My prediction is the Democrats will cheer and the Republicans will sneer. Afterwords, Republicans will be accused of hating America and be called unpatriotic since they are rooting for America to lose to prove a political point.

It's almost like a weird deja vu moment.

I've been listening to the GOP Congressional leadership and some conservative GOP governors and wondering on what planet are they living? Under George W. Bush, they presided over the worst fiscal governance in generations and yet they want to blame President Obama for trying to help dig them out of the economic morass their party largely facilitated. President Obama has shown nothing but grace to these people and yet these dunderheads have continued to all but ignore their culpability in the matter. Under what rocks have these people been living? It's as if the last eight years did not happen.

Amazing speech. A grand slam homerun.

To Jindal I ask: Why should we listen to your suggestions? Your ways have been proven to lead to failure.

"since they are rooting for America to lose to prove a political point."
Sounds like what the Dems have done for the last6 years. Last 2 years for sure. Both Pelosi and Reed stated that they wanted failure in the Bush admin to insure their chances to win. Pelosi said in an interview that if the economy were good at the end of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq were over, it would be bad for the Dems.

It is not about what is best for the country. It is what is going to get and keep us in power. The Dems are doing a good job of making the country dependent on them.

Time will tell. If the economy is still in the tank at the end of the year and gas is back to $4 a gallon, all the spending now won't mean a thing.

Of course, we can all buy $40,000 electric cars and plug them in to all the wind and solar generating plants all night to recharge them so we can get to work and home the next day. That's right, charge them when the sun isn't shining and the wind blows the least. Since we are going to sink all that money in that technology so we will not be dependant on foreign oil any more.
Yeah that's right. Pelosi believes in that energy too, since she is heavily invested in it, she must believe it.

The little red hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

'Not I,' said the cow.

'Not I,' said the duck.

'Not I,' said the pig.

'Not I,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.

'Not I,' said the duck.

'Out of my classification,' said the pig.

'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.

'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.

'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.

'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.

'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.

'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.

'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'

'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)

'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)

'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)

The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)

And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'

'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.

'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.

EPILOGUE

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.


IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT

And DUHbya and Co. said along with the Republican heavy CONgress for 6 years.....

SPEND
SPEND
SPEND

"Both Pelosi and Reed stated that they wanted failure in the Bush admin to insure their chances to win."

George W. Bush and the GOP Congress were responsible for their own colossal failures, not Reid and Pelosi. The GOP was reckless at nearly every turn. They had every opportunity to act prudently but instead, they behaved like ID thieves with stolen credit cards. What kind of “principled” government leader would defer paying for a war as did George W. Bush and the GOP Congress in the case of the Iraq War? Or even refuse to raise taxes to help offset its cost? Ask George W. Bush and the GOP Congress of course.

From their lies on Iraq to their years of insanely reckless spending to the doubling of the national debt in eight years, it is George W. Bush and the GOP Congress that are the national disgraces. To try to pin this on Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats is contrary to the facts.

I don't think a George W. Bush coloring book would merit a $12 million dollar advance.

I initially watched the speech on CNN (OK - at Burgerville, where I enjoyed a hot, tasty burger, if you must know). I really wanted to see the pagentry involved - the announcement of the president, the gestures, etc. From a standpoint of history.

I've since been listening to Obama's speech again, on the radio, where I can focus more on his actual words. And I say...wow, this was a terrific speech. Incredibly down to earth, direct, to the point. No BS. I'm very, very impressed.

I was amazed that my right-wing Republican friend was "inspired" by his speech, too. I'd take that to mean lots of other Republicans were, too (even if not Skybill.).

LOL!!

I saw it on at convience stores, heard it on radios, and people were watching and talking.

We need this to work. We need it really badly.

I'm liking it too. So far, it's on the mark, clear, and honest in the level of the challenge.

What seems obvious to me is that President Obama isn't in the White House to settle old scores. He truly wants to repair the damage done in addition to crafting a way forward.

This is in sharp contrast to Dick Cheney, who seemed hell bent on settling old scores and creating public policy initiatives that would divide the country rather than unite it.

When you think about it, the difference is astounding.

Wow, if you want to see what a difference a year makes, check out Bush's SOTU speech from last January (while tonight's Obama speech wasn't technically a SOTU speech, it was the equivalent):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7_Ajl0hPYE&feature=related

Notice how Bush was emphatic about the tax cuts being made permanent to keep the job growth going...

One of the things President Obama mentioned was putting an end to no bid government contracts. Perhaps if the Republicans had done some due diligence when they were in control of Congress and investigated some of the shenanigans of contractors that were given billions, perhaps they would have some credibility on fiscal matters. Yet they gave George W. Bush a blank check and look what it got them; minority status in both house of Congress and years to contemplate their misdeeds.

The difference is stark!

And I totally agree. Priority one is the state of the people. Good on him for that.

Lots of good stuff in there.

Matthews just said getting health care done this year is a measure of his Presidency. Good grief, how expectations change!

(not a bad thing, just very, very different)

talpdx said: the difference is astounding.

That comment is spot on.

As for the conservatives that are whining in this forum, consider them 3-year-old brats throwing a temper tantrum after being scolded for peeing in the sandbox. Heh.

Oh, and you can also watch Obama's own response to Bush's 2008 SOTU address. Interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNCALGHOC4&NR=1

(This was before he had pulled ahead of Hillary in the primaries.)

"Imagine if next year [at SOTU time] was different. Imagine if next year the entire nation had a president they could believe in, a president who could rally all Americans around a common purpose."

And it has largely come true - so far...

(even if not Skybill.)

Don't know. I didn't listen or watch it.

But just to be clear, I didn't watch any of Bush's (or his predecessors) speeches either.

I don't watch that kind of crap on TV.

To me ALL politicians will say whatever the polls say the public wants to hear, then they are going to do whatever they want to do. The public be damned.

Their main goal in life is to fill their own pockets as full as possible.

In a nutshell, we are f$#@ed no matter who is in the White House or the majority in Congress. We are headed for a socialist country and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it.

OK then. Yep. I guess we're gonna try it.

Interesting times.

So Skybill, what are the big terrible things that will happen because of your prediction? Name your top 5.

"Perhaps if the Republicans had done some due diligence when they were in control of Congress and investigated some of the shenanigans of contractors that were given billions, perhaps they would have some credibility on fiscal matters."

But that would mean no bonuses, no profit, for the Republican leaders themselves!

One of the biggest winners of the Iraq war was Halliburton. They received billions in Government contracts, no-bid contracts of course, and it has been proven that the Government vastly overpaid for these services rendered.

We all know of Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton. I'm guessing he profited quite handsomely.

Whether you're a "lib" or a "neo-con", right or left, Republican or Democrat, I would think that as an American everyday citizen, you would be happy to hear Obama say that this is about the American PEOPLE, not the CEOs and excecutives.

All these years of the CEOs and executives living high on the hog, while the middle tax disappears right before our very eyes, are hopefully coming to an end.

Again this gets back to the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals.

Skybill, I am not picking on you or putting your ideas down. You are the most vocal opponent to most of the postings here though. As such this is directed at you and others.

Communism: REALLY is the looney left. I can't imagine being a part of anyone advocating this system of governance. In this system, government controls EVERYTHING. Most importantly the means of production. Hell I dont want the gov't making my shoes or my car. Adidas and Subaru are much more capable and produce a much better product, in my humble opinion.

Socialism (which you apparently think is communism): The government provides for the common good. What does this mean? Well we are already semi-socialist. We have socialist roads. We have socialist police. We have socialist fire depeartments. We have socialist schools. All of these things help society out. It's not every man for himself. These are the common systems we SHARE. To live in a civilized society, we have to pay for these things (taxes.) The conservative rail against taxes because they want ALL of these things to be private enterprise. I don't. I would hate for my house to burn down just because I couldn't afford my fire department bill that month. Socialism is highly successful in northern Europe. Unlike communism, socialism protects the society from the predators in the system. Regulations exist to protect those who can not protect themselves. The old. The very young. The disabled. The poor.

Free market capitalism: See the last 8 years in America. Crumbling schools, infrastructure and collective morale. A bubble economy that went bust. More privatization of our commons than ever before. Ect.

Governor Jindal's response was terrible at best. The parts that I yelled at the TV is when he derided government. WE are the government, you jerkwad. I think President Obama admonished the Congress for not representing their constituency properly. Talking of his and theirs responsibility to the American people. The only part I didn't like was his call for Americans to be responsible. I think the majority of Americans are. It's time those whom we elect to represent us start doing so.

Trixter wrote:
And DUHbya and Co. said along with the Republican heavy CONgress for 6 years.....

SPEND
SPEND
SPEND

Actually, he said:

9/11
9/11
9/11

So Skybill, what are the big terrible things that will happen because of your prediction? Name your top 5.

OK. But know that my top 5 things; 1) Will not be agreed upon as being bad by libs, and 2) May not be in someone else's top 5 or even in their list.

Not in any particular order;

1 - Socialized Medicine. Something does need to be done, but government run health care is NOT the answer. If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free. I guarantee that I will NEVER willingly pay into government mandated insurance. They will have to make it a law and it will have to be taken directly out of my check like socialist insecurity before I'll pay into it. I’d rather go without insurance.

2 - Higher Taxes. How are we going to pay for all the socialist programs? Public transportation, government funded health care, welfare handouts (those that REALLY need it are fine, it's the lazy crack heads that I object too), Broadband access out in BFE (Why should it be the taxpayers responsibility to fund broadband for some farmer that lives out in the middle of nowhere?) etc, etc. They only way to pay for all their socialist programs is to raise taxes, yet the mouths in DC say they aren't going to raise them. LIARS.

3 - Gun Control/Confiscation - Legislation is the first step in confiscation. The "crew" in DC right now is the most anti 2nd amendment group ever to be in DC and their lord is the worst of them all. Mark my words, within a year to 18 months you'll see things like the assault rifle ban put back in place (Crime/murders HAS NOT increased at all since it expired), you'll see things like restrictions on shotguns that hold more than one shell, etc. I know the libs want more laws and gun registration and tighter restrictions. They say it will reduce crime. BULL SHIT. All it will do is penalize the law abiding gun owners. Want to reduce crime? ENFORCE the laws that are already in place and PROSECUTE criminals. Want to pass more laws? Pass laws that would put in place MANDATORY stiff penalties for the criminals that use a gun in a crime. Pass a law that makes it a minimum 30 year sentence WITHOUT any chance of parole if you use a gun in a crime. You don't even have to shoot someone. Just have the gun with you when you commit the crime. I know this will never fly. Too many libs believe that prosecution is not a deterrent to crime. I'll repeat my statement from above: BULL SHIT. Start making examples out of some of the criminals. You'll see.

4 - More government interference in our lives. I want the government to provide me with the essential things that they were set up to do and NOTHING more. Fire, police, ambulance, military and the infrastructure for the country, etc. I DON'T want them telling me what I can and can't eat, or that I have to have air bags in my car (If I want them and I feel that they are a worthy safety improvement, then I'll gladly order them as a OPTION and pay for them.) etc, etc. Provide the essentials and nothing more. And sure, roads and stuff like that are essential and I consider that part of the “infrastructure”

5 - Bigger Government - This kinda goes with #4, but is really a separate issue. With the "stimulus" package the lord Obama has signed, he says it's going to save or create 3.5 million jobs. First off, how many of those will be government jobs to manage all the new programs that will be created. Next, that is a bogus number. Even his own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." Sure there will be jobs saved, and I'm glad for those who don't lose their jobs, but he's stretching the numbers (as ALL politicians do)

All that being said, I REALLY do want him to succeed in getting the country turned around. Not so the libs can say “see the Democrats really are better”, which you KNOW they will be doing but for the good of the country and those of us who live here. It really is a GREAT country.

It's tough times right now. Contrary to popular liberal beliefs, it's not all Bush's fault. A good portion of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the House and Senate. They are the ones that control spending.

We do need to cut our dependence of foreign oil. We need more of our oil to stay in the US rather than exporting it.

Note to Moman: I don't think socialism is communism. I know the difference, and no, I don't think anybody in DC is trying to lead us into communism. Communism is a failure anyway. It doesn't work. However, here is an example of why the liberals and Democrats scare me. Listen to Sen. Maxine Waters very closely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRhBMGFmu5s&feature=related It's easy to see that she realizes that she slipped up and let the cat out of the bag. Then watch the faces on the two people behind her.

The Unites States in spite of all its current problems is STILL the BEST country in the world. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but by far and above the BEST. Anybody that doesn't agree with that is free to move to the country of their choice.

Now THAT is an answer, ladies and gentlemen.

Thanks Skybill.

Agreed!

Socialized medicine? If you mean a huge, government run bureaucracy that will receive it’s financing through taxes – it’ll never happen. But the GOP’s continued effort to scuttle any reform of the health care system proves one thing – they don’t want any significant changes to the system. And their lame medical saving accounts approach to reform is just plain silly. The system needs a massive over hall. But as we know, the GOP had every opportunity to find market oriented ways to reform the system but they chose to do nothing. On this matter, they have zero credibility.

Higher taxes? Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper income earners and what happened? A surplus. Go figure.

Gun control. The US Supreme Court has settled the matter. And I don’t know about you, but could you REALLY imagine your local police or sheriff’s department rounding up guns from law abiding citizens? It will NEVER happen.

Skybill you are one paranoid dude.

Skybill writes:
1 - Socialized Medicine. Something does need to be done, but government run health care is NOT the answer.

Nor has anyone proposed it that I'm aware of. Only paranoid right-wingers think it has been proposed.

The most radical health care proposal - not one Obama has supported, nor did Hillary last year - is a "single-payer" health care system (like Medicare), where the government is insurance company. This is the model in Germany and (I believe) Canada, where the hospitals and doctors are not owned/employed by the government. Only the insurance company is government-run.

Obama isn't behind single payer, anyway. Too bad; Medicare is much more efficient than any insurance company. Obama's proposal is not even universal health care - it's a combination of subsidies and preventative health care that saves money and is thus able to make insurance more affordable, so more people will be insured.

2 - Higher Taxes. How are we going to pay for all the socialist programs?

Bill, where were you when the Republicans doubled our national debt in the last eight years? It seems you have no trouble at all borrowing from the Chinese as long as the money is used to build another new weapons programs, but you'll be damned if you're willing to pay one extra penny in taxes for it.

The vast majority of the federal budget is spent on the military, on Medicare and Medicaid, and on interest on our huge national debt. Only a very tiny bit is "welfare" and even that was reformed by Bill Clinton. No one except the boogeyman who lives in the paranoid minds of conservatives believes the Democrats are dreaming up vast new government programs that will require new tax revenues.

Taxes will have to be raised (at least on the wealthy) to start paying for the huge budget holes left to America by the Republicans. I wish Obama would do more than simply let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, but that's all he's committed to do right now.

3 - Gun Control/Confiscation - Legislation is the first step in confiscation. The "crew" in DC right now is the most anti 2nd amendment group ever to be in DC and their lord is the worst of them all. Mark my words, within a year to 18 months you'll see things like the assault rifle ban put back in place (Crime/murders HAS NOT increased at all since it expired), you'll see things like restrictions on shotguns that hold more than one shell, etc.

Ask the cops in major cities if they want criminals to have access to assault weapons. Sorry, I'll side with the cops. The idea that shotguns will be restricted is the height of absurdity. Do get back to us in 18 months to see if your paranoid predictions ring true.

4 - More government interference in our lives.

So you stood up and challenged the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program then? Worried about the new laws that allowed the Bush administration to detain American citizens without charges? Do fill us in.

5 - Bigger Government - This kinda goes with #4, but is really a separate issue.

Again, where were you when the Bush administration was increasing the size of government the last eight years? Voting for Republicans who made it happen, no doubt.

LOL @ Chris! Paranoid indeed just like most gun nuts usually are.

1 - Socialized Medicine: Would cost less than our current set up and offer more coverage. Why not?

2 - Higher Taxes: On the rich, yes, but not on the typical household.

3 - Gun Control/Confiscation: This is settled law. You will not have your gun taken away. However, I do hope that we see more gun control because this is obviously what the majority want since they did elect Dems to take control. Less guns in the hands of the public = less gun crimes and deaths by the barrel of a gun.

4 - More government interference in our lives: You mean like banning abortion? Or wiretapping??

5 - Bigger Government: If bigger government means it works better for our society, then I'm all for it. I want our government to work for the people that fund it.

"It's tough times right now. Contrary to popular liberal beliefs, it's not all Bush's fault. A good portion of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the House and Senate. They are the ones that control spending."

Tell me who was in control of the Congress for the last 12 out of 14 years? Contrary to GOP delusion, the countries problems did not appear and multiply all of a sudden in the last two years.

Drop the "libs" label, Skybill. It does not serve your points, some of which have some validity albeit your extremist interpretation of them only clouds the real issues. Like conservative ideology, liberalism is not a black and white issue although so many conservatives treat it as such. Political theory is a continuous scale of ideas that overlap. There can be conservative and liberal elements to any plan.

"To combat this inclination toward small-mindedness, the politics of the center requires special attention to the distinction between the politics of interest and the politics of principle. The principled politics of the center values moral and institutional complexity, and it draws on multiple traditions of political thought. It appreciates and promotes both civic republicanism and constitutionalist liberalism. It promotes self-limitation and moderation. It opposes an extremism of ends, in which we aim for the immediate transformation of reality in light of one supreme ideal, not balanced by any other ideals. Such an extremism favors a kind of one-sidedness in which the requirement of consistency trumps the attractiveness of balanced complexity. The politics of the center also opposes an extremism of means, which adopts violence and destruction whenever they seem to be a cost-effective instrument. For the politics of the center, by contrast, both violence and threat of violence (with the resulting coercion) are perpetual opponents."

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/good_society/v011/11.1soltan.html

Less guns in the hands of the public = less gun crimes and deaths by the barrel of a gun.

That's what the anti-second amendment folks want you to believe.

Do you really think that the gang banger who is out to kill someone as an initiation into the gang really cares about the laws?

NO. You could take away EVERY gun in the country and melt them down into pots and pans for the homeless or who ever and the criminals are still going to get their guns.

I know it's only a bumper sticker, but it is 100% accurate; If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

Skybill you are one paranoid dude. Nope. Just a realist.

"Skybill you are one paranoid dude. Nope. Just a realist."

The only way you could have said that line is with your tongue firmly placed into your cheek.

I stand by my post.

"That's what the anti-second amendment folks want you to believe."

Nah, just basic math.

!!!

How about government that works? That's what I heard Obama say. Not big, not small, but that works.

...government that works...

That's an oxymoron!

It's akin to; We're from the government and we're here to help.

Or like saying; Government intelligence.

They are words that just don't go well together.

Government that works. Hmm, you mean like the government that won World War II (on two fronts)? The government that created the Interstate Highway System? The government that created the Internet? Yeah, that damn federal government - they can't do anything!

..government that won World War II..

The "government" didn't win WWII. The soldiers fight the war did.

Back then though, ethics were different. People in the government strived to be honest and do a good job. There were crooked ones back then too, but not like today.

Now the politician’s philosophy is to fill their pockets as full as they can with the money of the working stiff.

I'm sure there are some honest government folks, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

...government that works...

That's an oxymoron!

If you're talking about the last 8 years, I agree with you.

Republicans Hate Government.
They have no incentive to make it work.

I do find some conflict between calling the Government ineffectinve in one breath, then in the next breath clammoring for it not to change...because it will get worse...the government that doesn't do anything right. We should just leave them alone? Not work for anything different?

Skybill, you can at least understand why someone may read the things you post that way, right?

Skybill I truly sympathize with your feelings but you drown yourself out with so much fear and paranoia you blind yourself to what the government has done and still does today.

What I take from most of your posts is its all about YOU! I hardly ever read anything you post that talks of community or helping the least of these. It's always cloaked in some blanket of fear and mistrust.

You're absolutely the last guy I want in my foxhole.

If I'm not around, you might need him to fix a radio.

...in the next breath clammoring for it not to change...

I never said I didn't want it to change. If that's what you read into my most, then I didn't do a good job communicating. Sorry.

I WANT the government to change. I want it smaller, less wasteful, and less intrusive on our lives less of a socialist organization.

I want earmarks to disappear. Just take a look at some of the STUPID ones that are included in the $410 billion spending bill being sent to Obama now;

"Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service."

" Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said the bill included at least a dozen earmarks for clients of PMA Group, a lobbying company now at the center of a federal corruption investigation.

"It's simply not responsible to allow a soon-to-be-criminally indicted lobbying firm to win funding, all borrowed, in this bill," he said. No charges have been filed against the firm or its principals, although the company's offices were raided earlier this month, and it has announced plans to disband by the end of the month.

Federal prosecutors are investigating PMA Group's founder and president, Paul Magliochetti, who is a former top aide to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense programs."

I want the governments, federal, state and local to prosecute criminals and give them realistic sentences. Enforce the laws now on the books. A criminal should not get out of jail free because the cop forgot a word in the Miranda reading. Make examples out of some of the criminals. Then you'll see crime drop.

I want to see less stupid regulation. While it's not federal, it's not the governments business to tell restaurants they can't use trans fats in their cooking. If people don't want trans fats, then they will stop eating there and the owner will get the message. It's none of their business if I wear my seatbelt when I drive my car or a helmet when I ride a motorcycle. (I don't have a motorcycle, but I wouldn't ride one without a helmet if I did and I always wear my seatbelt)

On and on.

The government does do some things right, just not very often.

That's the way I want to see the country/government go. Smaller, less intrusive government is better.

What I take from most of your posts is its all about YOU! I hardly ever read anything you post that talks of community or helping the least of these.

Chris, I'm all for helping the "least of these", in fact (I know don't have to tell you of all folks!) we are admonished to do exactly that.

My point is that it's not the government's role to do this. You should do it, I should do it as well as private groups, churches and organizations. Just not the government.

It's always cloaked in some blanket of fear and mistrust.

Not fear as much as mistrust. I DON'T trust the government. Or at least very much of it. One of my favorite bumper stickers sums my feelings up pretty well; "I love my Country, It's the Government I don't Trust"

Edit add: I'd gladly be in your foxhole, and I'll help fix your radio too!!!

And we saw what came of George W. Bush's Faith Based Initiative Program to help the poor and needy. Karl Rove turned that into a government grant program for conservative, evangelical churches.

Should we privatize welfare, food stamps, Head Start, unemployment insurance?

Should we ask the Red Cross and United Way to take over these functions? It would be an unmitigated disaster.

Skybill: My point is that it's not the government's role to do this. You should do it, I should do it as well as private groups, churches and organizations. Just not the government.

You're right, private charity should cover relief, in an ideal world. In a practical world, it's never enough. People still starve and sleep on the streets. That's what we found out at the beginning of the Great Depression.

Idealism is great, but it doesn't always work in the real world, whether it's conservative idealism or liberal idealism.

Skybill needs a tin foil hat quick!

. . . tethered to a kite flying in a thunderstorm.



We need to rid the planet of 'fraidy cats before they kill us with their guns.

They're doing a pretty fine job of killing their young ones at gun shows, so perhaps down the road they'll wipe themselves off the planet all by themselves.

...They're doing a pretty fine job of killing their young ones at gun shows, so perhaps down the road they'll wipe themselves off the planet all by themselves.

Guns don't kill anyway near as many people as cars and drunk drivers.

Using your dumb logic, then we should ban cars and put alcohol manufactures out of business.

It's people like you making stupid statements like the one above that's makes the NRA such an important organization.

Maybe we need to rid the planet of people that make stupid statements like that.

" Using your dumb logic, then we should ban cars and put alcohol manufactures out of business.

It's people like you making stupid statements like the one above that's makes the NRA such an important organization.

Maybe we need to rid the planet of people that make stupid statements like that."

Well before you do that, at least acknowledge that cars serve many purposes besides the singular one that guns provide. So if we're going to apply logic like that, I think it's only fair to find an example that serves only one purpose.

Very rarely, if ever, does an 8-year-old kid kill himself driving a car filled with nationally certified driving instructors, one of whom is the county's elected Sheriff.

Can't say that about a room full of NRA officers at gun shows thrown by the county's sheriff anymore. can you?


GUNS don't kill people, NRA members KILL people, especially their own kids!

So skybill, I take it you don't like tasting your own crap, eh?

How many times are you going to use that 1 accident to make your point???

You keep bringing up that 1 incident over and over and over like a worn out record. Can't find any new excuses so you bring up the same one.

Accidents happen. In everything we do.

Cheney shot a lawyer (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) in a hunting accident. There are several hunting accidents every year and that's just what they are. Accidents.

There was a kid killed on an ATV last week. I guess we need to outlaw ATV’s too?

Drivers are killed in NASCAR races. Outlaw that too?

Do you see how stupid your statement is?

I'm never going to change your mind about guns and you will never change my mind.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Here’s the deal:

I'll keep buying as many guns as I can afford and stockpiling ammunition and clay pigeons for weekend fun trips up into the hills.

You can thank all the 2nd amendment supporters for still having your 1st amendment right to complain about them.

How many times are you going to use that 1 accident to make your point???

It wasn't an accident. It was a whole series of top level blunders that lead to the death of a kid.

NOT one of those many NRA-certified "expert"s thought "wait a minute, an 8-year-old handling an Uzi?, lets not."

Not one person. Not one. No one spoke up. Not even a little "is it loaded?" from the child's dad.

And these people were among the MOST QUALIFIED gun owners in the United States.

No accident. A series of deliberate decisions to let the kid handle the gun.

You and the NRA are DEAD wrong about gun safety.

Guns kill people. Period.

At least the mentally ill Milwaulkie idiot who bought a gun legally and sprayed gunfire at kids was ACTUALLY an idiot.

But the NRA members who killed that kid? No excuses. A deliberate series of decisions lead to his death.


I sure hope the next person killed by NRA-santioned Uzi Roulette is someone you know, not anyone I know.

Frankly I hate that example too. There are other reasons than accidents to make my point. Although, to be fair Skybill, you cited accidents first. But to take your point out just a bit further, when that car is used as a weapon, they ARE punished.

And since we are talking about guns for a bit, I have some questions for you Skybill. Now, admittedly, these may be too personal - I totally respect that if they are. It's your right and I will not read anything into it if you choose not to answer;

You say things that lead me to believe you own at least one gun.

Have you ever used it for anything besides practice? You know what I mean. Don't make me come up with every possible scenario. I'm asking if you have ever used a gun, brandished or discharged, in self-defense. Tell me about that.

Do you own a concealed gun permit?

What's your address? ( Kidding )

Would very many of your friends be surprised to know that you own a gun? Take a guess. Maybe you talk about it so you know they know.

Have you ever had any kind of accident involving a gun? Be honest, if you answer at all.

I have a couple more. But these are the ones that I am interested in right now.

I guess we need to outlaw ATV’s too?

I have an ATV, a racer too. I've a bunch of them over the past 25 years. But you know what, I'm ready to throw in the towel. Parents cannot control their kids to operate them safely, so I'm thinking a valid driver's license ought to be required to own and operate one. Put the bill on the ballot and I'll vote for it.

I have general questions about the proposed making of the concealed weapons permit holders made public.

The most fervent and common reason against doing that is that it would lead the criminal straight to their door. I do not believe that to be true. But let's say it is for a moment. This is the argument I would say if I supported that new rule or whatever they end up calling it;

How many gun owners will have to die before we recognize this rule as harmful? That's not rhetorical. I want a number. I would say 1. One.

Then I would ask, how many already HAVE died because it was known that they had guns? Who died? The burglar? Or the gun owner?

If I could prove to anyone that there is a large percentage of injuries and deaths, casued by guns, did not happen because of a life or property threatened crime, but for other reasons, would that make any difference to anyone? If I could do that, to a degree agreed upon, and by studies that we all deemed credible, would anyone then believe that there is a problem that needs to be addressed?

There is no way to know how many haven't told me, but by judging by how many friends I have and applying the laws of statistics, I believe I am close to the truth; I know how many of my friends hold concealed weapons permits. I find a certain amount of irony in that. I know how many and who has one. Odd, eh? That seems like something I should NOT know. But I do. Ask me how I know.

Finally, Skybill, why do you own a gun?

Have you ever used it for anything besides practice? You know what I mean. Don't make me come up with every possible scenario. I'm asking if you have ever used a gun, brandished or discharged, in self-defense. Tell me about that.

I've hunted, but other than practice and plinking, no, I've never had to use any of my guns in self defense and frankly, I hope I never have to. The VERY last thing I want to do is shoot someone. And in reality, if I'm someplace and a criminal comes in with a gun to stick it up, my first move will be to retreat and call 911 if at all possible. I'm more than willing to let the professionals handle it. Pulling my gun on someone would be the VERY last resort if I felt my life was in danger and had absolutely no other alternative.

Do you own a concealed gun permit? Yes

What's your address? ( Kidding ) understood!!!

Would very many of your friends be surprised to know that you own a gun? Take a guess. Maybe you talk about it so you know they know.

No. Most all my friends own firearms too. Not all, but most of them do. Some have Concealed Carry permits too. However, I don't base my friendships on who does and does not own a gun(s)

Have you ever had any kind of accident involving a gun? Be honest, if you answer at all.

No, not really. I've had shells misfire and not go off, but when we are out shooting, safety is our number one priority. And honestly, I've never even come close to anyone being hurt while we are out, not even by flying debris. We are very careful. No need to be scared of guns, BUT you do have to have respect for them or accidents WILL happen.

Finally, Skybill, why do you own a gun?

I suppose I could spout off and say because it's my right to own a gun(s), and that is a small part of it (very small). But truthfully, that's not the main reason. The main reason is that I really enjoy going out and shooting them. I enjoy hunting too. Although, I'm one of those "Not to serious" hunters. To me it's more about being outside and enjoying that time. If I were to shoot something, a deer or elk for example, then it would just be a bonus. Same thing with fishing. I just enjoy being outdoors.

In response to your comments about publishing the names and addresses of Concealed Carry Permit holders, my main questions are; Why? and What positive thing would come of it?

Personally I just think it's harassment by the anti-second amendment crowd.

Let me put it this way; I have a CCP. They publish my name in the Oregonian. Now the general public knows I have one (that's assuming anyone would actually read the list). CJ, we've swapped tons of posts on PDXRadio, but we've never met face to face. How would you know it's me carrying my gun when I'm standing behind you in line at the grocery store?

You wouldn't. So what good has come from them publishing the info, other than to let the criminals know where the guns are?

I would like to know so I can avoid my neighbors who carry weapons and make sure my kid stays away as well.

And the argument that if the list was made public it would put the gun owner in harms way is the most ridiculous argument ever. If this was true, then owning a gun does not make you safer!

I would like to know so I can avoid my neighbors who carry weapons and make sure my kid stays away as well.

And Chris accused me of being paranoid. Sheesh.

What about all the people who carry but are not your neighbors? You STILL won’t know who they are. I carry most of the time. You don’t know me. (However, my offer of help with your cell repeater still stands and I promise not to bring my gun with me if you need help!)

And the argument that if the list was made public it would put the gun owner in harms way is the most ridiculous argument ever.

No more ridiculous that the argument that rich people should pay more taxes because "they can afford it"

It wouldn't put gun owners in "harm's way" as you so eloquently put it. Gun owners, just like non gun owners are not home all the time. It makes their homes targets for thieves when they are away.

Plus it serves absolutely no positive purpose OTHER than to harass gun owners.

CCP's have been around a long time. It's never needed to be published before, why now?

It's just a bull shit move by the anti gun crowd.

How about we publish a list of anybody that owns expensive jewelry? It makes just as much sense.

Would you want your kids hanging out in a home where there were guns in the house?

My brother played soccer with a kid whose older brother (a teenager) accidentially killed himself while at home cleaning a gun. Makes you wonder.

The way I see it is that it's a public record, so it should be available to the public to view. And if "law abiding gun owners" actually followed their own advice, their guns should be safely stored at home so if someone breaks in, they can't get to them.

We've been down this road before, with the DMV database which used to be obtainable by anybody. Then some guy published it on the net and triggered the brouhaha over how easy it was for stalkers, etc. to find where someone lived with just a plate number. The solution was to a. forbid publishing the database and b. making the list available only to qualified companies

The list of permit holders may be part of the county record, but it should not be easily obtained nor should it ever be published in a circulating periodical or on an open website. It's potential for negative repercussions is too great. There is no access to other county, state and federal data. We pay for the armed services, but the large majority of their records are off limits just like CIA and FBI data. Security of the public trumps public access rights. Otherwise it's anarchy. Some "big government" rules and regulations are needed, and one of them is having the data. Keeping it out of the hands of prying eyes is just as much a public right, greater in fact, than access to said information.

What needs to change is that background checks to buy firearms should include data it doesn't. Unfortunately, the right to keep medical records private prevents crucial data from being in that system when it should be. If you have a history of mental illness, you should be flagged as such when it comes to buying a firearm, although keeping the data out of the access of everyone is also needed, or employers in general will gain access to another list of people not to consider for hire. It's complicated and there is no easy solution. The domino effect is very relevant. It's hard enough to protect data from criminals already.

VERY well put Andy. And I agree 100%

The way I see it is that it's a public record, so it should be available to the public to view.

And it is. The problem is that they want to publish it in the paper. That's what's wrong about it. Read Andy's post carefully. It is well said and brings the true facts out.

Would you want your kids hanging out in a home where there were guns in the house?

I have no problem with it.

I'm not wholly opposed to people owning guns (within reason). But growing up, I was in homes where guns where safely stored and some where they were not.

As for publishing the names of concealed weapons permit holders in newspapers and websites, I think that it is inviting danger. Criminals are a pretty crafty bunch and I’m certain they would use this information in a nefarious fashion. In the same way some criminals seek out the residences of those holding medical marijuana cards. If they know of someone with a medical marijuana card and suspect them of growing pot, they might use that information as a basis to rob them. It seems to happen somewhat frequently as reported by the media. And I doubt federal HIPPA laws cover the issuance of medical marijuana cards – but I could be wrong.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the old Phil Hendrie bit when he had senior citizen Lloyd Bonofide on the show. Lloyd said he liked to hide a gun around the house now and again "to keep himself sharp" because of the possible risk to his grandson - whom he loved more than life itself. Boy, you should have heard the callers on that bit!!!

I don't remember seeing anything about people being published in the paper. I would be opposed to that. However, why shouldn't I have the right to cross check my neighbors with that list to see who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

Vitalogy, that's what the whole big flap is about. They want to publish CCP holders names AND addresses in the newspaper.

As far as I know I think you can go down to city hall or the county building and see if an individual has a CCP.

If my neighbor has a concealed weapons permit, to be honest, I am TOTALLY okay with not knowing, or it being published or for public record. It's not exactly easy to just go get one, you have to pass the background check, and get the proper training, etc. and pass a course.

I would much rather know if my neighbor is someone who has no legal right, or business, owning or carrying a gun. *THAT* is what should be published!

They should publish the names and addresses of sex offenders on a periodic basis.

If they want to publish a list, that's what should be published. They are the criminals.

The law says anyone convicted of domestic violence can not be issued a CCP. Sex offenders are included in that group.

I would like to know so I can avoid my neighbors who carry weapons and make sure my kid stays away as well.

And Chris accused me of being paranoid. Sheesh.

Let me remind someone here with a short memory:

NOT one of those many NRA-certified "expert"s thought "wait a minute, an 8-year-old handling an Uzi?, lets not.

No one is paranoid here. NRA membership means someone is likely to own guns and is likely to give them to kids.

Again, WHO is going to publish a list? Who's going to pay for it and what publication will it be in?

WHO is going to publish a list?

I'll start...

Cop next door.....
Cop across the street...
Couple guys in Oregon....

That's all I can think of off hand

Vitalogy, It all started when The Mail Tribune in Medford requested names of concealed handgun license holders as a public record in 2007.

The request stemmed from the Medford teacher that sued to be able to carry her gun on school grounds.

Here's a couple of links regarding it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2008/11/sheriff_seeks_priva cy_informat.html

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/11.17.08alert.html

I was under the impression that the Oregonian was going to print the names and addresses. I'm not 100% sure about that now.

Anyway, my CHL was issued in Multnomah county and the sheriff sent all the CHL holders a letter so we could opt out of having our records made public.