They have the right to speak as individuals. There is no limit on their speech.

And your spin - the Republican Party "is composed of people who have no problem selling their souls in order to achieve their "values". " or the Democrat Party is "composed of a mass of people unwilling to use the power they have if it costs them their "values". And the TEA Party Movement is "really a number of small factions fighting to be the top dog - making all the rest give up their independence to the "greater good".

You actually have no idea, or if you do you are unwilling to admit, what we are actually about and who we are. We are the independent voters that show up in most polls that vote for both democans and republicrats. We actually choose who we vote for by the candidate not the party. We are the 40% in the middle that actually elect the candidates. You progressives/far left Democrats compose 30% of the electorate that votes as a block; and the Big Tent Republicans that try to Unite all the people compose another 30% that vote as a block. Neither party can elect a candidate without us. The Democrats have identified themselves as progressives by trying to institute a progressive/socialist agenda and those in the middle are not going along as evidenced by the recent elections in VA, NJ, and MA. And NJ and MA have been solidly Democratic strongholds in the past. The Republicans are getting the message from NY-23 and Charley Christ in FL and are beginning to recruit fresh faces instead of the the same old RINO's. The present incarnation of the Democratic Party seems to be ignoring what we are telling them and going full steam ahead with their agenda of socialization.

Call this spin if you want, but it explains what is happening to a T. It doesn't try to portray anyone as lacking morals or having morals they are unwilling to compromise. As I have stated before, with few exceptions, most (from both parties) in congress will compromise their morals for anything that benefits themselves. That is the main problem and both Parties are to blame.

If you listen to whats being said BY the TEA party movement, not whats said ABOUT the TEA party movement, you will find that that is what its all about.

No, By caucusing with the Dems they are declaring that they are Moderate Democrats. Joe Lieberman was a moderate democrat that the Dems tried to purge and found that his constituents were not as far to the left as they thought. Joe has been Independent since the Dems tried to purge him in 2006. Specter was a RINO and needed to finally declare himself for what he was - A Democrat. And the Dems are trying to purge him this election cycle as he is not left enough. Just two examples of the Dems purging the party.

There is a common thread that runs through all of Congress. With a few exceptions I think the generalization that they ALL 'lust for power' and will 'do anything to gain it' applies.

And this argument about Liberman and Specter is all you have a problem with about my post. The truth really does hurt so thumb away.

I would like to see something passed at the Federal level mandating that ALL government meetings be open to the people. It really would not be that expensive to meet the requirement as web cams could be installed in the meeting rooms and the feed be accessible to the public. It would require that they schedule and publish that schedule, say 72 hrs before the meeting. Just a thought.

I know that I am fixing to step into a pile of s**t here but, in the beginning of our country Corporations/Big Business were prevented from supporting candidates or getting involved in politics as it was not the purpose for which they were founded. This is supported by the SC in a decision in 1819, Dartmouth College Trustees v Woodworth. Justice Marshall (a founder) wrote: "By these means (a corporation), a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object, like one immortal being. But this being does not share in the civil government of the country, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character, than immortality would confer such power or character on a natural person". "Unless that be the purpose for which it was created" is the most important part of this statement, It allows PAC's and limits UNIONS and Corporations. the sole purpose of a PAC is political speech. A unions sole purpose is unionization not political speech, they (corporations/unions) can start PAC's but not contribute to them, that is for the individual not Corporations.

Do the unions and businesses have enough access to the political system through the lobbyists? I'm sorry but the large amounts of money that these organizations (businesses and unions) inject into the political election process drown out the voices of the people. I will agree that this bill does not seem to address the differentiation between businesses and unions but it could be changed to apply to all except PACs, or those groups that actually get their money from individuals not corporations or unions.

I see that you would like to see more trolls, or wish that someone would argue with you. Which is it?

I do not think that the average IRS auditor carries guns but the investigative part of the IRS does.

Yes sir, That's what I'm talking about. Worked with them. I was surprised every time I ran across a new agency on the road.

Rage - Read about this lawsuit that just might land Gietner in Jail for his handling of the AIG bailout.

http://www.davidyerushalmi.com/Federal-court-rule...