ROFL

My cool friends familiar with txt-speak say ROFL means "Roll on Floor Laughing".

Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.

Comments

OK....I admit it...that was hilarious



Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Well, she sure as hell won't vote Republican

You can pretty much take that one to the bank. :)



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I spent three amazing weeks this summer in a country

where Party loyalty trumps everything.

That country was China.

It was unsettling enough that I returned committed to make a difference in our country. Hopefully folks can begin to act on principle, putting petty, "pragmatic", partisan politics aside.

I have three children, and my wife and I are fully committed to rescuing their future.

BJ

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

I don't doubt that at all

Unfortunately after what George Bush has done to this country it will be a long time before I trust anyone with an R after their name.

Heh....and I'm married to a Republican.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

W is not a real Republican

The thing is, George W. isn't a real Republican (as in, following the platform). Republicans are for limited government and a conservative foreign policy, neither of which W or the neocons go for.

It's more like the Republican Party has been hijacked by a reckless group than that all Republicans are bad.

Old-style Republicans (Reagan, Goldwater, Mr. Republican Robert Taft) would be horrified at both the neoconservative wing and the Christian right wing of the Republican Party today. Reagan wanted to get rid of the "bureaucratic boondoggle" of the federal Dept. of Education, Bush has doubled the size of it and enacted No Child Left Behind.

That's a convenient out

Find a Republican who is a complete and utter failure (which describes about 80% of them in my book) and claim he/she isn't a real Republican. Niiiiice.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Exactly.

Even with all the disappointment with Jim Black, and others like Thomas Wright, I haven't seen anyone here claiming they weren't "real democrats". We were just pissed at what they did.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Yeah, 'cept that

old style R's are registering I/U and Dem left and right. Practically the only people left in the R party these days are 1) Free-market nuts who still think "trickle down" economics is something other than disastrous for most Americans, 2) Religious-market nuts who think God commands them to force their beliefs on others by any means necessary, including re-writing the US Constitution.

I think we see the result of these two horrifying philosophies in the current field of R candidates -- including Ron Paul. I mean looking at that line up and listening to them in a debate is kind of like opening a box of chocolates and finding that someone has sucked all the candy coating off all the nuts.

I choose to be inspired.

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Best line I've read on BlueNC in a long time.

I mean looking at that line up and listening to them in a debate is kind of like opening a box of chocolates and finding that someone has sucked all the candy coating off all the nuts.

You've been away for a bit - glad to see you back!

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

ugh. I have.

Another job change at work and my last child at home making a college decision. Don't know if I'm actually ready for an empty nest. ::::heavy sigh:::: I have a feeling I'm going to turn into a workaholic. Hate coming home to an empty house. It just shows to go ya ... it's always something ...

I choose to be inspired.

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Reagan also spent us into debt that we're still paying for

Reagan cannot be included in the "good Republican" category. That is reserved for Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower. All of whom might have had their faults, but they understood that there was a purpose to government that did not involve drowning it in a bathtub.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

:) I would vote Republican .....IF

I were ever convinced that they had something worth voting for. I haven't ever been.

I, too, am committed to "rescuing (their) future" - your children's, my child's, everyone else's child as well. I think we see different ways of doing it - but that's ok, because, this isn't China.

. . .and no one said anything about party loyalty. Betsy just knows that the chances of me voting for a Republican are about as slim as well....shall I say Satan joining the Ice Capades! :-D

I come at things from an entirely different perspective than you do, Mr. Lawson, and would never demand party loyalty from anyone, anywhere. I've only voted Republican once in my life, and it was a huge mistake. I was sorry almost immediately. The man turned out to be a serial liar. I learned a lot about paying attention to my gut feeling about someone at that point.

I am a Democrat because I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as I know them - they're articulated fairly well here at our county party site. To me, it matters that I'm a Democrat. It matters on a local level, it matters on a districct, it matters on a state level, and it matters on a national level. But I wouldn't demand loyalty from anyone who isn't comfortable being that or saying that - and I'm comfortable knowing that there are a wide range of values encompassed by the Democratic Party. We can all disagree about a particular issue or candidate, and I still feel comfortable saying "so and so is a Democrat." Sometimes I wonder about my counterparts in the Republican Party. I don't know if they feel the same way - perhaps they do.

I ever felt that my values didn't fit with the Democrats, I would leave and become Unaffiliated, or join another party in a heart beat. But for now, I'm right where I belong. :-D

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Libgirl's comment is what I mean.

Seems like there are a lot of people who are quick to point out that so and so is not a "real Republican". There's a lot of judgment going on over there on that side of the aisle. I don't see that happening here -- there's a lot more wiggle room for Democrats to be Democrats and disagree.

Also, telling me who is not a "real" Republican doesn't matter. Showing me a Republican platform that will espouse values that I can live with - that would include a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy full-term, the right of any adult to marry another adult regardless of gender, the right of all citizens to access to affordable health care, equality in education despite desparity in per capita income levels of diverse areas - then you might interest me in someone who claims to be a Republican. Oh - and that Republican would have to be willing to raise state revenues (taxes) in order to pay for essential programs. (Doesn't sound much like a Republican, does it?)

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

That's a lot of rights...

I'd just ask that folks consider candidates based upon a principled commitment to the rule of law, specifically the U.S. Constitution for federal office.

Just thinking in terms of the rule of law, we have a Constitution that should embody the philosophical principles of our Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states that we have unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

That philosophy is then implemented an (ideally) limited federal government, and the Bill or Rights.

Woman's right to choose? Sure, as long as it doesn't conflict with the unalienable right to life.

Right of any adult to marry another? Why does the federal government have any interest in marriage in the first place? Oh yeah, the income tax. But we need to get rid of that, and replace the IRS with a consumption tax so we can grow our economy again. If we do that, why should the federal government have any interest in marriage at all, and why can't states and localities act in a manner that fits the needs of their people, and respects the principle of self-governance?

Right of all citizens to access to affordable healthcare? Whoa. Lots of loaded words there. Define "affordable". Define "healthcare". Who decides what is affordable, and what qualifies as healthcare? Is it you? Then you are rationing my healthcare. That stinks. Is it all you can eat, as much as you want, no-holds-barred healthcare? If so, how long will the lines and waiting lists be for this amazing free healthcare? Unlimited wants + limited means => Big challenges. Please explain how we address this quandry, and I'll happily go back to being a doctor again!

Equality in education despite desparity in per capita income levels of diverse areas? Absolutely something to which we should aspire at the local level, and state level. But Washington can't help us here -- they just siphon money out of our pockets that we could better deploy ourselves locally. We're NOT getting ahead when David Price "brings home the bacon" -- why did that money leave the state in the first place?

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/01/17/celebrating-blue-ribbon-mentor-advocate/

We need more Graig Meyers, and fewer bureaucrats and lobbyists at the trough in Washington!

Raising state revenues (taxes) in order to pay for essential programs? Let's talk about LOCAL control, shall we? Our State government in Raleigh exercises WAY too much control over our counties and municipalities. Hence everyone complains about the corruption in Raleigh... well, power corrupts, and they've got too much of it. I humbly suggest that we need more responsive government, we need BETTER government --> Which means we need more LOCAL government.

Having said that, when we are sending less money to Washington, we will have more funds available for state and local issues. That seems like a worthwhile goal. The alternative is buying more martinis on K Street, which doesn't help our local schools, courts, parks, roads or even (gulp) civil liberties.

Just a thought...

BJ

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

A lot? It's 3.

That's not a lot.

But you've aptly illustrated the fundamental differences in our values, and pretty much described for me why I won't be becoming or voting for a Republican any time soon.

But it's ok.

Better government, I can agree with. More local control, I can agree with too. I just don't think that the feds are as much of a problem as you do - but maybe that's because I see the result of the funds they send on a much closer level every day as I work in programs that utilize them. (And the funds, though federal, are allocated by and administered by, the local agency that uses them.

It's been my experience that Republicans are not to be trusted with (gulp) civil liberties, no matter how good a game they talk, so on that one, you'll have to show me. Sorry.

Gay Marriage = IRS? Oh, come on, you know that's not the issue your fellow republicans have with it. If you were so concerned about (gulp) civil rights, the IRS issue with gay couples marrying wouldn't matter to you. You'd be more concerned about gay partners being able to visit dying spouses in their hospital rooms, being able to make medical and legal decisions for them, being able to inherit, being able to make after death decisions, etc. It's not really about the IRS. You ducked the issue. (gulp)

By the way - thanks for featuring Graig on your blog. He's a great guy, and does do phenomenal work. The children of NC are lucky to have him working on their behalf.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

I'm happy to "show you"

I just don't think that the feds are as much of a problem as you do - but maybe that's because I see the result of the funds they send on a much closer level every day as I work in programs that utilize them. (And the funds, though federal, are allocated by and administered by, the local agency that uses them.

Sorry, but where did the feds get that money again? It has three choices: take it from you, borrow it and create more debt for our children, or print it and make every dollar in your pocket worth less. We're doing a lot all of those, and it's killing our economy. How many palms had to be greased, and how many martinis were required, to bring those federal funds to your local agency? Why not just fund it ourselves?

It's been my experience that Republicans are not to be trusted with (gulp) civil liberties, no matter how good a game they talk, so on that one, you'll have to show me. Sorry.

I'm quite committed to civil liberties. I fully expect us to have access to the entire Bill of Rights as Americans. It's simply the rule of law.

Gay Marriage = IRS? Oh, come on, you know that's not the issue your fellow republicans have with it. If you were so concerned about (gulp) civil rights, the IRS issue with gay couples marrying wouldn't matter to you. You'd be more concerned about gay partners being able to visit dying spouses in their hospital rooms, being able to make medical and legal decisions for them, being able to inherit, being able to make after death decisions, etc. It's not really about the IRS. You ducked the issue.

Oh, I'm quite aware that's not the issue that some republicans have with it. But my point is that I object to the premise of the question. Why does the FEDERAL government have ANYTHING to do with MARRIAGE, or the living arrangements between adults in general? Doesn't make sense, not in the Constitution. Making medical or legal decisions? Sure, why not? Why does the federal government have any role in deciding who can make a medical or legal decision for another person who has suitable power of attorney or state-sanctioned legal relationship? If Massachusetts want to recognize same-sex marriage, good for them. If North Carolina does, or doesn't, that's for us to figure out. It's simply not a federal issue.

The medical example is perfect, and one I've seen myself. It's miserable that the government has something to say about decisions about who can help, and visit, a patient. Wouldn't it be great if people were free to make their own decisions, and these decisions could be between patients, loved ones, and caregivers who took the Hippocratic oath? I didn't mean to duck the issue, this is one area where I disagree with the GOP platform based upon the jurisdiction of government in general.

By the way - thanks for featuring Graig on your blog. He's a great guy, and does do phenomenal work. The children of NC are lucky to have him working on their behalf.

Indeed he is, and they are. I'm a social entrepreneur as much as I'm a software entrepreneur -- and it's great to see the market for good ideas reward his work!

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

But you didn't "show" me.

You just told me you'd like to. I could tell you I'd like to fly, but that doesn't mean I'm going to.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Equal Protection

Why does the FEDERAL government have ANYTHING to do with MARRIAGE, or the living arrangements between adults in general? Doesn't make sense, not in the Constitution. Making medical or legal decisions? Sure, why not? Why does the federal government have any role in deciding who can make a medical or legal decision for another person who has suitable power of attorney or state-sanctioned legal relationship? If Massachusetts want to recognize same-sex marriage, good for them. If North Carolina does, or doesn't, that's for us to figure out. It's simply not a federal issue.

There's something in the Constitution about equal protection under the law. There is also something in federal statutes about my marriage (I'm married to a man at the moment) that says my marriage is recognized in all 50 states. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm comforted to know that if we decide to go on a vacation somewhere else in this country, and something happens to one of us, the other one automatically has the right to make decisions for the one who is disabled. That's a federal law - and that's a good thing. I believe that should extend to all married couples, whether they are straight or gay. When my sister died, her partner lost all rights to even see the children she helped raise for 5 years. My niece and nephew lost 2 mothers that day, not 1. Don't play states' rights on this. It only divides where true (gulp) civil rights activists know that this must be done on the federal level so that there truly is equal protection under the law for all families. Any other argument, any other halfway measure, is just not good enough. In my opinion, of course.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

see canada.

My friends who live there are very healthy and happy.

See Ireland. My friends there are healthy and happy, too.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

That's because they're happy

allowing a government to make decisions about what care is provided, and how long they must wait to receive the care the government can afford to provide and thinks they need.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that for them, it's just a different philosophy than I'd choose. For some strange reason, I'd prefer to make those personal decisions myself, and help others around me to the best of my ability as well.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

I would prefer that too

But unless you are paying 100% of costs out of pocket then you are relying on someone who is not a doctor on when you will get care and when you wont. Right now you are just relying upon a company bureaucrat who has 1 concern and 1 concern only; profit and the rules of said company.

Personally, I would rather the choice of what type of care being made by a doctor, or be one of scheduling said doctor. Having that decision be made by someone who only cares about profit is even scarier than having a decision made by a government employee. Knowing some of the people who make those types of decisions now for people on disability or medicare, I would trust them before I would trust some low level employee of Blue Cross or Cigna.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Excellent... we're in complete agreement

Check this out:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/22/why-the-government-needs-to-leave-healthcare/

The title may seem extreme, but note the last sentence:

The system will not change overnight, and we can't suddenly eliminate the current "safety net" of government support, but we can take aggressive steps to move in a better direction.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

I dont think we do

There is one big problem with everything on your blog post. The assumption that people can actually afford what you would need them to for your statements to work. You say that insurance should stop covering things like routine checkups, because car insurance doesnt cover oil changes and that works just fine. Except #1 the costs dont work that way. Even a checkup is too expensive for most people. And yes, there are all sorts of causes for that, and you hit on some of them. But knowing what caused it and proposing a solution that might work 10 years from now does not address the fact that I could not afford doctors visit without good health care.

So, what we are left with is insurance making a choice for you, by refusing to pay for something that both you and your doctor would prefer that you have. Whether that decision is done by a company or the government doesnt matter. You, Mr Lawson have made the decision, not me and my doctor. That flies in the face of everything that every doctor will say about preventative care. The simple fact is that even though it makes the system slightly unwieldy, paying for a blood test now makes a lot more sense than paying for cancer treatments, or a heart bypass, or something else down the road.

You say you want to eliminate the safety net eventually, (or presumably eliminate the need for a safety net, but that sounds like fantasy). And you say you are going to do that by reducing costs, and you will do that by eliminating both government involvement and insurance companies involvement. And somehow, this will create a free market with patients paying doctors and doctors competing with doctors to provide the best and cheapest coverage? Now tell me, have you ever looked at the cost of many of the machines that make our system the best at early diagnosis (in theory, not always in practice thanks to a lack of financial ability for many)?

If you can find a way for the millions of people who can barely afford to eat on a regular basis to cover the costs of things like an MRI machine or the cost of a mammogram, then good for you. But this looks like the classic free market ideal, which would work great for those in the top 25% and screw over just about everyone else. Please remember when you are making models and theories that to be in the top 20% in this country you have to earn "only" $91,000 a year. And the large majority of households in that range have two incomes. So if you can figure out how the "bottom" 80% can absorb the cost of equipment that costs more than they make in two years, and the services of a doctor whose school loans are probably close to what they make in a year, then go for it, more power to you. But your proposed solution would leave the vast majority of americans out in the cold.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

How long they must wait?

My aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer in New York. She owns a home there and in Ireland. Her doctors in New York told her to wait 6 months and come back to see if the lump had grown. She was not comfortable with that treatment plan. Her health insurance here, however, wouldn't pay for "unnecessary" surgery.

She went to Ireland, with her medical records, and within a week was treated with a double mastectomy.

She didn't have to wait for life-saving treatment. If she had waited here the way her insurance company had wanted her to, she could have died. I don't buy your "the wait is too long" line. My cousin, who has lived in Ireland since she was 16, cannot believe I have to make my annual physical visit nearly 6 months in advance. She calls and can get in the next week. Her daughter was born a month before my son was, and we've been comparing notes on all kinds of things for 18 years. There are good things and bad things, but I would give up my water pressure for her health care.

Maybe you should talk to people who actually live there, instead of just reading about it.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

I'm not saying our system works

It doesn't.

I'm glad your aunt had the resources to play geographic arbitrage and receive prompt treatment in Ireland. And I have a friend from Canada who paid to have prompt surgery in Buffalo. There are plenty of anecdotes on both sides of the argument.

Rationing and waiting lists due to corporate bureaucracies are no more pleasant or appropriate than rationing and waiting lists due to government bureaucracies (not that you can even tell the difference between the two).

I only ask a simple question: who do want deciding what care is appropriate, and available, for you?

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

I can tell you who I don't want doing it.

I don't want an accountant with a spreadsheet, looking at profits and probabilities doing it.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

greed is also "good" in china

I brought my son from China when he was a fat and happy baby, in 99. I have watched as China imitates our worst crony capitalism style, where a bribe here and there and WHOOPS! The whole water supply for a city of 7 million is polluted. Where Army officers are "partners" in business ventures and their children of high cadres move into the best jobs faster that Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg and all the Right Wing Welfare recipients in think tanks.

Still, when my little guy came from China, he did not worry any more about his mail being read and phones and email being monitored, but now he does. He didn't worry about paying for wars that put fortunes in the pockets of the "party faithful" - but now he does. He did not have to worry anymore about a government more driven by economic growth that the necessity to preserve the air and water and the beautiful land in which he lived -- but now he does.

I fight for my son's future, but in the mean time, we both study Chinese - after all, they hold much of our debt, and are busy making friends in the world with trade and capital, while we are busy making enemies for 1000 years.

Right on!

Chun Yang, you're exactly right. The amazing thing about visiting China is that in some ways it was just like here! Very rich, very poor. Very clean, very dirty. Lots of contrasting extremes, and certainly a LOT more people.

Ironically, many of the Chinese folks of our generation that we were meeting in tea rooms and offices felt economically MORE FREE than most Americans I know! They have no consumer debt (consumer finance doesn't really exist in China, yet), a household savings rate of 20%, and the educated folks have never had this much economic freedom in their entire lives... and they're taking full advantage of it.

Not to say there isn't amazing pollution, and corruption, but I got the impression that they are moving in a good direction as they create wealth (many in honest, entrepreneurial businesses that serve their communities). With increasing prosperity and a growing middle class, the Chinese folks I was meeting also have increasing expectations for freedom and civil liberties.

We, on the other hand, are looking more and more to Big Government to solve our problems, and are becoming LESS free as a result. Good idea studying Chinese -- they hold $1.4 trillion in our debt, which is enough to give each of their 1.3 billion people over $1,000. We, on the other hand, each owe over $30,000.

Do you enjoy paying taxes to pay interest to the Chinese government? Me neither... just think, you could be saving for retirement, but instead are paying interest to the People's Bank of China. Who thought up that plan?

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

not opposed to government, personally

In China, the barefoot doctors and free health care has been replaced by a "market-driven" and private insurance model. In practice, this can mean a cancer patient going to a doctor and being required to pay a huge bribe just to get treatment, because the hospital must turn a profit. This is a real-life case I was told by the man's brother. A man blew himself up on a public bus in China a couple of years ago because he could not afford medical treatment. Worker protections are so lax that the orphanages are filled with babies born missing arms, legs, etc. that can be traced to exposure to chemicals and pollution - and think of the high lead levels and what that does to the mental functioning of the next generation of only children who are expected to care for elderly parents. Did I mention, NO SOCIAL SECURITY?

There are things that a government MUST do, as business won't do it for itself, and the public good demands it. It is an open and high growth time in China, and for creative, energetic people in cities, the chance to be "big rich" is certainly there. At the same time, for the extremely poor to toil in pesticide-poisoned fields while seeing the glittering classes have fun on tv is a recipe for mayhem, and there is a lot in China. I even saw demonstrations when I was there last in 2005 - a cool, Target-like store was opened two weeks and the workers had a strike because they were not being paid. It lasted one night, and then there were over a dozen police in the doorway.

You're right...

I look at China as corporatocracy defined. It's the intersection of big government and big business. The entrepreneurial spirit is certainly alive, and their economy is growing, but the intersection of corporate interests and government interests has lots of toxic side effects (pun intended, the environmental consequences are awful).

We have no social security either, though. Alan Greenspan said it best, to paraphrase: "We can guarantee the dollars will be there for social security. We can't guarantee what they will purchase."

What he means is that our system will require "printing" a lot of paper money to stay solvent. That will result in prices going up (inflation, as we're already seeing), and the benefits people get will not buy a reasonable standard of living.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

By whose standard, BJ?

the benefits people get will not buy a reasonable standard of living.

Our GDP (in 2006) was over 13 trillion dollars. The only "country" that eclipsed that (or even came close) was the entire European Union, and they barely passed us.

The Federal government has been "messing around" in the affairs of business and private citizens for a hell of a long time, and the net result of that is prosperity on a scale that most people in this world can't even comprehend.

Now, you might choose to argue that said prosperity happened in spite of the Federal government's efforts, similar to the way Ron Paul argues that improvements in race relations happened in spite of the Civil Rights Act and forced integration, but those arguments are not nearly as clever as you think they are.

Our financial institutions need to act more responsibly. We need to get out from under our massive debt, or at least reduce it to the point where our monthly payments do more than just cover the interest. These efforts will strengthen the dollar some, which will minimize the impact to our "quality of life".

But make no mistake—we live like fricking kings compared to pretty much the rest of the world. You take away government influence and free up the market to do as it will, and I guarantee that our quality of life will become more aligned with the rest of the world.

Regardless, we're on a trajectory to find out....

Our financial institutions need to act more responsibly. We need to get out from under our massive debt, or at least reduce it to the point where our monthly payments do more than just cover the interest. These efforts will strengthen the dollar some, which will minimize the impact to our "quality of life".

Sadly, this quote illustrates a massive hole in your understanding. It is impossible for us to "get out from under our massive debt." You see, our money supply IS our debt. No debt, no money. More debt, more money. More debt, more interest and future obligations. Weird, huh? It is. Weird, and crippling. Watch this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

We do live like kings. But that's what happens when you are the undisputed top-dog nation with the baddest military and global reserve currency.

We have been very fortunate. But we're about to discover what happens when a country believes it can survive on creating new debt and paper money alone to fight endless wars and siphon the nation's wealth off to corporate and special interests.

Politicians in Washington are truly gangsters. Sorry folks, we've been jacked. Like it or not, we're going to need to go back to work. Get ready!

I'm really a nice guy, I promise, and I'm just trying to help.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

There may be some holes in my logic,

but they're not that big, BJ.

Sadly, this quote illustrates a massive hole in your understanding. It is impossible for us to "get out from under our massive debt." You see, our money supply IS our debt. No debt, no money.

Clinton reduced the debt from 67% of GDP to about 57%of GDP, and he kept the Republican Congress mostly honest and out of the borrowing business. Our debt was 5.7 trillion when Bush II took over from Clinton. He and the Republican Congress have increased it by 50% in seven years time, which would be extremely careless under Democratic control. Under Republican control, it's outright criminal behavior, because a huge chunk of voting Republicans assumed he would continue to be frugal with our money. They were lied to.

The Republicans are going down hard this year, BJ. You need to unsaddle that horse and ride bareback as a Libertarian, or you're gonna get thrown.

Sorry. It's Friday night, and I always get frisky on Friday nights. I might even stay up past midnight. :)

I agree that Clinton demonstrated more fiscal rationality

than the Bushes:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

But the problem is that more folks really need to understand the how the monetary system works, and the implications thereof.

Since it's snowing out today, I'd implore folks to relax in front of this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

... while I don't agree with it 100% (especially with respect to its proposed "solution"), it does an good job illustrating the problems of a debt-based monetary system.

We need to realize that politicians are gangsters, and that we're being jacked in a big way.

I have no doubt that big government Republicans are going down hard this year. They should. So should Democrats who have also sold off our future, and refused to do what was necessary to end the undeclared war and endless occupation in Iraq.

If a corporate board of directors behaved like our Congress, they would have been sued into oblivion a long time ago for violation of their fiduciary duties.

It's time for Americans to rally behind principled folks of *any* party who will restore a Constitutional federal government that serves the people instead of corporate interests, defends national security AND national solvency, and lets us save our economy by putting ourselves back to work.

Bush can't save the economy with a multi-billion dollar "stimulus" package. Hillary can't save the economy with a "90 day moratorium on foreclosures". Populist tax-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor politics won't cut it either. Such ideas completely ignore the underlying problems.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Unfortunately party matters

I wish it didn't, but it does.

If there had been a majority of Republicans in the NC Legislature last year they'd have changed the state Constitution to institutionalize discrimination against gays, and further restricted a woman's right to end her own pregnancy.

Democrats have plenty of their own problems, too, and you've articulated them well. I'm not disagreeing about that.

But the changes in leadership that come with majority status in Congress and in the Legislature are enormously important. Joe Hackney saved civil rights in NC last summer . . . and only because Democrats controlled the House.

I'd love to see you in government. Congress. The legislature. Wherever. You're smart and creative and very well informed. But I could never support a Republican. Kind of sad, really.

It's not you. It's the company.

Why do you assume that

all "Republicans" vote as a block?

Ever heard of "Dr. No"?

There's a reason a vocal minority in the Republican party are trying to smear my campaign:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/01/15/what-is-a-true-republican/

They know I'm not for sale, and that I'm a person of principle.

But you'd still prefer not to support such a candidate out of party loyalty?

I remain optimistic that yours is an extreme position, and that there are enough voters more concerned with the Nation than the Party to strike a blow for liberty this year.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

party does matter, some

I don't assume Republicans - or Democrats - vote as a block, though if you review the votes over all, there does seem to be a partisan phenomenon. I wish it weren't that way. There are always some Representatives who vote their own way on particular bills, for their own particular reasons, and of course that's as it should be.

Party matters for more than how a representative votes, however. It affects the leadership, committee appointments - some very important things. While many have felt that the 110th Congress has been ineffective, I personally believe that representatives such as Henry Waxman and others of his ilk have been the bulwarks standing against GWB and the Unitary Executive. I think that had the Republicans maintained a majority in the House and Senate, we would have lost more ground with the Constitution and Civil Rights, not because Republicans are necessarily bad, but because the Administration currently in the White House is bad, and it is Republican. It would take bigger cajones than any one of them has to stand up to their own party in the White House.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

How about Civil Liberties?

I think that had the Republicans maintained a majority in the House and Senate, we would have lost more ground with the Constitution and Civil Rights, not because Republicans are necessarily bad, but because the Administration currently in the White House is bad, and it is Republican.

I consider civil rights and civil liberties to be synonymous, but I guess that's just me. Government should exist to protect the civil rights of the ULTIMATE minority: the individual.

Surely you can't ignore legislation like HR 1955. Sponsored by a Democrat, supported by our own Rep. David Price. What's up with that?

Even HR 3162 (I can't bear to call it the "patriot" act). Again, supported by our own Rep. David Price.

You're right, we're losing a lot of ground with the Constitution and Civil Rights. And I'm running for Congress because our existing representative isn't helping the problem.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District