jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

Body bag, huh? That's the third rightwingnut statement to that effect I've seen. Yes, I do consider you and extreme rightists as political nut cases, Mr. Comcast.

When I was a teenager I was a McCarthyite and before that a Truman hater, so I understand how political fanaticism can be very nutty from my own experience of it. ha. At the same time I was an advocate of the Supreme Court's desegregation decision (I lived in East Tennessee then) and then civil rights, so I know that political nuttiness on the one hand and political enlightenment on the other hand can co-exist in the same mind, again from personal experience. A few short years later I knew Truman was a good President (and many years later realized he was one of the best) and I knew Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a political nut case. My enlightened civil rights views remain the thing in my life I am proudest of.

My advice would be to back off from personalizing politics--and most of all back off from fantasy scenarios--and look for some positive causes to commit your attention to that you can be proud of.

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

No, your own earlier post states the situation Jefferson Democrat-Republican Party, Jackson same party but name shortened to Democrat. The Federalists more or less faded after Jefferson's election in 1800 and as you suggest, the "difference" (that is, partisanship) was not that great with Madison-Monroe-J.Q.Adams but became very sharp with Jackson & the populists. Interestingly the opposition called him King Andrew and named themselves the Whigs after the British opposition Whig party that opposed the king and the king's party, the Tories. Jacksonsonians were continuation of Jeffersonians, the Whigs the renewal of the Federalist party, and then the GOP renewal of the Whigs. The issue between the two parties was federal action party versus states' rights party. Before the civil war it was the plantation faction and the common people of northern cities versus the commercial interests and establishment people (Hamilton the Feds, Daniel Webster & Henry Clay the Whigs). I frankly don't quite understand the dynamics involved. For example during John Adams administration Washington and Hamilton wanted a regiment organized to support the British against the French whereas Jefferson and Madison sided with the French but exactly what was behind the opposite positions I don't understand, nor do I understand the Jacksonian Polk war for Texas and the Southwest and Whig opposition to that war (except that slave territory to balance the emerging anti-plantation northwest situation may have been a matter of future political balance in the Senate as the Dems, the plantatiion party, faced loss in the House of Reps as voter population grew in northern states & stagnated in plantation states). Still somewhat difficult to understand how the division led to secession & civil war. Nor do I quite understand the divisions after the Civil War.

Quite frankly I don't understand the wide partisan divide today and I worry about effects if it continues and becomes more extreme.. Yes, I understand and support limitation of federal programs to minimums and I do understand some Dems advocate beyond reasonable limits but I do not understand attempts to abolish "entitlement"programs that are a basic safety net or proposed restrictions on monetary management like balanced budget amendment (what do we do to recover from depression without federal spending to replace depressed private spending? just basic economics).

For example, what are we supposed to do regarding health care involving 20 to 30 percent of the entire economy and more each year yet not taking care of the poor & involving a major share of individual bankruptcies--leave it go on ever more expensive or try to reform the set up so everyone is covered, bankruptcy from individual health misfortune limited, overall cost controlled? Too ambitious? Won't work? Well, the problem has been defined: too large a part of the economy and failure to do healthcare wide enough scale. If the "Affordable" Care Act fails, where do we go from there? The system has failed, the remedy may fail, and then what? OK, rightwingnuts, what's your crazy proposal to fix the health care system then? If you don't have a workable alternative, you'd better hope the ACA fix works. ha. The problem won't go away.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Interpretation schmerpretation! It's no friggin' mystery what "illegal search and seizure" means when criterion for it is probable cause and a court issued warrant.

You are in favor of surrendering your personal sovereignty Jon! How the heck can you think that's OK? We were given the best form of government the world has ever seen, and apathetic people are throwing it away! Freedom lost (or GIVEN away in the case of some!) can ONLY be bought back with blood! Does 5000 years of recorded history mean NOTHING to you?

This is not a game Jon. The world, by and large, is NOT free! And there's nothing as attractive to the wolves as a big, fat, apathetic cow! Don't you make the mistake of thinking that things will continue the way they have during your short life. Governments can change rapidly, but mostly they change incrementally. A brief look at history will show that they DEVOLVE until critical mass is reached, the shit hits the fan and people die.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Specifically, Tea Party Republicans are demonized in this way. They must be saying something and doing something right if the Establishment of both parties hates them so.

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

I'm well aware of history, Mike. The subject of my freshman research paper at the Univ. of Tenn. in 1955/56 was farm consolidation in my childhood home community, Clarendon Township, Calhoun County, Michigan and the parallel farm consolidate at the end of the Roman Republic that eliminated the farmer citizen class and eventually led to the manorial system (feudal system) of the Middle Ages. The professor wanted me to revise the paper and have it published but I declined because I thought I had exaggerated the parallel and also felt we had a business citizen class to replace our declining family farm citizen class...didn't recognize that individual businesses were going the way of the family farm with corporate consolidation. So, half a century later it's done. Freedom lost? Maybe, maybe not. So where do we go from here? I don't know. I think it's a matter of muddling through and shoring up individual freedom and choices in the new economic situation of just plain BIGNESSES. Hopefully instead of individuals becoming serfs inside those bignesses, the bignesses will become only side parts to bigger individualism. In the meantime it's a situation no civilization has reached before and we will have to work our way through it. The Roman Republic lasted only a few generations (Athenian democracy fewer generations) but the institutions continued in form if not substance more than 1400 years of decline and fall of the Roman Empire--form and civilization but only in declining survival mode, not substance. Graeco-Roman civilization had rebirth (the renaissance) in Italy but developed into a new Anglo-Saxon form at the edges of the old order and then in transformed for in the new world. We do not appreciate enough our unique place in world history and how crucial to the longer future of world civilization this moment in our history is. We have reached a peak no other civilization has and we have set up a framework of federation of nations modeled on our own federation of states that ensures that if we maintain individual freedom within the peak we reached that individual freedom on our model will be the future world civilization. Thus we have the problem of internal bignesses to cope with and also the geopolitical problem of radical jihadism ideology that could infect a sizable part of world population and geography in the 21st century, just as Communism and Nazism did in the 20th century.

I'll be quite blunt, in stating again that I consider rightwingnut thinking the chief present danger in our internal politics and jihadists, Taliban, and Al-Quida ideology the chief present danger in our geopolitics just as Nazism and Communism were earlier, and Phillip II and Napoleon still earlier..."our geopolitics" being our part in the long path to freedom and representative government on a world scale, with much old part having been done by the British (but we are the essential new part). We are almost there if our radical rightwingers don't explode American government and if radical rightwingers in the Muslim world don't explode the planet.

Now, Mike, I have no idea what my "illegal in your interpretation" statement that inspired your indignation was in reference to--so many rightwingnut twists and misrepresentations to call out that I can't keep track of which detail or what subject with that detail was involved. I suppose I should have stated the interpretation I was referring to so that when my brief post (a rarity with me--ha) was quoted back at me I would know what subject your sputter was about.

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

This list of "violations" of the constitution is what I referred to as being "illegal in your interpretation" one or 2 days and umpteen posts ago, which reference caused you to sputter angrily that I was for some awful things. DUI checkpoints, NSA data collection, income tax, and corporate bailouts are all within the framework of law. They are violations of the constiitution only in your opinion (interpretation). You have the right to believe what you want, of course, and to state it as an opinion but it is not in the category of fact, only opinion. You do not need to be angry and sputter simply because I pointed out the fact that they are illegal or violations only by your interpretation. Now I will go further and state that IN MY OPINION, quite aside from the FACT OF LEGALITY, every one of these measures are right and necessary to protect us from drunkard drivers, terrorists, national financial collapse, and to finance the government including national defense. You, of course, can have a different opinion and sputter incoherently about it--and now that I've stated my opinion, you have actual reason to sputter disagreement with me and, if you wish, call me a traitor to the 4th amendment (to which I'll reply you're a rightwingnut, etc.), but you had no reason to dispute "illegal by your interpretation"--that was a statement of fact. Of course RWNs don't like to be called out in slightest way and rant & rave as reply. Mike, I thought you were bigger than that.

claytonln Loc: Kansas

okay the article that I read called Jefferson a Republican. The Party name was "Democratic Republicans." I kinda take that as Democratic being the kind of Republican. While the articles I read did not say this, they did call him a republican. I won't argue with you about it and will post the articles if you like.

When the Whigs changed the name to Republican I think in 1854 or 56. The Democrats in the south stated that if a Republican was elected as President that they would secede from the Union. In 1860, Lincoln was elected and the south seceded from the union.

The divides today started in the 60's. The radical groups of the sixty's like the weather underground, I don't know many of the other names. A lot of those people are now the senior senators and Reps. (well those that got into politics) And there has been a Progressive movement going on for a long time.

I have not heard anyone say they want to abolish any program. When a Republican says they want to reform a program. The Democrats say they want to abolish that program. I don't like either establishment party. The idea that the Tea Party is extreme is really pretty silly. When I look at politics of today I see the extreme on the left not the right. Even the establishment Republicans have moved left, that is why the Tea Party is called extreme. As for right wing nuts, I am not to sure I have ever met one. The Democrats have moved left with the Progressives, the Republicans seen a need to move left with them(moderates, Rino's). The rest of the world has always been to the left of us in politics and we are moving left with them. Even tho I am not sure that is what is need that is what I think.

The percentage of people uninsured was 15%. 7% almost 8% unemployment. Then what 6 to 7% homeless. If they cannot afford to feed their familys or have a home can they really afford health ins? And will those who will have to pay for them actually sign up to pay for them?

I have never been big on doctors. I go only if I absolutely have to. Been that way forever. Until the late 90's I probably hadn't been to the doctor since the 70's. I realize not everyone is that lucky but in that time i never used insurance.

Socialized medicine is not something I believe will help anyone. I have heard from people in Canada that it is not a good thing. I don't know. I think we as Americans need to stick to what we know works, the free market. We don't need government in the healthcare system.

cimiron

I absolutly agree with you, might need a secretary to help your spelling, also have a great holiday

vernon

the republicans have a health care bill im sure you havent heard of it ,the media dosent cover anything the republicans do.now if i read you right your saying nothing will work but obama care,if thats the case we are in a world of hurt.

claytonln Loc: Kansas

I don't think Obama care will work. It will take away the competition in the markets.

It will destroy the middle class. It is just another part of socialism that has failed time after time. Yet people keep voting those people in to office so we can try again.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

I don't see how hospitals & doctors competing is going to get me better health care.

I don't call it competition when better ways of doing things are shared with others.

All I look for in health care is that they do the best that they can with what they have to help me with my problem.

I feel that where ever I would go that is the service I would get.

vernon

it seems that you are sputtering to.

vernon

i wish everyone was as sane as you.

vernon

if you think that a buracrat is going to take better care of you you have another think coming,they will be just like the drivers liscence breau and they will help you when they finish their break

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Some how I feel that one gets the level of service that they deserve.

I do the best I can to do for others & that is all I expect from those that serve me.

I feel that I get the best they can give me from people that serve me. & that is all that I ever ask of any one.

And to you know what. I get good service where ever I go.

The key is to not to ask for more than they can give.