Matt W

It is legal for the mosque to be built in its current location two blocks from ground zero. This is not part of the debate except for a few hate blinded bigots. Given that it is legal and CAN be done, SHOULD it be done? This is the real question and anyone blaming Conservatives for ignoring the Constitution, or blaming Liberals for favoring terrorists over Americans is just posturing.

So, should it be built?

What if the mosque were to be dedicated to the memory of those who had perished at the hands of their radical brethren? What if the mosque was dedicated to a nonviolent Islam? What if the congregation repudiated the actions and religious doctrine of the 9-11 conspirators?

Would the mosque then be okay?

Many are making the point that the NAACP didn't call the TEA Party racist but merely said that the TEA Party should repudiate those who are. By making this a specific request to the TEA Party and not saying all organizations should do that (which I could support) they are suggesting that some organizations DON'T have to repudiate their racist elements. Which are those?

When is equal justice under the law not social justice?

If what we want is to find a better way to make sure that people who want insurance can get it, why is it necessary to have such a Byzantine piece of legislation and such a terrible political mess? Please don't blame Republicans, they couldn't have stopped it and still can't. It would seem to me that the $940 billion in revenues would provide for a montly premium support of over $380 per month per individual covered for the 6+ years that they will get coverage. Obviously not everyone will need that much and some will need more but that would seem to be a much easier way to get to the same place.

There are probably a million different ways to do this. Why do we have to accept this mess and the backroom deals as the best we can do? What about this is so much better than the other options?

After all, it would have been based on work that has been proven to be lies and incorrect. Gore would have been working on the side of those whose agenda trumped the truth. Under what circumstances can the prize be revoked?

The unions and federal employees are exempt from the provisions of the House Bill (read it - collective bargaining health plans are exempt, federal employees are considered exempt). At the town halls, even those stage managed by the Democrats, the vocal crowds are all wearing their purple shirts or identify themselves as governmental employees. Where are those people who are going to be under this reform plan who are in support.

If the only people who do support it aren't going to be in it, why would you trust it?

Obviously there are people who are both for and against the Obama Presidency here. I am interested in what he has done so far that is exciting or positive to his supporters. I personally do not see that much that he has done and many of the things that I see as negative I am sure that others may see as positive. I'd like to be as open minded as possible so I want to hear (see?) what is so darn great about this guy and his administration.

I'm a conservative but I find this preoccupation with Limbaugh a sideshow. I think that the economy and our administration's inability to create any confidence in the markets to be a bigger issue than something an entertainer said on a radio show.

Do you find this to be just a bit of a distraction?

I did it. I single handedly borrowed enough money to imperil the mortgage markets and then defaulted on my loans. Now that we know who is to blame for the economic meltdown can we stop pointing fingers at each other and dig ourselves out?

I've been married for a long time. I believe in my wife's mind even the Big Bang was my fault, so taking the blame for something as trivial as the economic problems in the world today is no biggie. Now that we've got our scapegoat let's fix the darn thing.

In the current political climate a lot of attention is given to trying to figure out whose fault the economic meltdown is. If we took all the effort that is going into blaming the other guy and used it instead to focus on how to fix this mess, wouldn't we be better off? I really don't see how any of this helps. We know what the mistakes are, don't we?

All the talk about Obama going to Denver to sign the stimulus (the fuel cost for him and the media who will cover the event to travel to Denver being counterproductive to the point about global warming and alternative fuel that he is trying to make) got me thinking. I visited Mexico City years ago and the highway out of town climbs to nearly the tallest spot in the surrounding mountains, despite clear, lower alternatives. When I asked my guide why they build over the peak rather than through the pass he said "It shows the glory of our government and the Mexican people. Going through the pass is easy. We needed all who come here to see what our people are capable of."

So with socialism we will spend countless dollars in suboptimal ways to prove that we can? I'm not up for that, are you?

It seems as though lawyers are judged based on how often they win, while justice is based on how often the system generates the right answer. Are these two items at odds? I think so, how do we ensure justice if winning is all-important?

I keep hearing about how Obama won a landslide victory so I went back and looked at the popular vote counts and found the following:

2008 - Obama 52% - McCain 48%

2004 - Bush 52% - Kerry 48%

2000 - Gore 50% - Bush 50%

1996 - Clinton 50% - Dole 42%

1992 - Clinton 43% - Bush 38%

1988 - Bush 53% - Dukakis 46%

1984 - Reagan 59% - Mondale 41%

1980 - Reagan 51% - Carter 41%

1976 - Carter 50% - Ford 48%

I guess Bush had a landslide over Kerry, Clinton over both Dole and Bush (1), Bush over Dukakis, and Reagan over both Mondale and Carter. In fact, if Obama's victory is a landslide then only the 2000 and 1976 elections weren't landslides.

Isn't a more reasonable read on the election that, as in most years the election was close and the final electoral college numbers amplified the popular election results?

Source: The History Channel

Guess we will know soon. All the Democrats have been missing for the last two years was the Executive Branch.

The networks made a big deal of the fact that there are no Republican members of the new House of Representatives from New England. I thought one party democracies were inferior to those that show diversity. I guess that's true unless you root for the Red Sox.

I know that Mondale was pathetic, McGovern was too ethereal and GHW Bush's run for his second term was weak but I can't imagine a more poorly conceived and run campaign than McCain's. There doesn't seem to be a vision, just a series of poorly thought through tactical decisions.

I am depressed to watch the elections. It seems as though there is no willingness amongst candidates for any position to try to lead the country or identify issues that must be dealt with and specifics about how to deal with them. We have plenty of "gotcha" moments but very few concrete ideas. "Change", "reaching across the aisle" but no specifics and no leadership. Campaigns have become experts at figuring out what we want to hear to the exclusion of what we need to hear.

I hated Mondale and the policies he represented but he had the courage of his position to say exactly what he thought needed to happen and why. I will always respect him for that. Now that moment is seen as a gaffe of major proportions, he should have hidden his belief that taxes needed to increase so that he could WIN and then raise taxes.

I am an adult and I want to be treated like one. Tell me the truth and let me decide.

How do you feel about this?

From everything I have seen on YA and all of the Internet polls, and all of the funds collected reports, Ron Paul should be running away from the pack. I guess he just didn't have the organization in Iowa or New Hampshire. I am interested in when this juggernaut is going to start showing. Does anyone have any thoughts?

Seriously, whether you like him or not I find it stifling to have to see 50-60% of the questions in here about Ron Paul. It has definitely caused me to slow my use of YA dramatically. Have you had the same reaction?

It will be interesting to see the Paul supporters on this.