Someone needs to be robbed to pay for it, that's my point. I realize that hatred for Republicans runs rampant, but the Democrats seem to be the ones intent on passing this legislation, and apparently had to negotiate the financing aspect for approval.

I find it interesting to note that the Democrats fail to explain how they intended to pay for it. Print more money, borrow it from China, or divert from other funding? Either way someone, namely us, is being robbed, no matter where the funds actually come from. That is the basis for my opposition to the bailout entirely.

Once again, the Democrats are using the plight of the poor to demonize Republicans while they fail to explain where they would appropriate the funds. So in this particular instance, I would categorize the Democrats as the stealers and spenders for pushing this legislation in the first place.

While I won't disagree with you about Bush and his cronies, the Democrat Congress has had two years in which to reverse this doctrine, and they have lifted not one finger to do so. If these are such pressing matters, why has the Congress sat on their hands these last two years? If the securtiy and happiness of Americans is of such utmost importance to them, why have they not acted?

Where has Obama been? Oh, that's right, out campaigning for "change" while he could have been doing his job (the one he was elected to do) and actually working for it. He has shirked his responsibility to his constituents and his country by being absent from Congress.

So the Democrats have been content to allow this to continue so they can use it to their advantage this fall instead of working to set things right. This doesn't leave me with much faith that the Democrats are really concerned with these problems, or reversing them, but only that they are willing to ignore them in favor of acquiring absolute power next January.

I have seen you use the Supreme Court as an argument against McCain. Hypothetically, if McCain were to somehow win in November, the Democrat Congress would most surely reject any conservative appointee. If not, then they have no business holding these positions. The Deomcrats of course use that argument as a rallying cry anyway.

But let's turn that around, and look at what Obama may do with the Supreme Court. His record clearly shows and his campaign promise is such that he will appoint judges to rule against the second amendment.

The "conservative" Supreme Court has already set the stage for this with their anticipated ruling due next month, I believe. It is anticipated that the Court will rule that while citizens have the right to bear arms, the government has the right to curtail that right as they see fit. Orwellian doublespeak if there ever was. From his own website...

"He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets".

To the uninitiated, the term "assault weapons" sounds really evil. Assault weapons are fully automatic military weapons, which are already illegal. What the public is allowed to purchase and own are semi-automatic rifles, not assault weapons.

In 1998, he pledged to support a "ban on all semiautomatic weapons". As the Chicago tribune reported, "Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed".

In May 2004, he voted against a bill to protect citizens who use handguns in self defense. The bill was passed and then vetoed by the Governor. On the second vote, Obama also voted against, but the bill was passed by a veto override.

The right to keep and bear arms is the most basic protection against tyranny, and when only the police are armed do the people go from being citizens to becoming subjects. With the abolishment of most of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment is all we have left as a protection against government oppression and tyranny. I will not cede that right, nor will I support anyone that stands for it.

Furthermore, I don't see anywhere in his platform any mention of repealing the Patriot Act, the Military Commisions Act, or restoring Habeas Corpus. I don't see any mention of the Federal Reserve or our currency issues. His platform is pretty much run-of-the-mill socialism, with nothing of substantial change to be found.

That's why most Obama supporters can't be coaxed into policy discussions. All they know is that he isn't a Clinton and he isn't a Bush, and that's good enough. Beyond that, most people don't have any idea what he stands for.

It seems most are willing to ignore the lessons of what the Republicans did with absolute control of our government, along with the tacit approval of the minority Democrats, and we are more than willing to hand the Democrats absolute power in return. Not a healthy alternative.

Both parties have been playing this good cop - bad cop routine for far too long, and it is always to the detriment of the people they are tasked with representing.

"Checks and ballances, Jefferson, however you and your party may have ridiculed them, are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every species of these Christians would persecute Deists, as soon as either sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unballanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with an unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, Human Nature!"

- John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 25, 1813

Well a third party isn't feasible. I prefer we throw out the infidels, as it were.

You completely miss the point I was trying to make. The money for this program has already been stolen no matter where it comes from, so the poor are being used as a tool to demonize Republicans in an election year. The article you cited was one-sided and biased to that end.

That's not to say they don't deserve it, but in this particular instance it is unfounded based purely on economic reality.

Like most issues, this isn't as simple as a one page article can convey. My desire is to sift through the superficial political nonsense and shed some light on the real effects of the policies that are enacted on our behalf.

My desire is to show people that all Republicans are not bad - not an easy task these days. George Bush has completely destroyed any chance we had of showing people that conservative ideals are both responsible and compassionate.

The Democrats idea of caring for the poor is welfarism. This is harmful and teaches people to rely on the government to take care of them. While there will always be those in need, without prosperity we will only serve to increase the ranks of the needy.

Our idea is to restore fiscal sanity through sound currency and monetary policy. Only through prosperity, and not government handouts, will the poor be able to better themselves. A rich nation is a generous nation, while a poor nation is bitter and selfish.