. 

Still Hope,

I have to disagree with you on a couple of issues, but thanks for your reply.

The banks had to have a willing accomplice in rating all that junk they were calling "AAA" rated mortgage backed securities. That only happens at the top of the financial food chain, not at the local mortgage shop.

If the investments could not get repackaged at AAA, they could not have been sold to Iceland, pension plans, and other places.

Once the cycle of "anybody" mortgages started with the enlightened Alan Greenspan proclaiming that real estate never goes down, everything started going up as a bubble.

We have the same bubble cycle starting with the "debt doesn't matter" crowd proclaiming that relative to Japan, we are OK. The problem is that the US doesn't finance its own debt, but instead, we sell it to people who are not our friends.

If you want to know what the outcome of selling your own debt is, look into how the Suez Canal crisis was ended in 1955 between Egypt, France, and the UK. France and the UK first refused to negotiate, then when the US threatened to begin selling their debt at a market premium, the UK and France knew they could be bankrupted overnight and got out in one week.

But of course this could NEVER happen to the US.

Term limits are a horrible idea. In a Congress, the first year or two are spent learning procedures, tactics, and finding your voice. You would be creating a committee of rookies that would be grossly susceptible to unilateral group influence. It would be like the head of the union approaching you and scaring the crap out of you on your first day of work. There is a strong need for veteran politicians.

Also, there is a reason Congressmen get such salaries and benefits. Ideally, they should be working in the best interest of their constituents. This means being experts in every aspect public affairs. I don't want my Senator clipping coupons while he reads a 7000 page health care bill.

You need to understand that even though the average Joe can run for higher office, it usually doesn't work out so hot. How many successful NFL coaches are cut from the same cloth as their players? Bill Belichick isn't paid for his ability to run 4.4 or his 60yd kicks. The owners see the value in "take what you need as long as you get the job done". There in lies the issue. When you aren't getting the job done, you are always taking too much.

Pay a Congressman $50k a year + Blue Cross. See what you get.

Stillhope

I would say by recent actions, IE 2010 election, proves that so called rookies can have good effects, and that so called old guard career politicians can be thrown out on their ear, without hurtin a thing. New blood is the only way to get change when those with to much power due to their lontivity in office have corrupted the system and made it un workable in my opinion.

I don't say the post cannot be tweeked. But to advocate control merely because they have been there a while is foolish in my opinion. We lose so many people I assume, who just do not have the money, but have the intelligence and character sorely missing in the current congress. A 9% approval rating screams for change does it not?

Also everyone starts somewhere, your way denies people advancement. Belichik example is not so good. You see he was not always as good as he is now and had to learn through trial and error like everyone at every jobs does, through hardwork.

After graduating, Belichick took a $25-per-week job as an assistant to Baltimore Colts head coach Ted Marchibroda in 1975.[8] In 1976, he joined the Detroit Lions as their assistant special teams coach before adding tight ends and wide receivers to his coaching duties in 1977. He spent the 1978 season with the Denver Broncos as their assistant special teams coach and defensive assistant.

Still Hope I like your above post to lorraine on self-responsibility, that is sorry lacking in this Country, blame game is the rule of the day it seems.

The current US Congress has the most filibusters of any in history. You can read this as "Hello Rookie, please join team D or team R. Please keep your voice down while the perpetual merry-go-round is in motion."

Coach Belichick doesn't have the same concerns as his players might. I imagine his lifestyle is somewhat different than Randy Moss'. Would Moss be a better leader than Belichick because Randy has "baby mama" problems like some of the other players? Or does Belichick command the respect of all of his players, regardless of personality or background? A Congressman doesn't need to have "baby mama" problems to represent the people. I would actually prefer that my political leaders didn't share in my mistakes but rather they transcend the common man and act without reservation. It doesn't take a gay president to promote gay rights. It doesn't take a working class president to promote working class ideals. Just a$k FDR.

I will grant you the filibusters have been abused way to much in recent times, However compromise is impossible if you cannot debate. Case in point is 16 budget Bill the Harry Ried has refused to allow to even go to the floor.

Another case in point is that Ried, Pelosi, Mcconell and Bohner are all so called experience leaders. They run things so you cannot blame it on the new in my opinion. I would love to see these new guys debate Budget Bill. That is the main issue with this Country. If the economy is not going and is staqll it is because of that.

I am also tired of these people who say you must compromise. Where does it say that I wonder? Many times compromise results in nothing being accomplished, medicare reform, SS, Welfare etc. Both have had so called compromise, over the last few decades because niether side wants to make the only call that can be made. There is no repair or bandaide. The systems needs to be overhauled totally it is beyond repair.

So called earmarks should be banned. All Bills should be clean and recieve debate and an up or down vote, same with appointments. There is nothing complicated about it.

JFK, Ike, Truman, Lincoln, were all newbies and the Country did not fall. I cound name countless examples of people who got into businesses they had no clue about in the beginning, Gates, Henry Ford, Buffet, and on an on.

Fresh Blood does not mean failure in my opinion. I just disagree with your idea we need professional politicians.

Still Hope

Also do you really think it takes longer than 12 years to get up to speed. If a person has not learned in that time, it is doubtfull they would be elected in the first place. It also would create canidates getting off these personal appeal and back to the real reason people should vote for a person. On their issues and knowledge of those issues.

It would only take a few elections to determine who is capable and who is not to force people running for office to actually be the ones in office and not merely lining their pockets with BS to the voters, which is the case now. Bring home the bacon mentality must also go by the wayside. We are a Republic not a democracy.

We also agree on many things I am sure, but this is just one idea to get back to the Country being represented by the people for the people, which is not the case now. The status quo cannot remain or where we are headed will become a reality in my opinion, and that is revolution of some kind.

I appreciate this post, but term limits are a terrible idea. Let me borrow a page from those who feel government should be like the "free market" (which of course it never should):

In the "private sector," does one ever encounter the following evaluation?

"You have done an excellent job in your current position. You clearly understand the parameters and have brought honor to the institution and yourself. How unfortunate you have reached the twelve years we allow at our company. Goodbye."

Of course not. Maybe the problem is more a system that does not give highly qualified candidates an equal chance, because qualifications are based on assets and business experience?

Campaign finance reform, anyone? Legislative action rebuking Citizens United?

In favor of leveling the playing field?

Speravi

I agree with Campaign finance reform and dumping Citizens United if it is actual leveling of the playing field.

I however have to disagree with your private industry example. The Government is not private industry and should never be allowed into it. Every time i has pushed itself into it, we have had nothing but corruption and theft of taxpayers funds.

We are a "Representative Republic" and the States determine terms of office individualy. We have term limits in many Sates and in many area's. The fed even has a term limit for president for good reasons. The Founder never meant for the political offices, especially the presidentcy to turn into dictatorship. Which leads of course to tyranny.

One Founder predicted this problem, and it was Ben Franklin paraphrasing, "what have you done for us Mr. Franklin? We have given you a Republic good sir, if you can hold onto it".

It is up to the Republic to make sure the system works and if term limits are what is needed then so be it. Works in the State and Local governments so why not the Federal Level?

Sadly you are correct for the most part. Harry Truman was a recent great exception to that however. I have an excerpt somewhere on it, it is amazing the mans character.

Not to mention, serve one term and get millions for life pension and benifits ;-}.

Sadly I have to agree Joe, the average person has a real problem, not only due to lack of funds, but the personal attacks, on them their family what kid they took a lollypop from in school etc, are just to much for the average guy. I suspect we lose a lot of intelligence due to that, not only in elections, but in appointee's who just will not take that chance and be cruxified for something inocuous. The word second chance also no longer exist for the most part in society for even the most minor of infractions.

Sometimes I really do wish for a time machine and the knowledge of where it all went wrong. lol.

Is that the same Wall Street Journal that's a division of NewsCorp ?

You are correct on that Paul, it is all in their own words and in the Congressional record video and written interviews with their own words as well as the actual Dodd/Frank Bill. To Ray, really does it matter who the messenger is when they are merely posting the facts that are easy to verify? Just saying ;-}

Jack, Yes the messenger always matters, regardless of which side. Only repeating the facts that you want repeated is still bias.

I wouldn't list CNN as liberal, or conservative. Lately they're just uninformed and floundering, they seem to know only what's trending on twitter or what's new on YouTube

Maybe I didnt explain it right Ray. My point was that having been reading the Congressional Record on many things for over 35 years now and watching the actual hearing, if the messenger is quoting those records, that is why in my mind it does not matter. Now I know all media spins and I mean all. However it is up to the individual to fact check them in my opinion.

I still do not think that just because a company like news corp owns a paper means everything they own is of the same mindset, no different then political parties consist of many different views and people.

I watch everything on media, and then do my own checking as much as possible. There is more blame to go around on the so called bubble as well, on bothsides. But the facts remain the Dodd/Frank were up to their necks in this and to this day dent any culpability in it. Yes it does o all the way back to the great society of LBJ and every politicians in between since then.

The problem as I see it is none of those involved even tried to fix it when they new full well it would explode, and those that did speak up were either silenced or ignored. This for me is yet another reason to get government outof private sector. Fannie may and freddie mac should be desolved. No government quasi agency has ever been fiscally responsible or not totally corrupted in history yet.

Oh man, that comment was horrible. I usually let one or two errors go but that's just bad. So apologies for the re-post.
_________
You can't really blame Ray. I have the same type of skeptical outlook of the media as well. To know The WSJ/FOX News is conservative is just as important as knowing that CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC, AP, NYTs, ect. are Liberal. Usually an article or series of articles is a start point for me and then I look at the source documents/medium.

That said, Paul is correct. The adjustment made to the CRA in 1993 (Dem President and both houses of Congress BTW) forced lenders to provide loans to those that couldn't afford it. If they didn't, they would receive harsh penalties and if they did do it, they received a lot of benefits. The reasoning behind it was noble, to help lower income people realize the dream of owning a home, but the good intentions are not good enough when formulating a policy that effects the whole nation.

Unfortunately, having a bunch of high risk loans doesn't help a Bank with it's rating. So they came up with the scheme that Still Hope went over above. They packaged the high risk loans with enough low risk loans to keep the rating at AAA and sold them to investors. So if or when they defaulted it would be the investors and bigger banks that suffered the most.

To respond to this and Lorraine's points: it's just not true. The big banks were NOT the catalyst for the bust. As I said before, it was the "mom n pop" mortgage brokers that cashed in and cashed out. I know from first hand experience that the big banks were still turning away less than qualified applicants, and they then tried their luck at the local mortgage brokers. I watched with my own eyes how you turn $50k income into $80k income with a simple eraser, a move which the big banks would not risk. The brokers know that reward was much, much greater than the risk. Many of them cashed out before any investigations were launched.

This is all sad, because it was your local businessman with an office of local employees that offered you hopes of a shiny future but yet they skirted off to leave you with a bum deal and broken system. Politicians and media have since poisoned the market. They made terms like Balloon Mortgages and ARMs sound so toxic, when in actuality, they have been staples of the property investment industry forever. Now there is so much regulation that it makes it increasingly difficult for someone to snatch up the current round of foreclosures unless you have cash. Who has the cash? Investors! The middle class get kicked out of their homes and the rich make a pretty profit flipping your dream house.

I would also point out the the Wall street Journal was all over this in 2004 on the Fannie/Freddie when there was concern of defaults and Barney and Dodd stated publicly in hearings that ir was sound and no chance of failure or fiscal problems. There are many videos of that around. News Corp did not own them at that time. They became property of news corp when it bought the DOW media group in 2007.

wikipedia re:CRA
"...Barr...stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans. Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures"

CNN is pretty liberal, they had a newscaster / interviewing on the other day that was caught on camera reading notes from a left wing blog and using that to question the Conservative guest.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/13/soledad-obrien-caught-reading-liberal-blog-during-heated-debate-romne

The source is a conservative watchdog group, but the video in the story is straight from CNN.

Very true also Bryan. As I said it is up to the individual to look through the smoke and mirrors that has become prevailent in all media.

Sure, Still Hope, but it's still what lead to the housing bubble and then burst. In your wiki citation, they are saying 50%... it probably would have only taken 5% to lead to what happened. Whether most over even all of the CRA loans were responsibly made or not, it's still what lead to our current situation.

What your citations are leaving out, is how high the CRA forced the housing prices to rise as well. When you have 100 people able to buy 80 houses, the price of those homes are set... now artificially raise that 100 people with the CRA and it's now 125 people (using the numbers in your citation), the prices for those homes will increase dramatically.

"Whether most or* even all..." Bad typing day for me it seems.

Still Hope, here's a good unbiased article on it.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-27/wall_street/30009234_1_mortgage-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

Oh, boy, Mr. Marshall! I remember those days!

How I cried in my pillow night after night thinking: if only these multi-billion dollar corporations had some lobbyists, they could fight this legislation those nasty-wasty Democrats were foisting - foisting, I say! - upon them! Yet, they were silent. It is to weep. Why, oh why, weren't these banks referring to the Wall Street Journal? Surely they weren't looking for easy bucks and some way to pass the blame! I should think not. These horrid poor people who got attention from the banking establishment for the first time in their lives deserve all the blame of course. They should have been savvy in all of these financial matters before they gave their families the homes the banks told them they deserved. Many were the volunteers such as yourself who counseled them against these loans.

I waited to hear the roars from beleaguered banks for the repeal of this horrid legislature in the coming years. Apparently it was drowned out from the decibels of their incessant ads on radio and television begging inexperienced borrowers to come to THEM for their mortgages. But I knew, as it appears you did, too, that secretly they were mourning in America.

And well, when their practices, which were NOT legislated in the original bill, came crashing around them, it was someone else's fault, wasn't it? Because there is no personal responsibility when it comes to corporations, right? Because they are not persons....

Oh, wait.

Speravi, the changes made by Barney Frank and approved in by the Democratic lead Congress in 1993 mandated that the larger banks give loans out to people they would never have. Of course they advertised, if 10% of their loans weren't to people who qualified under the CRA, they would be in violation while having over that 10% mark would gain them more benefits. (That 10% is just to make a point, I can't recall the actual percentage right now)

They figured out a way to make money out of the deal, of course. Any For Profit institution is going to do that.

You forget that catering to a large bank may be nice for your campaign finances, but the 0 votes it gets you doesn't help much. We have a party in the country, of which Barney Frank is a part, that basically buys votes in exchange of laws like this one.

LOL. Here's what this replay looked like 30 seconds before Send was hit:

Dear [name]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the [nature of complaint]. I appreciate hearing from you.

On your behalf, I have taken the liberty of sharing your concerns with [person/organization who doesn't care about complaint]. Please be assured that I will carefully review any response that I receive with your comments in mind and forward any information that may be useful to you.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to write, call, or visit my website, www.reed.senate.gov, in the future for information regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Jack Reed
United States Senator
http://reed.senate.gov

Very amusing lol

Tongue and Cheek we ALL need to keep everything in perspective this year! Thanks for that one Peggy.

"I'm not a tea-bagger or a Fox news watcher."...OK, then what are you telling us? Who does DHS represent? What will they do after then go to war with us? What is their end-game? What would you recommend we do to prepare ourselves? Why don't you share with us where the "FEMA 'camps' in Zone 1" are since you are in the know? We would be eternally grateful. Since you are from Tiverton, I think you know this might be somehow related to the ratification of the teacher's contract. Have you notified the TCC about your information, or is that a foolish question? Of course, they already know.

I remember back in 97, I was stationed at Fort Hood. We just received our orders to deploy to Bosnia.

In order to get ready, we built some mock ups of the camps we'd be living in while we were there. So we can train out of them. You could see those camps from different spots off the base.

One night, on the radio. There was a conversation of how Clinton was planning to conduct mass arrests in the Austin area and those camps were built as holding facilities for a large number of people. Another soldier called in and let them know the real purpose for the camps, of course he wasn't believed.

In 2008, I found that for my 3rd deployment to Iraq that I'd be going to COP Shocker, which was on the Iranian border. Our mission was to train the Iraqi Border Police.

As I always do, I look up the place I'm going. I'm confronted with dozens of anti-war sites claiming that COP Shocker was built as a staging point for evil GWB's invasion of Iran.

I'm not saying that what you wrote about isn't true. Who knows... but these type of conspiracy theories have been around a long time based on incomplete pieces of information.

After doing research, the document everyone points to as "proof" is an order for 10k rounds to be used in training.

"For clarification we are purchasing training rounds only and not duty rounds as specified in Part D, SOW paragraph 1.0."

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d024b4476b2648e5c1c7856f3e7cf5e3&_cview=0

Not really leaked, the manual has been around for ever.

Also, there are massive riots in France every year. It's a national past time for them.

Those of us that have been preparing for this for years will have quite an advantage over those who are just figuring out things now. We will be the new ruling class and have power over the rest of you and finally restore order and sanity to this great country. I also believe that there is a strong possibility that aliens, illegals and minorities are banning together to undermine our preparation as we speak. Be ever vigilant comrades!

Calling the GI Bill a socialist program is a pretty big stretch. It was a benefit given in exchange for labor and the government is hands off as to what educational program or institution you use it at.

Rio Sakonnet,
I moderate. I really try to interfere as little as possible, but racially toned names for people aren't acceptable. If you've got an issue with Patch's policies, post a blog about it!
Thanks,
Elizabeth

You see how she has the Patch icon on her posting ... that's called a clue.

Rio:
Just to add to Elizabeth's comment, when you signed up for a Patch account, you confirmed that you read and understood our Terms of Use, which include the following: "Patch will make the sole determination as to whether Content is acceptable for the Service."
Thanks for the inquiry. We invite you to add your viewpoints to our comment boards within this and the other guidelines provided in the ToS.

I agree with everything in that link Dan D, with the exception of his take on Dick Lugar who in my opinion deservedto be put on his ear. 35 years in the senate is too long for anyone in any party to me. He had become the staus quo and voted against many things and for many things the people are fed up with especially subsidies and special interest.

Those are the type of politicians that need to be gone in my opinion. They work for the people not special interest and the government has no business in being in private business in any form in my opinion. Thatis also another reason for labels that we cannot get away from. When the label of special interest politician is used, I do not see how else to say it, they are "in the pocket of special interest" a label they create themselves ;-}.