Glad to see you fixed your errors.

Thanks for the catch.

Do you have a comprehension problem?

Mark Kirk must have one too. He keeps saying the middle class tax cut will hurt Social Security. It doesn't.

Then again every Republican since Reagan has raided the Social Security Trust Fund in the interest of "saving" it.

"...every Republican since Reagan has raided the Social Security Trust Fund in the interest of "saving" it." By his own words CP condemns himself-- Does Concerned Patriot have a comprehension problem? Definite YES !

CP apparently doesn't know that the Social Security system was merged into the scam of a "unified budget" developed by Democratic Prez LBJ, the Democratic Senate and the Democratic House in 1968. So whenever the amt paid in > amt paid out, "surpluses" were merged into the federal kitty (and off course vice versa)...a devious way of offsetting regular deficits in the boondoggle Democratic budgets.

During the Bush I term (vaguely I think in 1990), the SS and the post office were separated so that the SS taxes were not included in the federal income stream. The so-called tax rises under Regan were created (passed and later to be enforced) under Democrat Jimmy Carter and the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate in 1977...spedcifically planned to rise in the 80s. SAME SCAM AS OBAMA WITH MEDICAL INSURANCE...goofs reelected and then nobody knows how 'it' happened!

Although I am of a conservative bent, I'm getting to the point where maybe some "federal" dollars should go to do some kind of special intensive educational efforts to upgrade such entities as CP...they talk about that of which they do not know.

Dedicate to CP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75p-N9YKqNo

Clark, well said. Nice link BTW, HA HA HA HA!

Indiana and Wisconsin have higher taxes - higher middle class income taxes and higher property taxes.

Why don't you 'Go Galt' and move to those conservative utopias Whiney Donny

Illinois has its largest employers leaving the state in droves. Abbott is talking about moving operations to Wisconsin, Hospira has already built a huge facility in Pleasant Prairie, hundreds of businesses are relocating to Indiana to save on taxes. This is a fact, yet you claim that they have higher taxes than Illinois. That is incorrect. Wisconsin doesn't even have a food tax. Get a clue.

This just in from the Illinois Policy Institute …
Illinois lost 366,616 tax-paying households between 1995 and 2009, according to a study of Internal Revenue Service figures from 1995 through 2009 released Tuesday by the Illinois Policy Institute, a free-market think tank with offices in Springfield and Chicago.
Those households took with them $26 billion in taxable revenue, according to the study. In 2009 alone, Illinois lost 20,725 households and their $1.5 billion in taxable income.
Illinois lost taxpayers to 42 states during the 14-year period of the study, including to the border states of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Kentucky.
Moline is one of the two Illinois cities that make up the Illinois-Iowa Quad Cities community. Moline is in Rock Island County, which lost 1,013 taxpayers to Iowa for fiscal 2009, according to the IRS.
Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas and Arizona had the largest gains of former Illinois taxpayers, according to the study.

Conerrned Patroit. You are misinformed. After you take into account all taxes, IN is much cheaper. I am.

You need a new calculator Donny. Indiana has higher overall taxes when you add up the Hoosier taxes for income, property, sales, services, etc. Cheeseheads too.

And Sarah you have no clue what you're talking about. Hospira isn't part of Abbott anymore. And yes, businesses have slightly lower taxes in Indiana but only because the Hoosier right-wingers force the little people who work for those companies to pay higher total taxes to make up the difference.

Try thinking before you type out those right-wing talking points that the known liars at Illinois Right-wing Policy Institute pump out for the parrots.

PS - Ill Policy Institute likes to complain there's too many state workers. Illinois actually has the fewest state workers per capita in the entire country.

Sarah Palin's Alaska has the highest number of state workers on the dole. Go figure.

http://hosted2.ap.org/ALDEC/TDNational/Article_2011-12-18-Broken%20Budgets-By%20The%20Numbers/id-7aeccaa7fdaf428793c4a18ac156a2b0

Let me see here CP, oh here's my calculator. IN tolls none, IL tolls $1,125, Personal Income tax on 100k IN $3,400 IL $5,000. Property tax on home, real market value $450,000, IL $13,700, IN $4,500 - there is a 1% cap on property taxes. Sales Tax is a wash... So according to my calculator, or we could use yours... IN TOTAL $7,900 IL TOTAL $19,825 A DIFFERENCE of $11,925. CP what does your calculator say?

CP, I am well-aware that Abbott and Hospira are not the same company, and that is not what I said. What I said is a FACT, not an opinion. Hospira, the company that is SEPARATE from Abbott, has built a large facility in Pleasant Prairie, WI so they can move out of Illinois. Abbott, the company that is SEPARATE from Hospira, is discussing making a similar move. Because they are not the same company, that makes it TWO companies preparing to move out of Illinois. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Walgreen's and Baxter followed suit. All large corporations are punished severely for having their finances in the black. That is a FACT. If they start laying people off and losing money, well then they're welcome with open arms!

While some misguided and deluded souls worry about Indiana and Wisconsin, NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS NO STATE SALES TAX OR STATE INCOME TAX while Democratic Illinois is awash with taxes, parking rates (for streets we already paid for with tax dollars) and deliberately under- and unfunded public pensions promoted by such Democrat financial wizards like Madigan, Cullerton, "Las Vegas" Lou Lang and a bevy of comparable tax vampires.

Reader comments like these are the best tool in fighting misinformation and spin.

Sure. Complaining about facts and regurgitating hollow, baseless right-wing talking points are "the best tool" for promoting conservative misinformation and spin.

Zzzz zzzzz zz zzzzzz.

Your lame attacks against fellow Americans are boring.

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative comment.

I have no doubt that Niles PATCH Ms. DeFilglio is a competent editor as well as a sensitive human being who just happens to be employed by PATCH. I claim this because of the tenor and clarity of her articles.

Of some of the other so-called "journalilsts" at PATCH I can find little of anything to recommend. The few who have presented a written bios as statement often acknowledge their bias/orientation and a few have deleted such puffery. They apparently muse that if they "confess" openly, their sins of commission are to be forgiven. Preposterous! There will be no prizes given for the low quality edtorializing done by many of the "journalists" who write articles about their favored politicians.

During my more active public life, I was interviewed by Chicago reporters and found them exceedingly deficient in both questioning abilities and basic information. Some were down-and-out drunks who slobbered over politicians and thought they had their favor. Fools! In the backroom the pols freely indicated their contempt for these groveling "journalists" who thought they had some special relationship with an office-holder.

Is this where some received their intenships?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kij1ncNXYU

"News" writers today think that their personl opinions constitute "news" in their article...always watch for the verbs and adjectives they use!

Good stuff wise grandpa.

Clark - you forgot the part where you say "Get off my lawn"

What debate?

Both GOP and Dems voted overwhelmingly to extend it.

Then again this is a MIDDLE CLASS tax cut so the GOP had to fight tooth and nail against it before finally coming around. It's a far cry from one year ago when the GOP fought tooth and nail to ensure millionaire's got their tax cut.

The 2-month compromise was Boehner's idea. That's why GOP Sen. McConnell went along with it and told his guys in the Senate to vote for it. 89 GOPs and Dem Senators voted for it.

Now suddenly Boehner says we should do a full-year instead of the compromise he stomped his feet for last week.

The Tea Party is acting like a friggin' brat asking Santa Claus for too many toys when they don't deserve any in the first place.

Stop holding things up GOP and vote for the compromise you asked for!

Obama's 2012 election race may depend more on getting the US in another war in the Mideast.

Naval events got us into the Wars of the Barbary Coast ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War ), The War of 1812, the Civil War (bombing Fort Sumter), the Spanish American War with the now discredited "Remember the Maine" incident, Wilson's use of the sinking of the Lusitania for World War I, Pearl Harbor for World War II, the Gulf of Tonkin under Johnson in VietNam, and...Heaven Forbid...something to an American ship in the Persian Gulf a few months before the 2012 Election.

The "press" is again working everybody up as it did with the phony "Weapons of Mass Destructiuon."

Why? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Gg9aDTH3o

Presidents have used (and might in 2012) a naval incident to commit the US to a war which supposedly is aimed against our "enemies" and definitely SOLVES the unemployment mess so many have believed would come under the Obamanation.

Yep.

Only good can come of less government. Government bickering needs to end. Personal responsibility is the only way, it's the American. Unfortunately, the average American looks into the world thru the media's eyes. The amount of money spent since LBJ in the mid 60's, is staggering yet we still have poverty. My colleague, RC can fill you in on the details.

Sure, provided the pipeline does not spring a leak in Nebraska and destroy the drinking water for six states. Leaks do develop (ie BP gulf). Energy independence would be nice provided it can be done without destroying earth! I'm not convinced it can be, especially when the right wants to do away with any regulation that might hope to prevent a disaster.

RB, the environmentalists scare the crap out of everyone for no good reason EVERYDAY. They have a job to do, and that is to divert the attention from what's really going on around us. It's one big sideshow to draw attention away from "The man behind the curtain", and other government and political issues that the media would rather us (being the American public) not know about or understand. There will not be a "leak" that destroys "the drinking water for six states". What a load of crap. What happened in the gulf was an enormous explosion, not a leak. And it has already been cleaned up, as was pointed out by Richard Schulte. People need to stop believing everything they see on the news. THINK about it a little bit! Critical-thinking skills anyone?

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7666585

RB life is full of risks, but on this particular project the risks have been mitigated. More info at Reason.com. ...University of Nebraska hydrologist Jim Goeke recently pointed out in an op-ed that the pipeline route is over the eastern part of the aquifer. The Ogallala aquifer slopes downward from west to east such that water in the aquifer flows downhill from west to east (at 150 to 300 feet per year). Unless water begins to flow uphill, the eastern route of the pipeline means that up to 80 percent of aquifer is safe from any oil spill contamination from the pipeline.

Goeke notes, in addition, that an aquifer is not like a lake or other open body of water; it is contained in a jumble of different kinds of rock, sands, and soils. “The variability of the aquifer's rock layers means that any spill would be contained within a very small area of that 25 percent of the aquifer to the east of the pipeline,” claims Goeke. Why? Because of some rock and soil layers are relatively impermeable to oil and would block the flow of oil below the surface. Goeke bases this conclusion on a 25-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey of a pipeline oil spill near Bemidji, Minnesota.

"Also, don't tie the Keystone to the current payroll tax debate."

The debate on the payroll deduction is a gimmick designed to get us arguing over trivia and to forget about the important things. (The "payroll tax" is not a tax-it's a deduction to pay for retirement insurance-let's stop calling it a tax.) What's important is the economy and energy development.

There are 14 million unemployed Americans and millions more Americans are underemployed; there are 46 million Americans using food stamps. That's a whole lot of psychological damage being inflicted on Americans. When we talk about the cost of the pipe line, we need to take into account the damage being done to our citizens by not building the pipe line. How many Americans will suffer permanent psychological and financial damage due to unemployment?

Congresswoman Schakowsky needs to take personal responsibility for the psychological damage being done to Americans by her opposition to building the pipe line. Yes, she should have to pay unemployed Americans out of her own pocket if she opposes the construction of the pipe line.

It is a tax. It's a tax that should go into the funding of social security, but it's still a tax. The folks signing a pledge not to raise taxes are calling it something other than a tax....it's a tax and those saying they will never vote to raise taxes are doing just that, by not voting. Now, do I believe the reduction of this tax at a time when funding social security is so critical...probably not. One can make the case that it's needed to keep the economy growing and would result in more revenue if the economy continues growth versus a slowdown after the tax is raised.
Still, it's a payroll tax and many people who ran on the no tax increases bandwagon should have second thoughts about what is about to happen.
As far as Keystone? Why not let Nebraska vote on whether they want the pipeline running through their state? States rights and all. Isn't that another hallmark this campaign season?

I see. So, does that mean FICA is unconstitutional?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

The Supreme Court ruled on social security in the 1930's. I wish when you made things up, you at least made things up that couldn't easily be disproven with a 5 second google search.

You beat me to this. Sort of like saying we don't want no railroad in our state or highway.

And Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously!

Please tell me what Barack Obama did to deserve being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

The reason that it was suggested that Rush Limbaugh be nominated for the Nobel was that Limbaugh credentials for the award are exactly the same as Obama's credentials for the award-that is, both men didn't do anything to deserve the award, but one was given the award.

??? What does Dred Scott (1857) have to do with the Supreme Court ruling on Social Security in the 1930's?

The 'birthers', conspiracy theorists, Levin and others point to this huge mistake that the supreme court made as though every decision that they are not happy with is another example of how the supreme court can make mistakes. If they get a Healthcare decision they don't like, you can expect another one.

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

If you believe the Supreme Court is infallible, then you agree with the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision. Simply because the Supreme Court ruled that social security was constitutional doesn't mean a damn thing-see the Dred Scott decision.

A student of history would know that FDR attacked the Supreme Court after the Court ruled parts of the "New Deal" unconstitutional. Hence, the Court's ruling that social security is constitutional is meaningless-the decision was made under duress. FDR should have been removed from office for violating separation of powers.

You just jump from misstatement to misstatement. I originally refuted your statement "The constitutionality of social security should have been challenged in the 1930's-too late for that now." with proof that the Supreme Court did rule on the Constitutionality of SS in the 1930's. You then make a claim that I think the Supreme Court is infallible (which I've never thought or expressed) and should agree with the Dred Scott decision.

"Simply because the Supreme Court ruled that social security was constitutional doesn't mean a damn thing" Umm...it means it's the law of the land until Congress changes social security, the Supreme Court reverses itself, or amendments are added to the Constitution. Maybe that doesn't mean a damn thing to you, but it does mean it is the law of the US until changed (which is exactly what happened after Dred Scott with the 13, 14, and 15 amendments). That hasn't happened with social security, hence your argument that ss is unconstitutional is false.

Have a jar full of it

Thanks! It has been rough getting much change with the Republicans basically saying NO to everything, but at least we are going in the 'right' direction! And Happy New Year to you, thankfully you probably are not unemployeed and about to lose benefits or a doctor taking a 20% cut to Medicare payments... it would be a rough start to the new year for you. Oh, and that $40 a week less you're gonna get....nothing, right!

". . . .the Republicans basically saying NO to everything".

Hmmm. . .the Republicans want to build the Keystone XL pipe line. The Republicans want to drill for oil and gas in the Gulf and in Ohio, West Virgina, Pennsylvania and New York and in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah and in Alaska too. The Republicans want to reduce the FICA deduction for an entire year, not just 2 months. The Republicans want to reduce the deficit spending and balance the Federal budget. The Republican want to modify social security and Medi-Care to save both programs.

Who is saying "NO" to all of this? Hmmm, if it ain't the Republicans, then it must be the other party-I wonder which party that would be.

Interesting-I have a different recollection of the last 11 years. A terrorist attack on 9/11, followed by no major terrorist attack since. Saddam Hussein-history. Elections in Iraq. The Iraq War was a waste? I'd say the Iraq War was a success-getting rid of a brutal dictator and replacing it with a government that held an election (in the Middle East). Of course, Obama skedattled from Iraq and things aren't going so well now-that took all of 2 days to nose-dive.

A financial crisis in September 2008, followed by the election of Obama. Since election day, 2008, everything has gone downhill. Since Obama became president, the unemployment rate has gone up. The $867 billion stimulus for "shovel ready" projects was completely wasted. Obamacare is a disaster. 14 million Americans unemployed; 46 million Americans using food stamps. I guess it depends upon how you define a successful Administration.

Yup, that Obama guy sure fixed things.

Iraq war under bush $622 billion (eight yr) means tested welfare in just 2010 (one yr) $822 billion. Where you getting 1 trillion?

HA HA HA HA, this has gotten so personal to you Sully, you are cracking me up. Normally I tune in to Comedy Central for laughs, but now I don't need to look any further than Sully.

HA HA HA HA make it stop!

Yes, according to the omnicient Sully, anyone defending conservative principles is a "religious hypocrite". No explanation is ever given for this name-calling; I can only assume that there is a general lack of valid facts which normally exist within a logical debate. Cracks me UP.

I can't wait to see Sully's next thoughtful and witty comment, HA HA HA HA!

Yes, FICA is not a tax-it is a premium for retirement insurance. However, the President of the United States refers to FICA as a tax. Don't blame me if the President doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why is taxation the only way to pay for a war? Another way would be to cut all the wasteful spending. The "stimulus" enacted in February 2009 was a complete waste. Based upon information above (which I have not verified), the $867 billion (borrowed) stimulus would have paid for the entire war in Iraq.

Instead of spending the "stimulus" on "shovel ready jobs" as promised, the stimulus went to states to keep public sector workers employed and to teachers. In other words, the stimulus was funneled to Democrats and not to productive sectors of the economy-that's why it didn't work. (And then a portion was funneled back to the Democrat Party through public sector and teacher union contributions to the Democrat Party.) Now that the stimulus has been spent, states are laying off public sector workers and teachers-oops, it's finally recession time for the public sector. The "stimulus" was used to insulate Democrats from the recession (caused by Democrat policies).

Please explain the difference between the Mafia and the Democrat Party. The "stimulus" was just money laundering. The "stimulus" was just a raid on taxpayers wallets which was then directed to Democrat coffers. Hell, the Mafia is more honest-at least the Mafia admits that they are criminals.

1) Tax or not the effect on the economy is the same, good or bad.
2) Wars also have been partially paid for by decreasing spending elsewhere.

RB, Sully has earned a reputation which is well-deserved. Merry Christmas and/or Happy Chanukah to all!

Doggonnit, they took Sully's comment down again-oh well. It was amusing-thanks for the laugh Sully.

RB, the Republicans could nominate a stray cat and still beat Obama. After what Obama has done to this country for the last three years and the $160 "tax cut" antics he and Harry Reid just gave us for a Christmas present, the 2012 election is going to be a cakewalk.

Let's all go out for pizza and stimulate the economy.

I'm aware of that RB. Thanks and you have happy holidays too!

Ms. Stone, you may want to review Sully's posts. Sully has spent the last 6 months making personal attacks on Patch. This thread is just one example:

http://glenview.patch.com/articles/schakowsky-responds-to-citizens-frustrations?ncid=following_comment

We are simply treating Sully on this thread like Sully has been treating other folks who post on Patch for the last 6 months.

It is my understanding that Patch requires the use of your full name in order to post on this site. While I have no objection to most folks not using their full name, given the multitude of Sully's obnoxious comments, Sully should not be permitted to post unless he uses his full name. If Sully had to use his full name, he might not be so obnoxious.

Personally, I have no objections to Sully's obnoxious posts-it simply discredits what he has to say, but if Sully wants to make obnoxious comments, we certainly should be permitted to put him in his place.

Here are a few examples:

Sully 6:02 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011

You know what they say, Rich. All work and no play... Actually I'm taking a break to make my world famous fajitas. (Uh oh... maybe that makes me illegal. Mexican food, you know).

Sully 8:05 pm on Tuesday, October 25, 2011

So Rich- help me out here buddy. I'm going to guess you're somewhere in your early to mid fifties. Still capable of working a full time job and aiding the economy. So how does one as talented as yourself have so much time to post on the Patch? You may notice (or not) that I do a majority of my posts at night or on the weekends. That's because I work, and therefore, pay taxes. I buy things to help put money out there. i pay relatively high taxes so that this country doesn't go broke and can provide for its citizens. All of it's citizens, Rich, not just the top 1 percent. What do you do, Rich?

Sully 7:33 pm on Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Wow Rich- you da man! I had no idea just how prominent you are. Golly, I think I may swoon over how great you truly are. I sure wish I could get published in Plumbing Engineer. I now worship the ground you walk on. All hail King Richard.

Hey Rich- any clown can get published. Hell, even little ole me has been. And quoted in an article? Really? That's makes you... what?

Hi Emily, I think Sully should be allowed to post as he does. I find his posts very entertaining with little to no merit based in facts or reason. I think most people are intelligent to know the personal attacks start when that persons ideas and common sense end. Merry Christmas to you Emily.

Sully, your comment implies that being called Joe Biden, a sociaslist, a communist and Jesus Christ are somehow insulting. (You forgot I also called you an atheist.) Being the leftist radical that you are, I would assume that you would be proud of being called a socialist, a communist and an atheist. Being an atheist, I could understand why you would be offended by my reference to Jesus Christ and to God (with a capital G), especially as we celebrate the birth of our Savior tomorrow, but I know how any mention of God sends you into a dizzy. That's why I mention God. May God bless you in 2012.

You have been stalking me on Patch for 4 or 5 months now and I have decided to get you kicked off of Patch. You contribute nothing, other than venom, to the discussions. You my want to try being civil for a change.

Mr.Schulte- way to go on referencing Thomas Jefferson. He was one hell of an awesome atheist! Whoohoo!

Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

He played a role in governing his local Episcopal Church; in terms of belief he was inclined toward Deism and the moral philosophy of Christianity.

RC- "Anybody who says that the Keystone XL pipeline will not create jobs doesn't know anything about economics." Remember RC Liberalism is a mental disease.

Um. Okay - a personal opinion blog as a source of information about jobs. Interesting.

Anyway, it's time that those who understand economics start speaking up and letting our government leaders know that we are not being fooled, like the rest of the sheeple out there, eating up whatever they see on MSNBC.

It's sad that our own president doesn't believe that his constituents are self-reliant and capable of providing for ourselves. Perhaps this is more of a projection of his own feelings about himself than it is for the people he speaks of.

Does Michael A. Levi received any grant funding for research on climate change? If he does, then he is no longer an unbiased researcher.

I am an engineer (and frequently work with computer modeling). I do not receive any funding for climate research, nor do I receive funding from any energy companies. That makes me an unbiased scientific observer.

My unbiased opinion is that the climate of the Earth fluctuates all of the time, for example glaciers covering most of North America (the Great Lakes were formed by glaciers), the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. That means that "climate change" is a normal occurrence. If the Earth's climate remained constant, then it would be indicative of a problem.

If climate science was actually science, then the data on which the global warming theory is based would be published for all to see and for other scientists to use and evaluate. The data has not been published for an obvious reason-the data doesn't support the "global warming" hypothesis. The data is fake. Basing a theory on fake data is scientific quackery.

Sarah-this is a personal blog site?
http://www.cfr.org/
and he's just a man off the street i suppose.

Richard, as you call it- your unbiased OPINION not based on facts or research. There is plenty of research out there, but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your preconceptions. Only research paid for by the oil companies is acceptable to you. But of course the oil industry has no motive to mislead, does it?

KMC- you're right, but it can't hurt to try. It does become wearisome however.

@Sully, ".org" usually indicates non-profit, which means that Proctor and Gamble could be financing the entire outfit, for all we know. It doesn't sell me. I'm not that gullible or readily willing to accept information regurgitated at me. If you're ok with whatever what's-his-name was saying, awesome for you. When you point to CFR.org, here's what you would have found if you'd looked a little closer: "The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher." All that tells me is that it's a non-profit organization. It doesn't mean anything substantial. Calling people who do not agree with you "ignorant" is just name-calling, once again.

15 months ago, I attended a lecture on climate change by Dr. Susan Spencer (NOAA) at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT). (Both Dr. Spencer and I attended IIT in the mid-1970's.) In the question and answer session after her lecture, I specifically asked Dr. Spencer about the Newsweek article on global cooling from the mid-1970's. Dr. Spencer only response was that we need to believe her and should ignore anything that doesn't appear in a scientific journal. Since the Newsweek article quoted NOAA scientists stating that global cooling was occurring, we have NOAA scientists saying opposite things. Which NOAA scientists do we believe?

Sorry Sully, but Dr. Susan Spencer is not being paid by the oil companies. In other words, Dr. Spencer's basis for her belief was "because I said so." Very scientific. An IIT engineer knows better than to make up some b.s. statement like that.

Once again, you make inaccurate statements regarding my investigation into global warming based upon your assumptions about me. Do you ever get tired of not knowing what the hell your talking about, but talking about it anyway?

Look up The Council on Foreign Relations on http://en.wikipedia.org and look under Controversy.
The Council on Foreign Relations claims to be an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher.
Fox News claims to be fair & balanced.
I claim to be "all Knowing".

mij, every infrastructure construction project only creates temporary job. The permanent jobs are the jobs created at the end of the pipeline-the refinery jobs and the transportation jobs (hauling the refined products), however, you neglect to consider the "ripple effect".

The less oil that OPEC controls, the less OPEC controls the price of oil. The more oil produced, the lower the cost of oil. If it only costs $20 to fill up your car instead of $40, that's $20 that you have to spend on something else. Now, multiply that times 100 million times a week and all of a sudden, you're talking real money (billions and trillions).

Right now, we're just sending our dollars to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (Citgo). Once we're independent of OPEC, then our economy will soar once again.

That's why Obama is against the pipeline-he wants to destroy the American economy and he's doing a fine job of it so far. If every American is wealthy, then the Democrats can't buy votes with food stamps and welfare anymore, so the Dems have to keep us poor so that they can buy our votes.

They can keep their stinkin' food stamps and welfare-give us the Keystone XL pipeline and the energy resources in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Colorado, Wyoming and Utah and we won't need their food stamps.

A pipe-line has maintance crews that work around the clock tending to hundreds of miles of pipes, thousands of real jobs, not temp jobs.

"all Knowing"?
Hey that is me!!!

@Rich - Obama is not against the pipeline because he is trying to kill the US economy. Talk like that is purely inflammatory and it convinces no-one of anything. I really find it difficult to believe that you believe this yourself. Obama is against the pipeline on environmental grounds. Cheap oil and cheap transportation fuels stifle entrepreneurial innovation in technology that will create vehicles that go further on less fuel. Once in place, this technology means that we will need NO imported fuels. By creating this pipeline now, we are maintaining our addiction to foreign fuels and only postponing the problem. Again, I am no Obama fan. However, I find it impossible to listen to anyone that perpetuates baseless rumors.

2009 – Volvo Environment Prize
2008 – Great Medal of the Academy of Sciences of France
2007 – Nobel Peace Prize (awarded jointly to Al Gore and all IPCC members)
2007 – William Bowie Medal
2004 – Blue Planet Prize[1]
2000 – Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal
1999 – National Medal of Science[4]
1994 – Antarctic glacier named in her honor

And yes, Sully, I challenged a Nobel Peace Prize winner about the issue of global warming/cooling at Dr. Solomon's lecture at IIT. It's called confidence in knowing what you're talking about-it ain't too hard to debunk global warming.

Google "global cooling"-Newsweek and look what comes up. The New York Times has been talking about global warming and global cooling for the last 150 years. Cooling and warming alternates in about 30 year cycles. Remember the winter of 1979-nobody who lived in Chicago will ever forget? Remember the -25 degree (F) temps in Chicago around Christmas time in 1986? I do. It's been 25 years since 1986-it's time for global warming to stop (it already has) and global cooling to start (it already has).

Dr. Solomon is full of b.s. What would you expect from a scientist with a PhD from Berkeley? Dr. Roy Spencer is correct.

@Rich - Actually, it can may be possible for it to be both ways. Perhaps the Earth should actually be in a cooling cycle but the impact of the CO2 accumulation has caused the climate to warm instead.

I find some amusement in the mainstream media obsession on "who can beat Obama" and only Romney can beat Obama garbage that get pumped from both liberal and conservative media outlets alike. Any GOP nominee will beat Obama. No president in modern history has been re-electd when the U-3, government stated unemployment is above 7.2%. We are way above that at the moment. And the current polls have Obama losing in a landslide. I would bet Obama does not even take Illinois in 2012.

Wow - Politico and Real Clear Politics are so unbiased that we should just believe that they have the most awesome population sampling techniques in the world, and that they haven't hand-picked the people voting in the polls. LMAO.

Sarah Po Co and RCP were some of the worst accuracy ratings out of hundreds of polling outlets when it came to predicting the 2010 mid-term elections. Rasmussen was the most accurate with the 2010 mid-term election.

Historically the most accurate polling available today.

Paul and Romney neck and neck.

Wow. Just wow. Again? Really? Ignorance? C'mon. Please spare me.

Sarah, your words- "Wow - Politico and Real Clear Politics are so unbiased that we should just believe that they have the most awesome population sampling techniques in the world, and that they haven't hand-picked the people voting in the polls. LMAO."

You obviously did not read the links, nor do you understand anything about Politico or Real Clear Politics. So if the shoe fits...

Sully, again, spare me. I both read the links and understand what Politico and Real Clear Politics are. I happen to be quite learned in Design of Experiments and statitics. You don't fool me. Just stop. I won't say it again, so let it go for once. No one posting here is as "ignorant" as you keep insisting that they are. You can keep saying it, but anyone withhalf of a brain knows better.

Sarah, get used to Sully if you disagree with him. I think of him as my crazy uncle, he makes you laugh but in the end all you do is feel sorry for him.

KMC- Bingo!

Yes, fasten your seatbelts, 2012 is going to be a very bumpy year. President Obama and Democrats are going to wage a "scorched-earth" campaign. President Obama can't run on his record and the Dems can't even mention the passage of Obamacare.

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? I'm sure that there are some Americans that are, but the vast majority of Americans have lost quite a bit of their wealth. When 46 million Americans are receiving food stamps, you know that there is something wrong. The 2008 election was One Big Ass Mistake America (O.B.A.M.A.).

HA HA HA HA!

I believe that RB is correct that the US now exports gasoline. The reason for that is that the (real) unemployment rate in the US is still high (about 20 percent) and so the US has excess gasoline refining capacity at present. (The 8.6 percent unemployment rate is a fake number-it doesn't include those Americans who simply have given up looking for employment.)

If you can't afford to buy food, you probably can't afford to buy gasoline either and so the demand for gasoline is down.

If our socialist President is removed from office in November 2012 and Obamacare is repealed, the US economy will start to expand at 5, 6, 7 or 8 percent that is normal after a recession. When that happens, the US will no longer be exporting gasoline.

Yes, President Obama and his merry band of Democrat Senators (and Princess Pelosi) are directly responsible for the US still being in recession. Canada left the recession behind 2 years ago when they elected a conservative government. The development of Canada's energy resources pulled Canada out of recession.

Mr. Bush took a lot of time off, both mentally and physically.

Richard, think back to the end of Mr Bush's term. He had to do a bailout as the economy began to tank. He requested the funds. Mr Obama owns the problem as President, but he is not the cause of this crummy economy, the roots of it started way before his time in office.

March 31, 1968: LBJ announces he will not seek a 2nd term.

The presidency is a CEO job. What were President Obama's qualifications to be the CEO of the United States when he was elected and now?

The reason that capital is fleeing the United States is that investors have no confidence in the current CEO of the United States. Investors see the damage inflicted by President Obama and Democrats on the country and are afraid to invest in the US. It's a vote of no confidence in Obama and Democrats.

The obvious example of this is the State of Illinois. Capital, both dollars and citizens, are fleeing Illinois because of the poor economic policies enacted by Governor Quinn and the Democrat legislature.

With respect to your comments about President Bush, you seem to want to steer the conversation away from President Obama. President Bush, Bush as you call him, is no longer the president and is not a candidate for the CEO job. Hence, your commentary regarding Bush is irrelevant to the future of the US.

As Lady Thatcher so elegantly stated, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. Europe is at that point now and the US is close behind.

Europe "killed the goose that lays the golden eggs" and Democrats are working on trying to kill that goose too.

You are correct that it is not only President Obama-it is also Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and the rest of the Democrat band of merry socialists, including you, that are trying to kill the goose.

There Sully goes again-letting his imagination run away with his common sense.

The President isn't the Chief Executive (of the Executive Branch)? The President isn't the Commander-in-Chief? Well, yes he is both. That makes him the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the nation.

Do I hate the President? No, I strongly disagree with his policies. President Obama's policies are destructive and he needs to be removed from office before he does any more damage to the nation.

Do I hate Democrats? No, I think Harry Truman was a very good president. I like Senator Lieberman. I voted for President Carter (big mistake, but I was young and dumb). I think Hubert Humphrey was an excellent person who actually believed what he was saying.

But there is a difference between John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Jimmie Carter and today's Democrats. JFK, HHH and President JC were not socialists. Today, most Democrats are socialists and many are corrupt.

With respect to FDR and LBJ, FDR and LBJ left big government programs that have failed-in fact, they were doomed to fail from the start. Was social security really a benovolent program or was it solely intended to guarantee a Democrat majority?

Chile has a retirement program that provides a return of 8 percent, while the American SSI program provide a return of 2 percent. Why can Chile have a retirement program which actually provides for retirement security and the US has a Ponzi scheme for a retirement program?

I like the golfing day totals fact of Obama versus Bush.

@Rich - I am not an Obama backer but I do need to point out a few fallacies in your statements. First, SS is bankrupt not because the Democrats looted the system. It is bankrupt because politicians from both parties have always refused to do the proper thing and increase withholding rates in response to the actuarial changes that were occurring with regard to demographic and life expectancy changes. It is unfair to lay the blame for that entirely at the feet of the Democrats. Second, about $1 trillion of the national debt can be blamed on Bush 43. We never needed to start a war with Iraq and we are much poorer as a result of his actions.

Some employment stats since Obama took office...
The unemployment rate for African-Americans, 96% of who voted for Obama, stands at 15.5% as of last month, while Hispanics, who pulled the lever for Obama at a clip of 67%, have an unemployment rate of 11.4%. When Obama took office, those rates stood at 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively.

Higher unemployment is less income. it's good to see those that voted for change in general have gotten their change.

Donny I've got a jar full of "CHANGE"

The significance of the statistics is that those on the bottom of the economic ladder have been hurt the worst in the economic train-wreck and by President Obama's policies.

Black and Hispanic folks who voted overwhelmingly for President Obama have been hurt the worst by President Obama's policies, yet black folks continue to support this president. The support of Hispanics for the President is waning.

Voting for someone simply because of their skin color is not a wise way of choosing a president. Voting based solely upon a political party is also not wise.

The policies of the Democrat Party, while they may be well-intentioned (and that is arguable), actually hurt the poor. The policies supported by the "racist party", those evil Republican devils, are actually better for those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. The Democrat Party supports "hand-outs", while the evil racist Republicans support a "hand-up".

The "hand-out" Party treats Americans like children. The "hand-up" Party treats Americans like adults. Which political party you support tells you a lot about your viewpoint about life. Are you still a child or you an adult? Most adults don't want to be treated like a child. "Hand-outs" are for children. A "hand-up" is for adults.

The "hand-up" philosophy is ultimately best for both America and for Americans.

Vile:
: tending to degrade

Again mij, Sully can not grasp that one individual having a different opinion than his own. Obama has done more damage to the black and Hispanic community than any white man could ever dream of since the late 60's. Less income was and has been Obama goal all along. He has been successful in making milliions of Americans dependent on government. His objectives have partially been fulfilled, his next target is white middle class America and if he gets a second term, which I highly doubt, they two will follow the way of the blacks and Hispanics.

you look in morror often and talk to yourself

"Maybe some degradation is called for,". Of course *you* can justify degrading people who disagree with you. It's fully justifiable, for you, to tear down and insult anyone of a different opinion, but if those same people did the same things to you, more (and worse) name-calling would ensue. Those same people who disagree with you do not use name-calling against those who disagree with them, because they can see that it's not a valid form of argument. It doesn't prove or disprove a thing.

very well said HM.

You are correct HM. However, in this one particular case, I believe the poster did not look at the links and made her comment based on her ignorance of the particular subject. She did not care to look at the links and made a blanket statement based on her preconceived notions. If a liberal posts a link, it is immediately discounted as invalid. Had she looked initially, she would have seen the links were composites of all the polls, both republican-leaning and democratic-leaning. Hence, her response was one of willful ignorance.

I become more close-minded when it is apparent that one's words are based on emotion and willful ignorance. Hatred of democrats and Obama have made some posters on here blind to certain facts because they simply don't want to believe them. I do not like Obama, but I will not blame him for every single ill this country suffers. I cannot stand the spineless democrats in government, but I will not blame them for all of the economic problems we are faced with today. When one only sees fault with one side and hails the other as superior and saviors of the country, I consider that ignorant. They see only black and white and don't care to see anything else. It's much easier to assign blame that way.

Curses-Sully out-smarted me once again. Those left-wing radicals are sneeky. (Pardon me if you are offended by me calling you a left-wing radical or sneeky.)

A little known clause in the XIX Amendment to the Constituion exempts Republicans from compliance with the Constitution.

Now, I'm off to get moose and squirrel right after I watch Dudley Doright save the girl. (I suppose this is a trick question, so I gave Sully a trick answer-wink, wink. He'll be up for days trying to figure this response out.)

Fact check. The latest payment was $1175, it has never been as high as $5000 and was only over $2000 once or twice. The payments were to settle the locals for the damage to their environment and the influx of oil workers via tax payments by the oil exploration companies. Without the taxes there would be no payments. Oh, there we go again, taxes! Sorry, but you've got to have taxes.

The term "rich" or "wealthy" are relative terms, which neither you or me has defined. My prior post attempted to put these terms in context.

It is my understanding that the oil rich Persian Gulf nations import labor so its citizens don't have to do the labor. The imported labor is poor relative to the citizens of those countries, just as immigrant labor from Mexico in this country is "poor".

Relative to the poor immigrant labor in the US, most everyone in the US is "rich". Relative to the immigrant labor in the oil-rich Persian Gulf nations, the citizens of those countries are "rich".

Can we eliminate poverty in the US? Yes, we can if we utilize our energy resources and stop importing oil from unfriendly countries. Poverty will be with us until we as a nation realize that just giving "hand-outs" to the poor is destructive.

"Hand-ups", not "hand-outs". The Democrat Party is the party of "hand-outs". The Republican Party is the party of "hand-ups". That not a partisan statement, that's simply a fact. The Democrat Party uses social programs to buy votes, but, in order for that strategy to be effective, the "hand-outs" have to be so small that poverty is perpetuated, not eliminated.

The goal should be to eliminate poverty by making sure all of our citizens have a decent education. Even if this goal were realized, we would still have poverty because poor immigrants would continue to flood into this country "to get a piece of the pie".

Excellent questions-I'd be more than happy to respond to those questions, however, at present I am working. The company which I work for doesn't give me the day off. Nor did my company given me December 30th, New Year's Eve or New Year's Day off. I am self-employed. Every day is a work day.

With respect to RB's comments regarding corporations, there are two wings to the Republican Party-the country-club (corporate) wing and the small government conservative wing. I am a small gov't conservative and I am not a supporter of large corporations. Large corporations are crony capitalists-they have no political ideology. Crony capitalists are "in bed" with large government. Crony capitalist are just as corrupt as large government.

Actually, I don't consider myself to be a Republican, although I haven't voted for a Democrat since I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. I am not a registered Republican and I don't vote in primaries. Nor have I ever contributed 1 cent to any Republican candidate. I did not vote for John McCain in 2008. I simply couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain-he is not a conservative; McCain was Democrat-lite.

@ Donny - Well done and thank you. In one brief sentence, you have proven my point more completely than I could have in thousands of words.

That statement illustrates the thinking of much the recently aquired Republican base. This is what pandering to the socially conservative voting base will get you. Oh, they vote...that's what's so scary. Dats sum real intelligentsia there Donny.

Liberalism is a mental disease and the only known treatment is a dose of reality followed by daily excerise of common sense.

BTW, I'm not republician :)

Sorry for calling you Republican. I could swear I read you support Ron Paul, but I may have you confused you with someone else. If you do support him, I should not have assumed that makes you Republican. Or, even socially Conservative.

I'm sensitive to the Republican change toward going after the Southern conservative base a few years ago and really not giving them anything in return other than appealing to socially conservative ideals.

RB, even though it might be a shock to you, there are plenty of US citizens who live what is considered a "socially liberal" lifestyle, while believing in plenty of conservative principles. I think a true conservative is someone who wants the government out of the personal lives of its citizens, including food stamp recipients who are told what they can and can't purchase, by the government. This is the same principle as being told whom one can and cannot marry. The government should not be involved in any of those decisions, nor do they have a right to tell people to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. Those are conservative principles. Smaller government, less government interference. It's a matter of personal rights and responsibilities, not having the government involved in or dictating so many of the decisions its citizens make on a daily basis.

Sarah, that's not a surprise to me. I think you can be for smaller Government and not necessarily be socially conservative. My point was that the Republican party went after the socially conservative base while fiscally hurting many of those voting for them due to their stance in social issues.
I wanted to make clear, just what you did. If you want small Government, you can't have it both ways.

Sully, after your obnoxious behavior on Patch over the last few months, you should be the last one to complain about anyone. You're a big boy and you've been dishing it, so Donny is just giving it back to you.

I've noted your new tone, but I haven't seen your apology for your Alinsky behavior. No need to apologize to me, I'm a big boy and have got more arrows in my back than I can count. After the first 40 or so arrows, you get used to having a target on your back.

RB, I believe you're addressing Richard, but I have my opinions about these things too :P I don't think ANY of it is the government's business. If I want to marry a woman, I should be able to (yes, I am a woman). Marriage is a religious agreement for most people (both straight and gay, as I've seen in my own life), as much as it is a civil issue. If you are "married" to ANYONE, both parties should have the same rights to taxation, healthcare, right to sue, right to inherit, etc. This is a very conservative idea, in my opinion. Just mind your own business, and we'll all be okay.

Sarah H.
Two thumbs up an a like

Yes, I was addressing Richard. I think you have a good comment here.

First, the term "marriage" is a religious term which long pre-dates the establishment of the United States. You might say that religion has "trademarked" the term "marriage" in a common law sort of way.

Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" from its centuries old meaning is an intentional attack on religion. Since the Constitution guarantees the right to practice ones' religion, this is also an attack on the Constitution.

There is no reason why the meaning of the term "marriage" needs to be changed. From a governmental standpoint, marriage is a contractual arrangement. Hence, all of the issues which you bring up in your post can be handled contractually. There is no reason to bastardize the term "marriage" by modifying it to suit liberals.

No one is forcing religion upon liberals, but it seems that liberals consider religion to be an affront to their existence-so sad, too bad. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom to practice ones' religion, not freedom from religion.

This nation was founded by religious men and religion is part of our heritage. You may not like it, but its historical fact. In fact, I believe it was John Adams who said that the US Constitution can only work if moral standards are upheld. Morality as understood in the late 1700's meant religion.

I'm not forcing my religion on you and I expect the same consideration from all Americans. Atheism is a religion-don't force your atheism on America.

Richard, I disagree with you that by the government allowing same-sex unions that it somehow attacks religion. That is a ridiculous notion. Religious people are still allowed to consider marriage between a man and a woman; I merely suggest that if we all minded our own business, including what people do in their personal lives, we'd be a lot happier. The government should not be in the business of defining what "marriage" is. Religious people are entitled to believe what they want, but they are not entitled to dictate to everyone else, including other citizens of the same countries they live in, personal decisions such as whom one should or shouldn't marry. It is a completely separate and personal issue than anything the government should be involved in.

Richard. I'm not an atheist, so if the 'your' was intended to be me....you're wrong, again. Closed minds think such things.
Sarah says it well enough. I will add that several candidates have said they want laws that prevent anything like marriage from being possible, so that kinds blows your strictly 'contractural' scope. Government should not be in the religion business and religion would to be in the government business. Seperation of church and state? Marriage can be performed by a judge, and others...many times it is a civil ceremony. Where was your religion when judges first started performing ceremonies outside of church...the horror. No where does Government require religion be involved in a marriage....except of course in your scenario - when your religion prevents equality for some reason and wants to own the right. So much for love thy neighbor....By the way, religion should be a part of any marriage if the participates desire.

Sully, I'll reiterate what I've been saying ... It's no one's business but the individuals involved. We all have a right to religious freedom, and those far-right folks are entitled to their opinions, but I personally feel that those decisions are best left to individuals, not to religion or government. It's no one's business. The sooner people start focusing on the real problems in the world and get their noses out of others' bedrooms, the better off we'll all be. Again, those are my humble opinions.

Viagra for Women – pink tablets contain sildenafil citrate chemical that can increases blood flow to the vagina and help in sexual dysfunction treatment.

RB, I actually agree with you here on many levels. I am a Ron Paul supporter; he wants to dismantle the government the way it stands right now. Pandering to the masses of social conservatives is a distraction for all of us; I completely ignore any and all discussion of anything related to religion, abortion, gay rights, etc. I just mind my own business, and I want to vote for people who want to do the same thing. The only area where Dr. Paul and I differ is on the issue of abortion; he is pro-life (as an Obstetrician, I can understand why he would hold this belief), and I am pro-minding-my-own-business. I think having our troops overseas is suicide, and it's leaching our country of valuable resources (this includes the troops themselves) like money. I do believe that honest diplomacy is the way to go. How would we feel if there was a Chinese or Afghani Military Base operating in the town(s) we live in? We have to start viewing these matters from a perspective of "do unto others". I know I wouldn't like it if there was a foreign military base anywhere in the U.S. I can't think of ONE country that occupies the U.S. physically, albeit I do feel that China occupies the U.S. financially.

I appreciate a lot of what he offers. I suspect he is more socially conservative and the newsletters attest to it. look at his voting record and he supported the appeal of DADT and supports DOMA, so a little of this a little of that. Politics is a puzzle and everyone has their favorite pieces. At some point we have to make a beautiful mosaic.

Are not social conservatives who were born in America Americans? Were not our Founding Father social conservatives? Our Founding Fathes were certainly religious men. Given this, it seems that social conservatives should have a voice in what goes on in America. Simply because you disagree with them doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a voice. This is America after all-if social conservatives are not permitted to have a voice, then perhaps we should silence liberals too.

The First Amendment applies to all, not just to those who agree with you.

I'm all for everyone having a voice. Just because I critique someone, you think I want to take away their rights. Richard, you are the one wanting to limit peoples rights. Not me!

Sarah, I have a question about Ron Paul. I know we have a bunch of Republicans claiming to be Libertarians ( they clearly are not). Is Ron Paul running as a Republican simply due to the two party system we have or does he have Republican values? Today's Republicans seem to try to turn there conservative Christian values into law and I've seen some signs that Ron Paul is pandering to that wing of the party from time to time. I guess a true Libertarian can't get elected but how can a true Libertarian be a Republican?

And Bush is responsible for finding and killing Bin Laden too, right? And neither his administration, nor Pappy's, nor Reagan's was corrupt one bit, right? Richard, if you want to be credible, take those blinders off. What has Obama done that not any other president has done as well? You are so bitterly partisan you don't see anything. It cannot be okay for one party to break the rules and not be held accountable while the other one is. Be outraged by both or don't expect to be taken seriously.

"Pakistan probably presents as much of a problem as Iran, and they have the bomb."

Pakistan is a problem today, but 10 years ago it wasn't a problem. 10 years ago, Pakistan was an ally.

We'll see about your stray cat theory. I think Romney could have a chance of beating him. But, the economy is improving for some and unless Cantor and Brainer prevent the debt extension, it will continue to improve. I don't think the Morman thing will hurt him with independent voters. Faith will make a difference with many conservative voters (that's a shame)... So, stray cats can't win, Romney 49% if the economy gets no better. Oh, don't put it past them to try to keep the economy from improving...what's a few more months of pain?

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group or local community. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

People can practice any religion they want to without preventing other people from living and loving the way they want to. It's silly to think that two people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together would even mildly impact a religious person. The only way it impacts that peron in *any* way is if they're sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. No one is telling them that they have to practice any particular religion, so why should those specific people be able to dictate to everyone else how to live? That doesn't make sense.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I've posted the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution. What is says is what it says.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

"I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'."

"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15."

Too late for that-I already have EVOLVED. I converted from being liberal to a conservative in October 1994.

"If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart and if you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no brain."

Socialism damages everything it touches-see Detroit and New Detroit (Chicago) for examples of the damage of socialism does. Chicago is well on its way to becoming Detroit.

In October 1994, my brother and I had a discussion on Hillarycare. He suggested that I listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few days. The first day of listening I thought that Rush was a pompous ass. The second day I thought that Rush was a pompous ass, but he's right. The third day I just thought that Rush is right. Listening to Rush is hillarious and when he's away, his guest hosts are excellent too. The talent on the conservative side of the aisle is quite astonishing.

Rush is a positive upbeat guy. My entire viewpoint on life changed because of Rush. I went from being a negative liberal to a positive conservative.

RB, your post is full of negativity. Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything? I reckon not. You need to tune into Rush-it'll change your life. Nothing like a positive outlook on life. Why would you want to be miserable all of the time like Sully. I picture Sully as a Helen Thomas look-a-like.

Sully, do you ever have anything positive to say about your agenda? Based upon your posts, all I see is negativity. You never bother to explain or defend your viewpoint.

Conservatives are positive and happy people. Liberals seem to be negative people. It sure must be a drag being you.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan

It will be "Morning in America" again late in the evening on election day in 2012. America's nightmare will be over. Actually, I think that the handwriting will be on the wall regarding the results of the election a few days or weeks before and the stock market will soar in late October 2012.

A stray cat could beat Obama-yes, it's been that bad. Governor Walker's victory in the recall election will signal that the people have figured it out. Sorry Dems, but the passage of Obamacare was your high-water mark-it's all downhill from there. President Obama's poll numbers are worse than Jimmy Carter's poll numbers right now and President Carter lost in a landslide.

Oh well, you can always move to France. You don't want to go to Chicago because of all the tax increases. In a month or so, I will be relocating to Florida-0 percent state income tax and warm weather. That will be one less taxpayer to pull the State of Illinois wagon. And now you know why I'm smiling.

Rich, I will notify Florida.patch to increase there data storage since you are on the way.

I'm pretty happy myself personally. I have nothing to complain about. But I do feel for others who can't say the same.

He's been saying since last spring he's moving to Florida. Come on Rich- get on with it already!

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Well, there you go again. Who said I think that liberals are ignorant? "It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Sorry, but I am not a religious person. You won't find me in church on Sunday morning. I simply defend the rights of those who are religious to practice their religion. It's liberals who are anti-religion.

As to my statement that liberals (progressives) are anti-American, simply look at what comes out of Sully's mouth (or any other liberal's mouth). All you folks can do is criticize America and your fellow Americans. Liberals say that diversity is our strength, yet liberals are so intolerant (e.g. your comment). Quite frankly, I could give a fig about your beliefs, but I have no desire to silence you. The more Sully and others like him "out" themselves, the more Americans realize what radical nonsense liberals espouse.

Conservative thought is mainstream. Liberals belongs to the "Keep Our Own Kids Safe (KOOKS)" group.

You might be surprised at the number of folks who live in Chicago and Cook County who agree with me. I was shocked when I attended Congresswoman Schakowsky's town hall meeting on August 31, 2009. I was sitting next to people who lived in Chicago and they agreed with me on Obamacare. Imagine that. You can read about that town hall meeting by Googling my name and Chicago Tribune. I also made the 10 o'clock news with my comments.

I've read and own all of Ann Coulter's books. I also visit Michelle Malkin website too. Michelle and Ann are great. Even our women are fierce. Ann Coulter gives it right back to the libs. She's hillarious. ("How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" is my favorite).

After living here for almost 40 years, I'm looking forward to a change in scenery and weather.

Precisely why I am leaving the State of Illinois-the economy here is in bad shape and getting worse. With Chicago going the direction of Detroit, lots of people will be having problems making a living here and more folks will be heading for the exits. But not to worry, I'm writing a book.