Posted by starburst (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 5:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

we elect people to do the work of government, not to have sandbox disputes at the countrys' expense. Grow up Sen Shelby! Stop embarrassing the state.

Posted by voiceofreason (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every Senator builds their carear off of earmarks for their state. That's how they get re-elected. Sadly that is how politics have come to work.
No more Statesmen, just greedy kids standing under a pinata.

Posted by elwood (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

he is fighting for jobs for alabama,,,didnt y'all read the whole article?

Posted by chefjones (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shelby is doing "whatever it takes" to protect Alabamians. In my book thats good for us. Again whatever it takes. The project is going to go to a state why not do what we can to have that state Alabama. Come on people wake up! It's a dog eat dog world.

Posted by Patrick (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Six years ago I sat in a town hall meeting in Andalusia when Shelby was running for reelection. The major issues of the war, budget deficits, social security funding, healthcare reform and an energy policy were discussed. Six years later he will be back and we will discuss the same issues again. Nothing has been done by congress or the previous administration to resolve any of them. If I don't make the meeting this time, I hope someone will ask why he should be reelected to do nothing during the next six years.

Posted by william99 (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the White House is unhappy these appointments are being held up? How come it was just fine when the democrats did this for decades, especially the Judiciary Committee which held up permanently Pres. Bush's 76 nominees for federal judgeships, just so the Democrats could keep conservative constitution-honoring judges from being appointed to the bench(Thank you Sen Schumer!) Bill Clinton had only 3 judges held up, Obama has had NONE! What can be done when the Senate, the House and the White House are controlled by Marxist-Socialist liberals who then took Bush's 76 judgeships and appointed socialist-liberal judges who legislate from the bench instead of interpreting constitutional issues, finally even packing the US Supreme Court with these same liberals. What do you expect Sen Shelby to accomplish wen the Republicans have no say in anything? Look at how they were closed out of the hearings for the Obama-nation Health Care (Death Care) bill. I say take advantage of every opportunity you have to stop these people who are selling our nation down the toilet!!!

Posted by purelogic (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahh the slow progress of democracy! :)

My how rapidly things would get done if only everyone just agreed what needed to be done.

Congress can't pass a bill that the sky is blue, because by the time it came to vote the sky would be gray! They can't no more agree on issues than the posters on this thread.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

william99: The answer to your question is 'double standards'!! It is OK if the democrats pull a maneuver such as Sen. Shelby! But woe to the republican who dares to stand up and be counted! If Sen. Shelby wants to chafe the administration a bit to help our economy, so be it. If he didn't do anything he would be criticized also! If you read the posts of progressives, they keep going back to the "previous administration". The battle cry is "war, budget deficits, social security funding, health care reform and energy". The Bush administration is continuously lambasted as being at fault for ALL of America's ills!! Obama has been in office over a year. No progressive should utter a peep about budget deficits!! No sirree, we are the proud owners of an additional debt ceiling just shy of 2 TRILLION dollars, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama!!!! I laugh when the WH babbles what they are spending on Haiti, Afghanistan or Social programs, etc.!! No, WE are not spending it.......China is spending it! The good old yuan!

Posted by outlaw11 (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It really irrates me to read such stupidity as persons such as Patrick show at times...I know that I am not right all the time but I try to use common sense as best I can...we are in a bad, bad position with this Chicago educated, politically corrupt, liberal thinking, no-balls piece of crap President...all of his appointees so far are liberal and have shown no leadership nor common sense in any of their endeavors as of today...only ineptness in protecting the American people or even helping the public...point in note...Haiti receives $100sM for aid, but, arrests Am Baptists trying to help misplaced children and no-one in Obama's house even trys to help or even offers an opinion on TV...it takes the shyster Bill Clinton, on his own, to fly there and meet with the Gov't to try and fix all this...this is the exact (+others) reason Sen Shelby blocks
Obama's appointments. He should be applauded for his efforts to protect what this administration is taking away... and...Patrick, if you miss the next town hall meeting, you won't be missed...so, please pack up and move to the West Coast where you can be with the rest of your coward bunch...come back on me all you like, I will still be here when you and your ilk are on your knees in front of the terrorists, telling them how you helped, but, then you will ask for mercy which will not be shown to you...I will die with a gun in hand for that in which I believe and you don't. I will vote for Sen Shelby & Sen Sessions as long as they run.

Posted by alabamachris (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loyal, so true. If you look at this graph you will see where the federal government is spending our money. If you take the time to view this site, you will see there are two departments whose budgets are larger then the Defense budget. So you folks that don't like spending money on national defense--how is borrowing the money today and spending the money on interest going to save our country from anything?

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shelby's actions are a symptom of why it is the system that needs to be changed, not the people in the seats. There is no reason to have a Senate. Those who want to work for populist change (Tea Baggers, listen up) should focus their energies on a rewrite of the Constitution. We should have one parliamentary body, composed of members chosen on the basis of one man/one vote. In this way, 6 Senators representing states with less than 3% of the country's total population could not hold hostage real health reform. Also, the internal procedures and protocols of the Senate requiring 60 votes for closure and giving each Senator a right to a "hold" on bring to a vote the approval of a presidential appointment have given Senators such as Richard Shelby the power of extortion. This is not the way a democratic process works.

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AlabamaChris: I went to your source and couldn't find support for the graph represented on that web site. By the way, that web page is not a government web site, but is run by some unknown person or group. Here is a better way to look at the breakdown of the U.S. budget, a pie chart: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha.... As you can see, current military and past military activites account for 54% of our nation's budget. (The other web site only looked at the spending of the Dept. of Defense). Also, the interest we are paying on the debt that we have incurred from the non-funded Iraq War (which cost us a trillion dollars) and other wars of folly would have to be added to this 54% figure.

It is often said that a person's heart is where his pocket is held. Our heart, sad to say, is militarism. And military folly that we can not even affort. This is what will break us - not the faux demons of Fox News.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon: Nice anti war site you posted! That site is nothing more than slanted, liberal propaganda! No one in their right mind wants war. But promoting a site that encourages citizens to leave our military out to dry is deplorable! Your colors came through very brightly!

Can someone please clue me in on the definitions for "military folly" and "wars of folly"?

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps some may want to peruse:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usg...

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check this out, LA: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/U...

We have invaded more countries since WWII than you can almost count. These invasions were not to protect us from attacks against the homeland, but wars for the sake of feeding the maw of the military machine. There is no question that our country is an aggressive imperialist nation. By spending money on these foreign wars and ignoring our infrastructure and the social and educational needs of our population, we are bringing this country to the brink of financial disaster. Opposing this self-destruction is what real patriotism is about, LA. Not your blind, "Yes, Sir" type of patriotism.

Posted by knos (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."--Winston Churchill

This point is proved consistently.

Posted by MoreCowBell (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stopping Maobama's progressive agenda is always a good thing. Shelby gets a thumbs up for blocking all these communist progressives that "the one" seems to want to surround himself with.

Estrogen....you are probably a big fan of Mao, Castro and Che', etc. even while you are hacking our military and our "aggressive imperialist nation". This country has done more good for our fellow man than any other country in the world and don't forget that. Oh and the Constitution is not broken. It's needs no fixing, only following.

By the way, the tea party participants are not "tea baggers". Tea Baggers tend to be of the liberal persuasion.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon: Great...you want me to refresh my memory on the jackass socialist, William Blum? His "writings" are no more valuable than any other disgruntled punk ! Lest we forget his expose` of the CIA when he not only outed more than 200 agents.....the SOB gave their HOME ADDRESSES!! Do you really think I am impressed with HIS views as a biased self proclaimed socialist?? He didn't even list Bosnia or Kosovo in his "travels"! Do you really buy into this type of crap? Amazing....simply amazing!

No, Estragon, no one is bringing this country to the brink of financial disaster....we are there, we have arrived!! Let it suffice to say, you and I have totally different views on patriotism. I am not blind in my patriotism to my country and I will not follow a socialist mindset. We are not an "aggressive, imperialist nation". Our troubles as a nation did not begin with wars. Our troubles began when our elected officials stepped onto the pathway to socialism. That pathway has nothing to do with "real patriotism". All it offers is, our destruction as a nation! And Yes, Sir, You heard that from a REAL patriot!!

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MoreCowBell: Your comment, "the Constitution is not broken. It's needs no fixing, only following." Amen to that, you are SO right!!

Posted by knos (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005...

Something for all you types that think going back to the gold standard would be a positive...

Posted by winkie (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Constitution must stand!

Posted by alabamachris (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think estrogen should move to Mexico--they don't go to war except against drug lords. I hope that type of war is acceptable. Maybe a better place would be Switzerland or I know San Francisco but then when the big one hits California SF will be waiting on the US Military to come provide them with food, water and other basics of life just like they are doing in Haiti today. But what the heck--we could just as easily hire a bunch of welfare recipients and fly them to Haiti to hand out the food and maintain peace. Oh wait, that would be cruel and unusual punishment making them work in all that heat and bad conditions.
As for the constitution, I totally agree if it were followed we would not be in the financial shape we are in today. We would not have had the housing bubble because the Feds would not have been pressuring the banks to make loans they knew in their hearts were bad. You can thank the Community Reinvestment Act for a lot of the problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_R...
Also, we would not have spent 826Billion borrowed dollars buying votes -- how’s that workin out fur ya progressives.

Posted by alabamachris (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

estrogen I did go to your anti-war site--don't think that is a government site either. Don't see any sources for your pie-charts either--are graphs to hard for you to read? I also don't see the breakdown as to what government department is spending what either or the prediction for 2010. Your responds to my blog I found to be boring, inept and lacking in detail or facts. At least when Patrick responds he makes a better argument, although I rarely agree with it I respect his view--yours as you can probably tell I do not respect.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

alabamachris: The liberals always want to pounce on the Bush administration for everything and refuse to trace the problems back to the original owners, such as Carter, Frank,etc.! Yes,the CRA, another gimme program compliments the Carter administration! Barney Frank should be run out of DC on a rail for his part in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle. The minorities, given the low interest, no down payment loans, with insufficient income, were allowed to 'build their dreams" on sand. Financing homes they could not afford was cruel. Little did they know about the energy costs, etc., to heat and cool a McMansion!! They became accustomed to living the champagne lifestyle, then found themselves on the street. Perhaps Sen Shelby is trying to keep more Alabamians off the streets, hence his tactics!

As for the US Constitution, the liberals have milked, massaged and maimed it until it is hardly recognizable! I do not know which is the worst president to trample the Constitution in American history, Carter or Obama! You can put them both in a sack, flog it and you'll not miss giving the right one a well deserved 'ouwee'!!

Posted by 188822 (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shame on Shelby.

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You Tea Baggers on this blog believe the most absurd things. The notion that the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977 during the Carter Administration had anything to do with the financial crash in 2008 is absurd. The CRA was passed by Congress in response to the "red lining" that many banks and S&L's used to avoid making loans in neighborhoods where minorities resided. In the 30 year history of mortgage loans made under this program, the default rate as been low.

To the right wing revisionists of reality, the source of all problems is "liberals." Market forces and the lifting of regulatory oversight, not too much government, was the cause of the financial crisis in 2008. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...

Wall Street outsmarted itself. The "quants," those mathematical geniuses who were employed by large Wall Street banks to devise quantitative analysis of the risks associated with real estate backed mortgages thought they had devised a scheme that turned the random, multi-variant risks of foreclosures into a single, standard deviation model. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine.... With this mathematical certainty, banks could become like casinos where the probabilities are known and making a profit is simply setting the odds in your favor. The more money pumped into this system, the more money you would make. That is the reason why the large Wall Street banks were pressuring the Countrywide's and the WaMu's to bring them more and more loans - even ones that contained no documentation or down payment. It didn't matter - as long as the mathematical odds were in the banks' favor. Beginning with the Republican take-over of Congress in 1994, efforts to untie the hands of banks to allow them to engage in this free wheel gambling were being led by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and the Republican caucus that was beholding to big banks. President Clinton, sad to say, went along with these "financial reforms" that gutted the Glass-Stegall Act passed in 1933 and other banking laws enacted after the Great Depression to protect the public from bank panics and failures that had plagued our financial system.

But, in the world of Fox News listeners, it is always some undefined "liberals" or "socialists" who are the problem. Most of these Fox News listeners don't know the meaning of these epitaths, although they have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to think of them as prejorative, just as these listeners still believe that there were WMD in Iran and that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. These individuals, in the parlance of those in the business of politics, are referred to as the "low information" voter. And, boy does Fox News and the Sarah Palins of our country know how to go rope in these suckers. Tea bag that, LA, winkie, MCB, alabamachris, et al.

Posted by alabamachris (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess who was in charge of the New York Fed oversight of the Wall Street meltdown. Here is a hint--he didn't know how to use his off the shelf tax preperation tax software, so he didn't pay his taxes. Second hint, the fella in the white house hired him to be his treasury secretary. He also hired several Goldman Sacks management to be on his economic/jobs panel, not that they didn't cause a big share of the financial meltdown. Just asking.

Posted by MoreCowBell (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estrogen, I am amazed at your infatuation of tea bagging. Must be a lib thing.

You sure seem to know alot about Fox News. Do you watch very often?
But on another note, if you don't like what you read on here, you are sure not going to like things after the November elections!

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon: OK, first of all, your source ‘Prospect’ has a slanted view regarding CRA 1977, and its part in the 2008-housing nightmare. 'Prospect', with its slogan, "Liberal Intelligence" is an oxymoron at best! You always use liberally biased references to make your point......sorry, it doesn't work! What I REALLY liked about your post is; I finally got the straight skinny on who caused the Wall Street tumble!! Thanks for that much sought after info!!!! It was none other than David X. Li, mathematician extraordinaire!!! And I will wager the family farm you will now dig up some left wing, obscure article, stating he is a Republican/Conservative/Wannabe “Tea-Bagger”!! While you are pumping out your Countrywide stats, etc. don't forget the 1999 revision of CRA and how that revision caused a lot of banks to create some very toxic loan products to satisfy those revisions! You radical left winger’s never want to admit one of your own had any part in causing the ills of our nation! James “Jimmeh” Carter, was, and remains as toxic as nuclear waste!

Finally, I think you meant to say 'epithets' for Liberalism and Socialism when you referred to the "low information" voters and their inability to understand the definitions for said epithets. Please indulge me as I synopsize those definitions.

Liberalism: lavish, generous, open-handed. Expects state to: supply opportunity to provide work, intervene in economy. Believes low wages and unemployment is an injustice, promotes large welfare programs and social justice.

Socialism: Control of economy by national or state ownership and administration of the means for production and distribution of goods; Rich in welfare programs; a transitional state between capitalism and communism.
How did I do?

We can argue forever the tenets of these two “ism’s” and how their evolution into today’s political correctness has grossly harmed America. But the fact remains, socialism is destructive to the health of any nation!

By the way, I also find your Fox News and Sarah Palin paranoia profoundly interesting!

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alabamachris: OK, I am going to take a stab at your question. Now I may be wrong, but does his first name begin with 'T'? It is coming to me slowly.......I have it....Timmy, his name is Timmy! Timmy 'Bozo' Geithner, am I right? And yes, Timmy Geithner is synonomous with Goldman Sachs!!

Posted by knos (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

American exceptionalism...

There's something fun for you guys to read about.

Enjoy!

Posted by knos (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/...

That'll be a good read.

Adieu!

Posted by knos (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/...

This is a must read to.

Posted by nwcorner (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

he must have a reason. he must be getting a pretty good kickback. Money Talks

Posted by alabamachris (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeez Loyal I knew you would know the answer but I was hoping one of the progressives on this blog would have taken a stab. Guess they didn't want to talk about it anymore since it was presented using facts.
estro, I have never said or thought Iran had WMDs, they are working towards them though, but if that was a mistype and you ment Iraq then I must say the reporters on your news station missed a big news flash out of Irag last week. Chemical Ally, mispelled I know, was hanged for using biological warfare against the Kurds. I believe chemical bombs are considered WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). Correct me if I am wrong because I heard that on Fox News.

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, alabamachris, Iraq had chemical weapons that were obtained in the 1970's. They were sold to Iraq by guess whom? The U.S.A. To use against the Iranians.

The British are in the process of conducting an official inquiry into the real facts and reasons why Iraq was invaded by the U.S.A. and its poodle, Great Britain. The testimony of British intelligence officials and diplomats that has already been given to the tribunal has been nothing short of shocking. You may want to learn about the work of this tribunal by reading the Guardian online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/. Don't be surprised if the verdict is that Bush and Blair's contrived invasion of Iraq is nothing less than a war crime.

Posted by Mr_Logic (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shelby should be the poster boy for term limits in Congress.

Posted by gunsandroses (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

how many terms has ole shelby had?

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon: You appear to be salivating over the Chilcot Inquiry. The decision for this Inquiry was made quite some time ago by the UK. The Inquiry would not begin until all British combat troops were out of Iraq. This Inquiry is NOT a court of law or tribunal and there is no "verdict" to be handed down. Perhaps opinions will come forth and a change of policy for the UK, but it is NOT a trial as you seem to imply! The reason for this Inquiry is for the UK to review their decisions regarding Iraq from 2001-2009. I would compare it to an After Action report. Sorry, it is not an indictment of President Bush or Prime Minister Tony Blair! By the way, neither is a war criminal!

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

alabamachris: Please , please forgive me for snatching away the opportunity you gave for the progressives to show their intelligence! You are correct, they will not revisit any issue when challenged with facts. If they do come back, they always come with slanted "facts" from some liberal publication! Amazing.....

Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Back on the point of this article, I thought I would share Paul Krugman's observations in his column today in the New York Times:

"We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic. What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.
A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison."
******************
If the financial strain of holding onto and extending our empire doesn't swallow us, our inept and corrupt public officials like Richard Shelby will choke us with their "holds." It's time for a new constitutional convention.

Posted by mbishop (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon, this is simple our U.S. Constitution is the greatest piece of legislation ever passed in the world, there's a reason we have two houses, as a comprimise between the small states and the large states. What you need to do, if you don't like it, is get a passport and by a one way ticket to norway or germany, those are your socialist countries and I'm sure they'd be glad to welcome you.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mbishop: Splendid post. May I please add United Kingdom to your list? Some posters believe having a Parliament is better than having a Senate. Also, UK has the monarchy which identifies them as the real Imperial country.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Estragon: How is Sen. Shelby's "choke hold" any different than Pelosi "parachuting over the fence" to make law that is against the will of the majority of Americans? What about the appointments held up by democrats in a republican administration? That wasn't a "choke hold" was it? Double standards AGAIN! Boy, you left wing radicals are getting desperate if you think a new Constitution is the only way to ram your agenda through!

Posted by alabamachris (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loyal--it is the only thing they have left to try. They couldn't ram their stuff threw for a year with not one vote required from the Republicans side and yet I heard over and over how the Republicans were the party of NO and stalling their bills. They cannot accept that even the moderate democrats don't believe in the progressive agenda that is being pushed by the three idiots in charge.
Why would they want to rewrite it--it has been ignored for years by both partys while they have expanded the power of the federal government.

Posted by rgodwin (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i would like to say hello to my fellow tea bagging Patriots! For months there has been nothing worth commenting on in the Star News and right about the time I start a remodeling project it blast wide open. I had a chance to read most of the post last night and you patriots have some very good post and the other usual's are just as predictable and anti American as ever. I hope all that can will make plans to be in Washington at the Lincoln Memorial this August 28th. There will be many like minded Americans there and it will give you a feeling of patriotism that I can't explain to be in the presence of millions of everyday freedom loving Americans from all around our nation who love America the same way we do! Loyal, maybe when and if they ever Ship Barney out of Washington, he can stop by and pick up Estragon on his way through. I have a feeling they would get along great together.

Posted by LoyalAmerican (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rgodwin: Welcome back! Every time I hear the name Barney Frank, this purple creature comes to mind! Then it strikes me why this occurs, both are silly characters. The only difference is, Barney the dinosaur has a worthwhile message!!

Posted by Shamrock (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it time to vote for the most logical, most articulate, most truthful blogger on this thread, yet?
It's a sure hands down shoe-in.