Herb wrote on October 13, 2008 06:37 PM: Heller is everything good about a politician. He even had the courage to vote against the wall street bailout. I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he was in my district. There must be more rugged individuals who value freedom in Northern Nevada. Here in Southern Nevada it's become Socialist, too many non-productive stealing from the taxpayers.

NONunionMember - SmartGuy wrote on October 13, 2008 04:39 PM: Typical union response, fear.

This may have been the case in the 30's and 40's, but in present day free-trade america it is NOT.

Look as non-union major employers in Las Vegas - the casinos. They have happy, well taken care of and highly skilled employees.

Present day unions = another piece in the socialist puzzle.

Vote for Unions and Vote for Democrats and see what a socialist society will do to the U.S.

God help us all.

UnionMember-RegularGuy wrote on October 13, 2008 12:47 PM: Slant, Bias.. Its always so funny the way that things are presented. Card Check Neutrality. It is a very important way to have employees vote the way that they want, without any cohersion. The Other method is usually done by the employer, in the hotel. Now, Do you think that would be intimidating for someone trying to choose what is best for them and their families. The bottom line is, Large employers would much prefer to not have any unions, because then they could do whatever they wanted to the staff. Reduce hours, pay, benefits. The Station Casinos say often how proud they are that they had no layoffs during the 9-11 slow period. The reason that they didnt have layoffs is that they have no Guaranteed Work Week. They can schedule every employee for 1 day a week if they want, even if they have been working their for decades. In this day and age, of CEO billion dollar golden parachutes, SOMEBODY needs to look out for the working man. Are Unions perfect?? Not even.. Im not saying that at all. But, of the choices offered, they are the best available.

patrick wrote on October 13, 2008 12:13 PM: Blue Blood:

I guess the question I have for you is this:

Should the districts within a state be drawn to ensure Congressional representation proporationate with the number of citizens that identify with a particular party, or should they be drawn around a the numbers of residents that proporationally represent their party's respective share of the electorate statewide?

In other words, if we have 60% registered Democrats in the state, and 40% registered Republicans, should the congressional districts be drawn to GUARANTEE that 40% of our representation in Congress is Republican?

Or, should districts be drawn with 60% Democrats in them?

Not an easy question even to me, but, as a true liberal, at this particular moment in history, I am inclined towardd the latter. Take out the hyperbole in my original post and that is what I was saying.

Booby wrote on October 13, 2008 12:08 PM:
True Americans do not vote and for good reason.

Voting only gives this CORPORATE CONTROLED Government creditability when it has none. This Government is a shield and protecter of the Criminal banking/insurance industrys that only exist to keep us all enslaved. It steals our labor at SUPER LOW costs and wastes the production and wealth it produces.

The Government forces every one of us to give our time/labor away for almost NOTHING. It helps the CORPORATIONS with the banks funding to STEAL our LAND, FOOD, MEDICINE, and FREEDOM so that we are helpless to actually enjoy this so-called freedom they keep telling us we have.

Voting for these traitors is a complete waste of time and only makes a fool out of everyone of you who vote.

I feel sorry for all of you who actually believe in this Government/system.......

But at the same time just because you humans who really don't want or can't handle true freedom YOU ARE STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE HUMANS WHO DO WANT TRUE FREEDOMS.

You all prove that brainwashing is the single most important tool in enslaving humans. You all prove it works!

Patrick wrote on October 13, 2008 11:05 AM: Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

thugocracy wrote on October 13, 2008 11:04 AM: These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

liberal thug wrote on October 13, 2008 11:03 AM: BARONE: The coming liberal thugocracy
Michael Barone


"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

patrick wrote on October 13, 2008 10:52 AM: Blue Blood:

I will assume that you are a "moderate liberal" and with that in mind I ask you this question:

Is your idea of a representative government one in which the districting for representation in the Congress INSURES that an proportionate number of democrats/republicans are seated in the Congress; OR, is it one where a particular district proportionately represents the mix of democrats/republicans in the state?

If you are contending that the state should be represented in Congress according to the numbers of party members in that state then obviously we should simply draw districting lines around party members whereever they reside.

If you believe, as I do, that instead districts should be drawn to include the percentage of democrats/republicans which reflect the percentage in the state, and allow the people to decide in any particular election how they will vote, then it seems to me that you are in favor of what I suggested.

So which is it?

Oh My God.... wrote on October 13, 2008 10:48 AM: NObama Democrat wrote on October 13, 2008 09:19 AM:
"My blood runs blue, but I just can't do it this time. It has NOTHING to do with race either.
Obama has ZERO executive level experience at any level of govt. and ZERO executive management in business.
Obama has no real federal level govt. experience of any kind to speak of, he starting running for President as soon as he took office in the US Senate and hasn't took the helm of any major committee nor authored any real legislation.
Obama has never been in the military nor has he worked with the military in any aspect. How can we elect this man our Commander in Chief?
How did we get here? What where we thinking? Sorry, I have to vote for the other guy this time."

And when the "other guy" drops dead of a heart attack or just old age, who are you (we) stuck with then?? Oh, yea, a lady who has "ZERO executive level experience at any level of govt. and ZERO executive management in business."
But wait, I forgot, she is a soccer mom who knows, what??? Please. She is a typical Rep. (Much like our worthless Gov) who uses and abuses power to try and get ahead.

Stop putting up post like yours that make NO sense when you try and say that O has no experience....look at the whole picture....

130 million people in this country and these are the best that we could find.....That to me is the worst part of this whole election.

Read All Comments