Free Republic

The owner can refuse service to anyone, I guess. Likewise, patrons choose where to spend their money. Some who have not taken a vow of poverty may read about John Langley's notion of civility and community and decide on a permanent alternative business to patronize.

I doubt that the subset of people who feel the same about the police could sustain his business, but then again, I've been away from the social & urban decay of Portland for over a decade. Things could have gone so far south that Mr. Langley was pandering in a populist way to his patrons who are loyal devotees to anarchy.

We've reached a critical mass of give-me-ists and give-em-ists, or folks willing to try the full Monte liberal big government solution to everything. In the next four years, America will become more dependent on government, securing conservative proof majorities far into the future.

There remains no real barriers to the lefts socialist agendas. I believe that the barriers to economic achievement will now be much more difficult and more numerous. There is no question that we'll get far less achievement and less revenue.

I worry about the social unrest that will result in four years after the poor realizes that they are worse off than before BHO took office. I suppose the liberal media will find a way to pin the upcoming economic hardships on achievers, employers, capitalists, and conservatives.

Carbon cap and trade, higher taxes, higher energy prices, inflation, more draconian environmental regulations, liberal activist judges, a wish list of social engineering experiments, the fairness doctrine, a loss of national security, A NEW DOMESTIC MILLITARY . . ..

I spoke with the Governor's Office about Obama’s birth records yesterday, 10/31/08. The spokeswoman spoke at length about the state's constitutional privacy protections and the fact their Health Department Head has verified that they have seen the record and have verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Governor's role was to direct the department to follow Hawaii's constitutional law.

My question to the Governor's aid was simple and unanswered. If those verifying the record are willing to lie for Obama, who has oversight? Her answer or lack of an answer spoke volumes. Apparently Hawaii's law places the expectation of perfection and infallibility on those heading up the Health Department. If they are willing to lie or accept a simple forgery, no one seems to have any recourse. This includes the people of the United States.

Certainly, there has never been a birth record with so much hinging on its authenticity. The Director of the Department of Health, Chiyome L. Fukino, MD, is supposedly the only person who can legally verify the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

In my opinion, that's too much power for one unelected person to hold. What if she has been compelled to lie for Obama? What if she is prone to accept a simple forgery without any critical analysis?

I believe Obama’s recent visit to Hawaii had a couple of purposes which included shoring up any potential cracks in a very big stone wall. There is, of course, a chance that Obama was born in Hawaii. There may be other undiscovered reasons that Obama wants his birth records sealed. In any event, the U.S. citizens have a right to know if a candidate for President is qualified to serve under the constitution.

Republicans are part of and promote the great swindle just like the dems.

The only people standing in opposition to this madness are conservative Republicans and honest scientists. The rest fall into two categories. Some are too indifferent to care about how the proposed remedies will affect our economy. The rest are too simple minded to question the hysterical CO2/falling sky lie.

I have had it up to here ` with so called Republicans paying homage to the great swindle of human caused global warming.

We need not allow them to restructure our economy around the false premise that we can control the world’s climate with shared sacrifices, vast quantities of tax money, and more expensive energy.

Denial permits anything. It allows you to seem sane when needed, while denying any information in conflict with a irrational belief system. This is why debates with liberals are so disjointed; they have an constant need to change the subject to avoid agreeing with you.

Most here get it.

Hopefully some dumbercrats will happen by long enough to read the points of Dr. Rossiter. I thought the piece was brilliant enough to post in land where people would appreciate it.

Wondeirng how Hillary and Obama graded themselves.

The simple lessons we need to share with all liberals are that there is hope, that things are not as bad as the main stream media would have them believe, and that liberalism is disastrous and unsustainable both personally and for our nation as a whole.

A lot of mental sickness is actually Demon possession.

I'd agree that mental illness is caused by a number of factors including: drug abuse, poor life choices, irrational expectations and coping strategies, flirtation with the dark side of the moral spectrum, (i.e. folks that practice and believe in the occult), faith in nothing beyond themselves, (i.e. atheists, agnostics), etc.

I'd guess that the vast majority of mentally ill folks followed a very flawed yellow brick road. It's probably a small minority of the mentally ill that are seriously ill in spite of good life choices and a "normal" environment.

For those who are politically crazy, changing your political affiliation is simple and easy. Check the right box anytime you choose. You'll still have irrational thoughts and impulses from time to time. A little talk radio, Fox News, and an honest days work will have you mentally fit in no time. :-)

"Mummy and Daddy pals with pockets full of treasure and candy to treat them from cradle to grave."

This is exactly how liberals see government. The brighter ones may know that not everyone can get from government what they ask, but they will have theirs no matter the consequences or the cost to anyone else. They believe that they are entitled to it simply because they have needs; democrats constantly reinforce that fairytale. Virtually gone are any concept of personal responsibility.

I'd agree that treatment should be available for the seriously mentally ill. It would be nice if the state would take on the task of treating the seriously mentally ill without opening the collective insurance door to all liberally minded and the slightly moody or blue.

My point is that once the door is forced open to insurance benefits, each mental ailment is just a simple lobbying effort away from being paid for by people who choose a healthy, well balanced lifestyle, outlook, attitude, etc.

38% seems way too high. -Wb

You forget, they are all helpless victims. Only big government can step in and save them from their imagined foes. To liberals, government is the answer to everything.

The dangers of an imagined dependancy on government are that an irrational majority will grasp for an even BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

It will bring this great country to its knees to have a mentally ill liberal as President.

All of you who associate with a liberal or two; get them on the road to health. Pass this article to them.

Adding mental benefits will, over time balloon costs out of control because the science of mental illness is entire subjective. If the patient claims they feel a certain way, well it must be covered.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57683

Isn't it wonderful when someone confirms in research what you have known for years? I suppose this research will mean that liberals will start claiming some sort of mental disability and demand a benefit of sorts for their shortcomings.

I just want the most conservative guy we can get. Franky, it is not McCain or anyone else who’s great, but not in the fight.

You want to start another party? definition of the term: "seminar poster"

I don't doubt your conservative credentials, but does dividing the conservative party into smaller pieces seem reasonable just because a few RINOs fail to live up to our platform?

The only way your proposal would have any chance of success would be if the libs (i.e. the mentally ill) undertake a simultaneous symmetrical split of the liberal wing without dipping into our base of voters.

I watched the CNN Reagan Library debate with an open mind, took notes, rated their responses and at one point, in a fit of rage, scratched "F___ NO!" across the McCain column.

We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his service to our country, but he's unfit to serve as President.

He has open contempt for business and capitalism in general.

He doesn't seem to understand economic issues at all.

He's proud of Justice O'Connor and made a point of not mentioning Justices Scalia or Thomas in the list of models for his nomination.

He openly and forcefully keeps repeating a lie about Romney's time table quote in a way that is simply not supportable by the facts or an objective mind.

He would, like Al Gore, attempt to cool the planet with your money! (for those of you who don't know, CO2 follows warming and is not a major contributor to global warming. The sun is the cause of cyclical warming.

Mitt Romney is by far the most conservative candidate and the candidate closest to Ronald Reagan in temperament, background and philosophy. He is also the most qualified.

Hackabee is almost conservative and a really nice guy, but at this point he's pealing off the conservatives Mitt needs to beat McCain. If he stays in the race through Tuesday's primaries, he could hand us the most liberal and unstable Republican candidate in memory.

I am one republican member of the conservative base that will have a very tough time putting his name in my yard or on my bumper. I would, of course, be forced to vote for him in the general if he wins the primary.

We can't change the past. Pick the most conservative guy remaining.

And for God's sake, we've got to find a way to keep the middle from sliding farther to the left with each passing election!