• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Announcing my short-term goal.

OkeeDon

New member
I have a short-term goal, one that will either have success or failure within the next 6-1/2 months. I'm announcing that goal now, so that you may keep it in the back of your mind, and possibly consider it, as you read whatever posts I make between now and then.

It's a goal that's directed at everyone, those who share my philosophies as well as those who don't. For those who share my political leanings, I want to simply remind you of what is important and try to make sure you don't stray from the goal. For those of you who "lean" the other way, I'm going to try to make as much sense as I can, in the hope that it might have some small effect on you.

The goal is to consider the possible results of the Fall Congressional elections, and consider whether it would be better to leave both houses of Congress in Republican hands, or change the majority of at least one of the houses to Democratic.

Now, for those died-in-the wool far-right wingers who think the GOP can do no wrong and Bush can walk on water, and that one-sided control of almost all of the government is the next best thing to sliced bread, you can be certain that I have no hope of converting you. It will be enough if I can occasionally make you think.

But, there are many others of you who have strong convictions, but also have level heads and genuinely want what is best for the nation. I don't expect to reach all of you, but I believe there are enough of you to make a difference.

The premise is simple. It is not a good idea to have all branches of government in the same hands. It really doesn't matter which hands; Democratic control of all branches of government can be as bad as Republican control, as can be witnessed by several decades in the last 70 years where that has been the case. I'm not concerned with debating which was worse; it's my position that 100% control by EITHER party is not a Good Thing.

At present, we are almost at 100%. The Executive branch is Republican, the Senate is Republican, the House of Representatives is Republican, the Supreme Court is about 1/2 of a Justice away from a Conservative majority, and the majority of the states' governors are Republican.

For those of you who like it that way, you can stop reading, now. I probably won't reach you.

But, there must be some of you who helped to bring about this situation, and who now have doubts about whether it was a wise thing.

Our nation was conceived as a system of checks and balances. The executive and legislative branches are supposed to balance each other, and the judicial branch is supposed to be a check on both. Those checks and balances are what has made us a great nation over the years. But, when a particular party gets control of all of the branches, and when they begin to work together to make radical changes in government, it is not necessarily a good thing.

Whether or not you put any credence in polls, there comes a point when the evidence from the polls is so unanimous and so overwhelming that it becomes almost self-evident. We have reached that point with this government. By overwhelming and unprecedented numbers, most of the people no longer approve of the administration's work. The numbers have been worse for Congress for some time; people just don't trust them to do the right thing, and the coverups and brushoffs of ethical lapses and scandals doesn't help.

The solution I propose is to vote in such a way that at least one house of Congress is no longer controlled by the Republicans. It's not so much that I expect the Democrats to do a better job; it's simply that I expect them to take a different approach, and that will create more of a balance that we have, now.

I've argued and debated many points for so long on this forum that I hae convinced most of you that I'm a died-in-the-wool, carved-in-stone Liberal. The truth is that I am a social Liberal, but I'm also a fiscal (monetary) conservative. And, I've become convinced that many New Democrats are closer to the standard of sound fiscal policy that many Republicans.

For the next several months, all I'm asking is that you keep this in mind as you participate here on the forum, as you read and watch political news, and as you consider for whom you will vote in the November Congressional elections. If you already lean towards the Democrats, don't waver. If you normally lean to the Republicans, honor me with a small bit of respect and keep an open mind. Listen carefully to the news reports and consider whether either side may be lying to you. I know that if you're conservative you automatically assume that the Democrats are lying, but take a moment to consider whether your own side is lying, and whether there might be a politician out there, somewhere, who might be telling the truth. If you find one, vote for him or her, even if you don't totally agree with their positions.

That tiny grain of truth, and the checks and balances of our system, are more important than the planks of the candidate's platform.

In return, and if at least one house of Congress is overturned, I promise to carefully consider the GOP candidates for President, and support any that are smarter than George W. Bush. I can live with a Republican executive branch as long as there is a balance on the legislative side.

If this doesn't work, and the GOP retains control of both houses of Congress, I will do my damndest to make certain a Democrat wins the Presidency. I'd rather do it this way; I think the sooner some balance is restored in DC the better it will be for the nation.

So, there you have it. A simple request to keep an open mind and consider all candidates for the offices open in your district. As I understand it, all members of the House are up for election, along with approximately 1/3 of the Senators.

In my own district, I will fight to keep Bill Nelson as a Democratic Senator. I think the worst thing that Florida could ever do is elect Katherine Harris as a Senator from any party. Her own party wishes she would go away.

My Representative, Republican Mark Foley, has done a good job for our district as long as he was able to stay away from being forced to support the party line. But, he served as a deputy whip to Tom DeLay and marched in lockstep with the GOP often enough that I think he has to go. He has a serious Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, a Florida rancher and venture capitalist and conservative Democrat. Unless something bad turns up in the next 199 days, I will be voting for Mahoney.
 
Don,

In due respect I would submit that if you go this far, then you should post who you vote for in the fall.

Personally, I dont vote and tell, and never will. But then I dont pull a party line either, although when you support ole shoot em up bill, I do get silly acting. He lied, in office, period.

I will go this far only on voting, I have NEVER, and NEVER will pull a party line vote lever, or fill in the arrow....................in the thought of that we are thinking the same. I see DEM in your post though, several references that seem to say, keep thinking dem, but if you are think rep, then give some thought.

Right now in this country, if I were asked about how the current pres is doing, I would be one that would vote, NOT TO GOOD, NOT PLEASED, what ever they call it. (pick yourself up off the floor now)
 
Thanks, Danny, good comments. As far as the party line is concerned, and my mentioning DEM, it's because the party line is in effect, now. The problem with our parties, the way they're set up, is that the whips and leaders and such pull all sorts of "stuff" to keep the party members in line. The days when members would cross the party line on a bi-partison vote are over, at least temporarily and until something changes.

Therefore, as much as I don't care for it, the only way to get the checks and balances in effect is to separate the branches of government by party. At least that way we have a broad balance. Not what I was used to when I was growing up, when politicians from the opposing parties actualy talked to each other with respect. but as good as we can get right now.

As to Bill, not sure why you called him "shoot 'em up" Bill, but I'm just sorry you let one personal incident control all of your thinking about the man. I don't condone what he did, but he didn't take us to a preemptive war, waste our money and get thousands of our kids killed. I can tolerate a lie about sex instead. Whether you argue or accept who was responsible, while he was in charge we had real cuts in spending and something close to a balanced budget; today, we're $8 TRILLION dollars in debt. I can tolerate a lie about sex instead. When the World Trade Center was bombed the first time, while Bill was in charge, we figured out who did it and caught them, instead of letting them run loose and get worse. I can tolerate a lie about sex instead. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
 
I get the picture Don. As I said also, I am not happy with the way things have turned out either. I can say I dont trust Bush right now, but I dont trust Clinton either.

If we want a true NO PARTY LEADS, then the pres will have to come from a party not represented in either branch,
 
If you truly want to change things you need to vote for third party candidates - or - you need to vote for ANYBODY but the candidate from either of Demopublican parties. If when all the votes were counted the a candidate from either a third party was elected - or - the candidate that did win from of the Demopublican parties won by such a small margin - because everybody wrote in votes for lets say 20 other candidates, it would start to become plainly obvious to the politicians that we the voters are not playing along any more.

Think of it like buying a car - if there are two big manufacturers - say Ford and GM - and a couple of smaller ones, and everybody buys Ford and GM because "they are the biggest manufacturers and I don't want to get stuck with a lemon from some company that will go out of business in two years" then status quo stays status quo. The big manufacturers are free to sell pieces of crap because they know the consumers will never dare put their money down on any of the other competitors. At some point you have to stop believing in the bullshit and realize that in the end you really have nothing to lose by voting third party or by voting for a write in candidate of your choice - or even by not voting at all.

Not voting is a viable alternative - if the electoral process gets to the point where say only 20% of the population is voting - or is voting for "none of the above" then this also will expose the process as a sham because it will be plainly obvious that the people have lost all faith in the system such as it is.
 
jd, I won't say you're wrong. But, I think what you're proposing is a longer term goal. It will take time for people to recognize that votes for 3rd party candidates are rising, or that the numbers not voting are growing, and decide they want to jump on those wagons.

That's why I said this is a short-term goal. I sincerely believe that we're in an emergency situation, and that if nothing is changed in some substantial way immediately, we may get into ever more trouble than we have now. Short of impeachment, which I don't support because I think it would be bad for the nation, the only immediate answer I can come up with is to use our democratic process to create some balance.

Note that I'm NOT asking to put the Dems in charge; just to provide a counterpoint to the administration, to force them to consider alternatives a little more completely before they rush off into something drastic, whether it's foreign or domestic, social or economic. The changes are coming too quickly, and something needs to be done to put out a little reverse thrust.

So, be certain I support any of the alternatives you suggest, but consider supporting me in this short term goal. It doesn't have to be permanent; the House is re-elected every 2 years, so if my idea doesn't work, the voters can go back the other way in 2 years.
 
OkeeDon said:
Note that I'm NOT asking to put the Dems in charge; just to provide a counterpoint to the administration, to force them to consider alternatives a little more completely before they rush off into something drastic, whether it's foreign or domestic, social or economic. The changes are coming too quickly, and something needs to be done to put out a little reverse thrust.


I totally agree with this....................
 
OkeeDon said:
jd, I won't say you're wrong. But, I think what you're proposing is a longer term goal. It will take time for people to recognize that votes for 3rd party candidates are rising, or that the numbers not voting are growing, and decide they want to jump on those wagons.

That's why I said this is a short-term goal. I sincerely believe that we're in an emergency situation, and that if nothing is changed in some substantial way immediately, we may get into ever more trouble than we have now. Short of impeachment, which I don't support because I think it would be bad for the nation, the only immediate answer I can come up with is to use our democratic process to create some balance.

Note that I'm NOT asking to put the Dems in charge; just to provide a counterpoint to the administration, to force them to consider alternatives a little more completely before they rush off into something drastic, whether it's foreign or domestic, social or economic. The changes are coming too quickly, and something needs to be done to put out a little reverse thrust.

So, be certain I support any of the alternatives you suggest, but consider supporting me in this short term goal. It doesn't have to be permanent; the House is re-elected every 2 years, so if my idea doesn't work, the voters can go back the other way in 2 years.

I realize this boils down to a matter of opinions but I think the upcoming elections are the perfect time to really push for a third party. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties have significant percentages of their base who are dissatisfied with the way their respective parties have handled things. Furthermore I believe that after the Clinton years and now the Bush years a good part of the electorate are of the opinion that neither party really represents them. If Democrats are elected to "balance" the Republicans this just prolongs the agony without really changing anything in the long run. If things settle down then everything just sort of plods along without getting any real change effected. I agree with you somewhat that we are in an emergency situation - but I also know that sometimes a crisis is what it takes to effect real change. We are in this predicament as a nation because we always vote the way you are advocating - take a chance that your vote might actually change the process and vote for a third party candidate - even if you know he or she will not win and we will be one vote closer to really changing things. Vote Democratic or Republican - it doesn't matter which - and you are one vote further away.
 
jdwilson44 said:
...Both the Democratic and the Republican parties have significant percentages of their base who are dissatisfied with the way their respective parties have handled things. Furthermore I believe that after the Clinton years and now the Bush years a good part of the electorate are of the opinion that neither party really represents them.
You're half right. But, I don't think you have a clue about the Democrats.

First of all, if Clinton could run again, he would be reelected in a heartbeat. I know Conservatives can't see that, but, aside from a personal peccadillo, Clinton was a good President. I predicted his first election, and won a lot of bets from my Conservative friends when he was reelected in '96. They didn't believe me, then, either. The Republican leaders knew that, also, which is why they unleashed Ken Starr and went to such extraordinary lengths to destroy Clinton.

Second, Democrats may get dissatisfied in a few years, but right now, what they want most is revenge for the stolen 2000 election, and they are more unified than ever to get it. It doesn't matter if you don't believe the election was stolen; Dems do believe it, and they are willing to fight as a result.

Finally, you're still thinking in the past, about Democrats from earlier years. You haven't caught up with the New Democrats, who are strong on defense, more concerned about homeland security than the lip service from the Bush folks, more fiscally conservative than most Republican politicians, and just about own the law and order vote. They also have a more Libertarian inclination that Republicans in issues like abortion, prayer in school, etc. -- they believe there should be no laws, while Conservative Christians are pushing for laws against abortion, laws compelling school prayer, laws compelling the Biblical theory of creation, laws against pornography and much more. In other words, that faction of the Right is about as far away from Libertarianism as they can be. The roles have reversed and it is now Conservatives who favor state control.

So, I humbly have to disagree. The Dems are up for at least one more battle, and the only thing with which they are dissatisfied is the present situation.
 
OkeeDon said:
You're half right. But, I don't think you have a clue about the Democrats.

First of all, if Clinton could run again, he would be reelected in a heartbeat. I know Conservatives can't see that, but, aside from a personal peccadillo, Clinton was a good President. I predicted his first election, and won a lot of bets from my Conservative friends when he was reelected in '96. They didn't believe me, then, either. The Republican leaders knew that, also, which is why they unleashed Ken Starr and went to such extraordinary lengths to destroy Clinton.

Second, Democrats may get dissatisfied in a few years, but right now, what they want most is revenge for the stolen 2000 election, and they are more unified than ever to get it. It doesn't matter if you don't believe the election was stolen; Dems do believe it, and they are willing to fight as a result.

Finally, you're still thinking in the past, about Democrats from earlier years. You haven't caught up with the New Democrats, who are strong on defense, more concerned about homeland security than the lip service from the Bush folks, more fiscally conservative than most Republican politicians, and just about own the law and order vote. They also have a more Libertarian inclination that Republicans in issues like abortion, prayer in school, etc. -- they believe there should be no laws, while Conservative Christians are pushing for laws against abortion, laws compelling school prayer, laws compelling the Biblical theory of creation, laws against pornography and much more. In other words, that faction of the Right is about as far away from Libertarianism as they can be. The roles have reversed and it is now Conservatives who favor state control.

So, I humbly have to disagree. The Dems are up for at least one more battle, and the only thing with which they are dissatisfied is the present situation.

I would believe your assertion about new Democrats if they don't start touting either Hillary Clinton or Al Gore as potential candidates for the next presidential election. I know that is a trend of war veterans ( Gulf and Iraq for the most part) who are running for office. Maybe this will come to something. Get the Democrats to actually believe in being fiscally conservative, believe in the Constitution ( IE not pass laws against free speech like the recent campaign finance reform laws, get rid of the totally unconstitutional gun control laws, etc.) , get them to stop pandering to socialistic tendencies - and you might even get me to vote Democratic. I am no fan of the Republican parties' leanings towards the religious right and frankly regard that as a big a threat as the Democratic parties leanings towards socialism. I personally do not think Clinton was a good president, he got us involved in Somalia for no good reason then cut and ran when the going got tough - leading the Jihadists to view us as weak, his administration killed a young mother with a baby in her arms (Randy Weaver's wife) and roasted 80 people - including women and children - alive in Waco Texas, he claimed blow jobs were not sex, leading to the plentitude of stories I read now about how teenage girls give their boyfriends blow jobs whenever they want them - because it's "just like kissing" ( I know teenagers so I know this is not totally exagerated by the media), etc. I will grant you that Clinton at least does not go around puking on the Japanese (Bush Sr.) and grabbing the Chinese Premier by his suit jacket like Bush Jr. did recently - but frankly I expect better out of the presidency than either Clinton or Bush.
 
Don,

I use to think that having one party control everything was bad. And I am not saying that one controlling everything is good. Let's say I am on the fence right now.

My thing with the two parties you get so much talk and nothing gets accomplished. And the thing that really bugs me is the two parties start to negotiate, you give me this and we will give you that. And some of the little negotiations are things hidden so you and I don't even see them. We think we are getting something good and then see the fine print. In business managers can sit and talk all day and not accomplish anything. There comes a time when we have to do something right or wrong. A government with a purpose of the same one would think would perform better. Just my thought. The current administration is changing my mind some on this. I just don't know if they have done just about everything wrong or is they just about had everything go wrong for them.

My trust in either party has gone down hill so bad it stinks. The 3rd party as you said is a long ways off, but did work here in Minnesota a few years back. (I bet my governor can beat the crap out of your governor :pat: )

My wife and I have always voted for the person we think would be best, not by party. Well sometimes you see people on the ballots that you never heard of and I may follow my preference there.

The county has voted Republican in the past, I don't think that will happen in the near future. Dems may take over both, you never know.

just a few thoughts that's all.

murph
 
jdwilson44 said:
..I personally do not think Clinton was a good president, he got us involved in Somalia for no good reason then cut and ran when the going got tough...
The rest of your jibes and claims are mostly opinion, and I know I can't change your mind, so I'll ignore them, But, if they're based on the same information as this claim, then I seriously doubt your ability to judge him at all.

You see, it was President George Herbert Walker Bush who got us involved in Somalia. And, I personally think he had a pretty good reason. He did it after he lost the election, during the transition period, and it's pretty obvious he was deliberately creating a situation that would be difficult for Clinton.

Here's a link to the text of GHWB's announcement on December 4, 1992.
 
Last edited:
thcri said:
My wife and I have always voted for the person we think would be best, not by party. Well sometimes you see people on the ballots that you never heard of and I may follow my preference there.
Me, too. I think that all I'm asking is for folks to make a little extra effort to know the opponents, and to do their own research into their backgrounds, not accept a biased news source's opinion. That goes both ways. I have been voting for Mark Foley since 1996 (I dodn't vote for him the first time he ran) because he was a moderate Republican doing a good job for our district. In fact, he was doing such a good job, the Dems rarely bothered to field a viable candidate.

But, this year, the Dems have recruited Tim Mahoney, who is so conservative, I almost worry that he's not really a Democrat. However, the GOP is trying their darndest to paint him as a liberal. That's what they always do. If I hadn't been willing to look into it myself, I might have voted for Foley again.
 
OkeeDon said:
Finally, you're still thinking in the past, about Democrats from earlier years. You haven't caught up with the New Democrats, who are strong on defense, more concerned about homeland security than the lip service from the Bush folks, more fiscally conservative than most Republican politicians, and just about own the law and order vote.

OkeeDon, Again I can speak with some experience, I have lived in Massachusetts my entire life (57yrs) I was a third generation Democrat until I swiched to Unenrolled ( independent). This state has been and is still run totally by democrats for as long as I can remember. We have had a run of Republican governors but the way the state goverment is set up the he is only able to do what the Dem. legislature lets him. Two Democratic senators, not one Republican congressman, an overwhelmingly Democratically controlled state legislature. I don't ask that you believe anything I say. All I ask is you read this article which was the front page lead story in this mornings Lowell Sun. Lowell is Massachusetts 4th largest city, pop.100000+, and a one bedroom condo will cost you $250,000+ there are no republicans in the city goverment that I know of and have not been for many years. The story is about the state losing more population than any other state. What is hapenning here is only the rich and the poor who don't work are able to survive here.The working middle class is being forced out. I have four grown children only one is still here, the others have moved to other states so they could have a chance to live the American Dream. If I could afford to move I'd be with them. The state of MA is proof that "progressive" Democratic control is not the answer either.

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3741974
 
RoadKing, now you're venturing into familiar territory. I moved to Massachusetts (from a town East of Pittsburgh) in 1964. My girlfriend at the time had moved there in 1963. We were married in 1965 and spent a year in Harrisburg, PA, where I was in training for a mangement position in Boston. We moved back to MA is 1966 and rented an apartment in a farmhouse in Walpole. We lived there for 2 years (while working in Boston), then bought a small house on 9 acres in Westford in 1968. We lived in Westford until 1972, when we emigrated to Florida to escape the high cost of living in MA.

I'm sure some things have changed in the last 34 years, but people leaving Massachusetts because of taxes and other high costs, as outlined in the article you provided, is nothing new. That article has been written exactly the same, except for the actual numbers, about every 5 years for the last 40 years, at least. Back when I lived there, most people had higher tax payments than mortgage payments.

Of course, the Democrats have been in control all those years, and obviously have the full responsibility for the tax situations, etc. Which is a pretty good reason to support my goal, because I do not advocate giving total control to either party, or to a third party if we come up with one.

As far as the median price of houses is concerned, your article surprised me -- the median prices of houses is higher in rural Okeechobee, Florida than you cited. Here in Port St. Lucie, the median price is approaching $300K, and it's well over $400K further south. We're seeing a significant number of Floridians selling out and moving to Kentucky and Tennessee, also. I often remind them that it gets cold up there, and many of them return in 2 to 4 years. But, there's no doubt that the cost of living is lower in those middle states.

What's interesting, is that many of them have a Democratic history (although few as strong as MA), and others have traditionally been more conservative. I can't find a correlation.
 
Okeedon, You would not recognize Westford today. There are no orchards left. All developed into $750,000 homes on two acre lots. the only part of town that hasn't changed much is the old center, mainly because the townies got together and saved it. The old camps on Nabnasset Lake sell for 400k and up. I just look around and see these prices and wonder where the people who are buying these places are working. I surely couldn't afford it. My only daughter that's still in Mass. lives in Dracut near Long Pond, very similar to the refurbished camps on Nab Lake in Westford. the house next to her, a two bedroom cape on a half acre sold last fall for $450,000. Somebody must be making a lot more money than me. Too bad you still don't own that nine acres.
 
OkeeDon said:
I know Conservatives can't see that, but, aside from a personal peccadillo, Clinton was a good President.
I just can't see anyone can say that with a straight face. There is no way that you could turn a blind eye to the hundreds of scandals, violations, questionable practices, indictments, tamperings etc. How about the issue with Mena, all of the issues Bill Clinton caused with his China crap, WaterGate, the list of dead witnesses against Clinton, Bloodgate, illegal phone calls for donations from the Whitehouse, the email issues at the Whitehouse, illegal contributions galore, missing document after missing document, more dead witnesses, Clinton blackmailing people, the whole Johnny Chung thing, James McDougal's convenient death, Mary Mahoney's convenient murder, the entire Vince Foster murder (no blood at the scene where he supposedly committed suicide), Paul Tulley's convenient death, Kathy Ferguson's murder (suicide by a shotgun blast to the back of the head), Suzanne Coleman's murder (yet another convenient suicide by shotgun blast to the back of the head), Paul Wilcher's convenient death in a toilet after he began prosecuting Clinton for the Mena drug dealings, Ron Brown's convenient death as he was cooperating with prosecutors (supposedly died in plane crash but had bullet hole in his head), Ed Willey's convenient death when his wife came forth about Clinton, Bill Shelton's convenient homicide when he was filing motions to re-examine the 'suicide' ruling of his fiancee Kathy Ferguson (again, how to you commit suicide with a shotgun and shoot yourself in the back of the head), Florence Martin's homicide when she came up with critical evidence about the Mena drug dealings of Clinton, Charles Meissner's convenient death in an accident when he reported that he didn't want to take the blame for giving John Huang special clearance, Kevin Ives & Don Henry's very suspicious death on some train tracks when they reported information about the Mena drug scandal (not to mention the 6 people who then died when they came forth with information proving that Kevin Ives and Don Henry's death was no accident - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck July, 1988. Keith McMaskle - Died of 113 stabbed wounds, November 1988. Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989. Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. James Milan - Found decapitated. Coroner ruled death due to natural causes. Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990. Richard Winters - Was a suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. Was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.), the list of Clinton's bodyguards who died when they became uncooperative which includes; Major William S. Barkley Jr., Captain Scott J. Reynolds, Sgt. Brian Hanley, Sgt. Tim Sabel,
Major General William Robertson, Col. William Densberger, Col. Robert Kelly, Spec. Gary Rhodes, Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Conway LeBleu, Todd McKeehan, the web porn scandal at the Whitehouse, Clinton's HUGE travel expenditures, etc., etc., etc.

The list goes on and on and on and on. There is not enough time in several years to type out all of the problems with Bill Clinton. The list for Hillary is not much shorter. Are you going to tell me that you are going to categorically dismiss all of these problems, dead bodies, and impeachment of a sitting president as just being a "personal peccadillo"? There is no president in our history with the problems that are associated with Bill Clinton. He is a criminal and a terrible president!
 
I also live in Eastern MA - in Chelmsford - which is right next to Westford. I have lived in the area my whole life and have seen the effects of a Democratic party monopoly and don't like it. I still think that Billy Bulger helped out his gangster brother Whitey and knows where he is hiding. The Democratic stranglehold on politics in MA pretty much centers around Boston and it's surrounding towns though. MA used to have that law on the books where you had to leave your house thru the backdoor if somebody intending on doing you harm or robbing your possesions was intent on coming in. There was no fighting back - when Weld got elected he at least got that changed. I went to a MA state university and to this day I remain pissed off at the way that MassPIRG manipulated the political process with the help of Democratic politicians to put a fee on every state college student's bill - with the option of "opting out" of paying the fee - instead of having it as a line item that you can "opt in" to paying if want to. This was deception pure and simple and back in the early 90's when it was put to a vote statewide as a referendum question they worded the question so obtusely that myself - as well as many others who thought that they were voting AGAINST keeping the fee on the tuition bills - ended up voting to keep it on.

Frankly I have lost track of all of little ways that a Democratic laden goverment in this state has picked away at citizens rights in this state. The problem with Massachusetts is that the state goverment and Boston are so intertwined that it boils down to the state govt. doing what is best for Boston - and the rest of the state has to go along. Past Rte 495 you find that attitudes of the residents change and they get a lot more conservative than they do closer in towards Boston. Western MA is a lot closer in political attitudes to NH or VT.

I recently saw a map of how the voting went in the last presidential election - it was broken down by county into red or blue. It was very interesting that pretty much all of MA, NH, VT and ME were blue - with the exception of the counties just along the MA line from the Nashua area going over to the seacoast. My personal suspicion - although I can't prove it - is that this is from all of the MA residents who have moved over the border to NH to get away from MA liberal politics. I have never seen a study done - but I know a lot of people personally - who have left MA and moved to NH because of combination of politics, housing prices, and taxes. I currently work in NH and probably a good 3/4 of the employees live in NH with the rest coming from MA. I have not heard one of my co-workers even come close to bitching about NH the way I hear my MA resident co-workers bitch about MA, and probably a good 1/3 of the NH coworkers are ex MA residents.

Where are all the people going when they leave MA ? - my bet is a pretty high percentage of them are going to NH.
 
Jdwilson44, I fully agree with your post about the People's Republic of Massachusetts. I would like to correct one thing ( no offense) The law making it a crime to confront a criminal breaking into your home Was put in under Democratic Gov. Michael S. Dukakis and repealed by Republican Gov. Edward King. Republican Gov. William Weld removed the fee to register your auto, to give the motorist a break but it was put back in and raised as soon as he left office.
 
RoadKing said:
Jdwilson44, I fully agree with your post about the People's Republic of Massachusetts. I would like to correct one thing ( no offense) The law making it a crime to confront a criminal breaking into your home Was put in under Democratic Gov. Michael S. Dukakis and repealed by Republican Gov. Edward King. Republican Gov. William Weld removed the fee to register your auto, to give the motorist a break but it was put back in and raised as soon as he left office.

Thanks for the correction - for some reason I thought it was Weld who removed the run out your back door law. I just read online that Weld is running for governor of New York State as a Libertarian - just hit the news wires on April 21. Very interesting to see what will happen politically if he actually wins as a Libertarian. History shows that being a governor of a state is more indicative of being a future US president than being a US senator. Don't know if Weld has that aspiration but just getting a Libertarian in as a governor would be a big step - I don't think there has been any governors from any party other than Democrat or Republican.
 
Don, Here's my opinion of the government and politics in general. I wish they would all die from a heart attack. I know it sounds mean. But I have really had enough of their bullshit to last a lifetime. It is a constant battle of bullshit and fighting between them. So if they all die, we can start anew. Maybe then we can get the illegals out of the US. Maybe then we can get a handle on welfare. Maybe then we can correct all the wrongs of the last 30 years that has put this country into a position of being the next 3rd world country. Maybe then we can start to rebuild america by bringing companies back into the US. Maybe then we can tell other countries that they are no longer allowed to own US companies. Yeah, I know, it will never happen. But I must ask you this. Why is it in my Democratic twisted state where most of the politicians are elected Democrats, that this state seems to always elect a Republican Governor? Is it because they don't trust the elected officials that they have put in power and need a balance somewhere?
 
jd and RoadKing, my place was on the road that went from Westford center North across Rt. 40 and on into NH, towards Nashua. It was variously called Depot St or Tyngsboro Rd; the specific section we were on was known as Tyngsboro Rd., but I see the maps are now calling it Depot St. all the way to Rt 40 and Tyngsboro Rd on the other side of 40.

Many, many years ago, there was an interurban streetcar line that ran from Westford to Littleton, roughly parallel to Rt. 40, but in a straighter line. That line ran across the North side of Wabnasset Lake, through a granite quarry, across Tyngsboro Rd, and on to the West. That line had an easement through the North edge of our property. At the time, it was seldom used but my understanding is that after we moved, it became a formal hiking and bicycle trail. Looking at my DeLorme Street address today, it looks like there is a street called Meyler Way in the vicinity of our property. The property behind ours, to the East, was a granite quarry at the time. It looks like it has also been developed into streets, now.

Our house was similar to the lake-front cottages. When we bought it, it was a 2 bedroom, 1 bath house. It had originally been built as a summer camp with a living room that also served as a bedroom, a tiny kitchen and dining area and a bath. They later added 2 bedrooms and a screen porch. I converted the screen porch to a finished laundry room and darkroom. The exterior was cedar shingles. The living room was comfortable with a fireplace and built-in bookshelves. The kitchen was so tiny, one could stand in the center, turn in a circle with arms outstretched, and touch every appliance or wall.

The original house had been constructed on a stone foundation over a basement formed by blasting. The owner used rough-cut 6x6 beams as floor joists. The bedroom addition was constructed on a concrete block foundation over a crawl space. This time, they used 2x12's for the floor joists. Rather than make the new foundation a little lower, or notching the 2x12's, they simply made the new section of the house 6" higher than the old section. There was a step up into the bedrooms; the ridge line of the roof was 6" higher, and all of the windows were 6" higher when viewed from the outside!

The property had been owned by an older couple from Arlington who built it as a summer camp. When they retired, they moved into it full time, then the husband passed away. His widow apparently couldn't handle the grief and "tipped" a bit too often. Her attorney was the Father of one of my wife's college friends. He decided to place her in long term care, and called us to see if we were interested in the property. In 1968, we purchased the cottage, 9 acres of ground and a detached garage for $19,000.

Four years later, both of our children had been born, I had finally graduated from college (night school at Boston U, I was 31 years old), I was looking for another job, and we had outgrown the little cottage. Our plan was to break off the cottage and 2 acres, break up the remaining property into 3 more lots (Westford had minimum size snob zoning), sell 2 and build our new house on the final one. But, in 1972, that was by no means a fast, viable plan. Betsy's parent's lived in Florida, we were terrified of the taxes we'd pay on a new house, and we had a real problem with the weather. We decided to sell and move to Florida.

We sold to a speculator who lucked out on the timing; he held the property for a couple of years and fell right into the boom when Wang came to Chelmsford in 1974. If we could have held out that long, we would have been financially set for a long time to come. We sold for $27,000; we were pleased that we made almost 50% on our investment in just 4 years.

We went back only once; somewhere around 1986, when the kids were old enough to be interested. We drove up and down the road a couple of times. Finally, we located our old house because the garage was still out near the road. There was a 2-story, Tudor style house in the space. We discovered our old neighbor was still across the street and talked to her; she told us our cottage was still there, somewhere in the heart of the mansion, because it was easier to claim it as a remodel than tear down the old and build the new.

We have no regrets. Life in Florida has been great. The extra money would have been a big help in earlier years, but we're OK, now, after working extraordinarily hard and being very frugal. We now own 5 acres in a good area of Okeechobee County and are finally able to do some of the landscaping, grooming and such that we couldn't afford to do in Westford. And, it doesn't get as cold!
 
RoadKing said:
OkeeDon, Again I can speak with some experience, I have lived in Massachusetts my entire life (57yrs) I was a third generation Democrat until I swiched to Unenrolled ( independent). This state has been and is still run totally by democrats for as long as I can remember. We have had a run of Republican governors but the way the state goverment is set up the he is only able to do what the Dem. legislature lets him. Two Democratic senators, not one Republican congressman, an overwhelmingly Democratically controlled state legislature. I don't ask that you believe anything I say. All I ask is you read this article which was the front page lead story in this mornings Lowell Sun. Lowell is Massachusetts 4th largest city, pop.100000+, and a one bedroom condo will cost you $250,000+ there are no republicans in the city goverment that I know of and have not been for many years. The story is about the state losing more population than any other state. What is hapenning here is only the rich and the poor who don't work are able to survive here.The working middle class is being forced out. I have four grown children only one is still here, the others have moved to other states so they could have a chance to live the American Dream. If I could afford to move I'd be with them. The state of MA is proof that "progressive" Democratic control is not the answer either.

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3741974


Amen to that from another Assachusett resident.
 
Dargo said:
I just can't see anyone can say that with a straight face. There is no way that you could turn a blind eye to the hundreds of scandals, violations, questionable practices, indictments, tamperings etc...[snip]...There is no president in our history with the problems that are associated with Bill Clinton. He is a criminal and a terrible president!
You just recited the entire litany of lies, rumors and false accusations foisted upon the American public by people who were terrified to admit that Clinton was doing a better job than they could. Since they couldn't outgovern, they had to try to destroy.

Fortunately, the majority of America is smart enough and has open eyes to see that litany for what it is. Obviously, you cannot. You may be surprised how I feel about that -- what I feel is pity. It makes me sad that such an otherwise intelligent man can be so gullible.

"There is no Presdent in history..." My God, man, have you never heard of Nixon? LBJ was far worse. Virtually every President has had scandals and such during their administration, did you ever study Teapot Dome or the Vicuna Coat scandals? What about ITT? Even Reagan was more directly guilty during the Iran Contra scandals; however he was called the "Teflon President" because the charges wouldn't stick. He still had to pardon one of his cabinet members.

Considering 98% of what you mentioned is an outright lie, I would have to say that with the single exception of the so-called sex scandal, Clinton had the cleanest record of any president in the 20th century. And, that sex scandal was over something that men in power have been guilty of for as long as time has existed. Up until the right-wing conspiracy, every other leader had been given a "pass" over items that did not affect national policy. Someday, the Republicans may come to regret they went that far.

For every single thing you can claim, falsely, that can be attributed to Clinton, I can come up 2ith 50 things that have been proven to be attached to Republicans. The GOP is the party of scandal and dirty tricks.

This is a waste of time. You are blind and have been bullshitted, and you will never believe me. I'm sorry for your sake.
 
OkeeDon said:
As far as the median price of houses is concerned, your article surprised me -- the median prices of houses is higher in rural Okeechobee, Florida than you cited. Here in Port St. Lucie, the median price is approaching $300K, and it's well over $400K further south.

Don,

He didn't say house, he said "a one bedroom condo"
 
bczoom said:
Don,

He didn't say house, he said "a one bedroom condo"
Oops. Well, same thing -- most one bedroom condos down here are as much, or more, than a similarly sized house. Of course, the house doesn't come with a golf course and clubhouse...
 
I just read something online yesterday about William Weld - ex governor of MA and now running for governor of New York state. Apparently he is seeking to run as a Libertarian for governor - and I read something else that showed Weld as being ahead of the other candidates in the polls - obviously still way to early to tell but it looks like Weld is up to something. I liked him when he was governor of MA - getting elected as a Libertarian in NY would have some interesting political consequences nationwide.

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/bill_weld/

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/04/11/bill-weld-as-a-libertarian-party-candidate-in-new-york/
 
bczoom said:
Don,

He didn't say house, he said "a one bedroom condo"

I know a couple of people that own some of those $250,000 one bedroom condos. They were built in the old Mill buildings that Lowell is full of. Nice little places if you are single or a couple. A 2 bedroom 2 bathroom condo in Chelmsford (next town over from Lowell) is going for around $300,000 - $350,000 depending on location. A 1/2 acre of land in Chelmsford is going for around $200,000 - a ranch style house on 1/2 acre might fetch you about $350,000 depending on condition.
 
While we are on the topic of bumber stickers, my favorite was

"One more whore and we get Gore".

I usually stay out of political discussions because my feeling is that we should have term limits to periodically clean house and start with fresh new faces and ideas. Keeping the same old buffoons around is not healthy for this country.
 
Top