I think this thread is an ideal example of how a balance of ideologies can be combined to achieve a logical end...IF guided by an intelligent and fair minded leader (which we don't have here). When I joined this forum the Chit Chat section was dominated by those of liberal persuasion, WITH the same snarly, snarky, toxic attitudes being seen currently from the right wing subscribers.

We need both conservative AND liberal leaders in Washington, but NOT the stubborn, vindictive examples we have there now. We need GOOD liberals, and GOOD conservatives. Harry Reid is a great example of one who rarely has a thought about the welfare of his constituency. His sole concern is to stand steadfastly behind President Obama, perhaps thinking someday he'll get a pat on the back...something he won't live to see. Narcissists do not acknowledge the achievements of others. Our president is a lone wolf who has no desire to work in cooperation with others. Ted Cruz is a good example of one who follows his conscience, rather than the wishes of his constituency. We're supposed to have representatives in Washington, not people pandering to their conscience.

Our politicians certainly should start with a broad spectrum of philosophies, and work thoughtfully through ALL of them to arrive at a common goal, which should cost everyone as equally as possible, and benefit equally as many as possible. Rather than being hateful toward each other, conservatives and liberals should look forward to melding their differing ideologies for a common benefit to the people of this country.

Both Democrats AND Republican politicians draw massive extracurricular benefits from their positions. One side or the other is not corrupt...they BOTH are. If they're not satisfied with the $200K or so pay scale they should stay in the private sector and go for the gusto, rather than steal from the American system of government.

Nobody wants dirty water or air, again need we point out that the EPA was started by Nixon? Today's EPA wants to halt construction of homes because mud puddles can be found on building lots that have passed all state and local permitting simply because the EPA has a greater goal of keeping significant areas within states and communities undeveloped... that is the crap that the republicans are fighting, or the EPA being used by the democrats to effect a regulatory environment that both the voters and our congress has rejected! The purpose of the EPA was never to become the tool of the rabid left and that is exactly what it has become.... So stop with the hyperbole and have a real discussion of real issues rather than parrot the talking points of the far left.

I can assure you that no one supports anarchy other than a segment of the OWS movement that your party so warmly embraced, the difference between our parties is that your party wants to see the government control most every aspect of our lives and our economy where as republicans believe that although the government plays a vital role in protecting the public and regulating in both our economy and our society that the role of the government should be limited and practically restrained... democrats want to see few if any restraints on the government, IMO Climate Change is the religion of the democrat party and Government is your Jesus Christ.

The only protection authorized by the Constitution is from foreign and domestic terrorists.

Blurryeyed wrote:
Nobody wants dirty water or air, again need we point out that the EPA was started by Nixon? Today's EPA wants to halt construction of homes because mud puddles can be found on building lots that have passed all state and local permitting simply because the EPA has a greater goal of keeping significant areas within states and communities undeveloped... that is the crap that the republicans are fighting, or the EPA being used by the democrats to effect a regulatory environment that both the voters and our congress has rejected! The purpose of the EPA was never to become the tool of the rabid left and that is exactly what it has become.... So stop with the hyperbole and have a real discussion of real issues rather than parrot the talking points of the far left.

No comment? are you at least going to say if he's one of yours? I'm pretty sure he's not a Democrat.

Yes, Nixon was one of ours, and we all agreed that our environment is important and it is still extremely important today, stopping the current activities of the EPA's does not mean that republicans see no purpose for the EPA it means that republicans feel that they are overstepping their boundaries especially when they pick up on programs and activities that were expressly voted down in the congress. Talk of defunding the EPA does not equate to abolishment, it means that it will put a check on the EPA and they will have to come to terms with the congress so that their funding will resume.... kinda the way the founders planned it.

As far as protection goes, remember that we were to have a weak federal government and strong state governments, just because the constitution gives no policing power to the government simply means that it was reserved for the states. Even so as society developed we saw the development of the FBI, I don't think that anyone is objecting to the FBI but I do believe that many people are becoming concerned at the militarization of so many departmental police forces, it does seem that today almost every department of the federal government has an extensive policing force much of which has been militarized all having extensive swat teams.

Yes, Nixon was one of ours, and we all agreed that our environment is important and it is still extremely important today, stopping the current activities of the EPA's does not mean that republicans see no purpose for the EPA it means that republicans feel that they are overstepping their boundaries especially when they pick up on programs and activities that were expressly voted down in the congress. Talk of defunding the EPA does not equate to abolishment, it means that it will put a check on the EPA and they will have to come to terms with the congress so that their funding will resume.... kinda the way the founders planned it.

As far as protection goes, remember that we were to have a weak federal government and strong state governments, just because the constitution gives no policing power to the government simply means that it was reserved for the states. Even so as society developed we saw the development of the FBI, I don't think that anyone is objecting to the FBI but I do believe that many people are becoming concerned at the militarization of so many departmental police forces, it does seem that today almost every department of the federal government has an extensive policing force much of which has been militarized all having extensive swat teams.