RDC did post that right from FOX (I looked) and I think that he agrees with the opinion presented on FOX….But that’s OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinions like them or not. While I agree with some of the stuff in the article
I may not agree with all of it. But he should be free to express his views as you probably feel the same. But what I am wondering is why are so many opinions and views being deleted from this site? I see RDC has some problems and lots of his post along with some others like Jims need to be deleted. But some of the post…And some were mine that got deleted only because you didn't agree with them…It is not fair that you can voice your opinions without worry if they will be deleted or not unlike everyone else..With that said. If you want to be the moderator then you should do just that and keep your opinions to yourself..Same with Karen… Some things I do agree with you on..Some I don't but I can’t wipe them from this site as you do leaving only the Administrators opinions that stay. The movement is bigger than 2 or 3 people who decide what can or cannot be heard.

 

But that’s just my opinion

 

Bill

 

One more thing…I have a question for John

How was it decided who runs this site? How was it decided who can be a moderator?

Even though I dont agree with your posts, I agree you shouldnt have your comments deleted. This site needs to be objective so others can see both sides of the arguments being brought forth. The administrators need to clearify why they think you are wrong or allow someone else too but that is only if you are bringing forth a valid question or statement, not just hate mail that doesnt have any reason behind it.

But that’s just my opinion

Bill

One more thing…I have a question for John

How was it decided who runs this site? How was it decided who can be a moderator?

Just so people know, it's an opinion piece from foxnews.com. Here's the link: 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....ooks-like/

LOL! RDC2! you're so intellegent. you copy and paiste with the best of them!

it really doesnt surprise me. all your post sound like a bunch of propaganda crapped right out of fox's ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....ooks-like/

After two months of occupation, culminating in  Thursday night’s union-led protests in New York City and the arrest of SEIU President Mary  Kay Henry, among many others, it’s a good time to take stock of what Occupy  stands for.

“We’re no longer settling for 'we live in a  democracy because we voted for a politician,'" left-wing rabble rouser and  propaganda moviemaker Michael Moore has explained. “Those days are over,” he said. “Capitalism is an evil system.”

As Moore explained, Occupy is not about organizing  for the next election – an election that looks increasingly likely to be another  landslide in favor of limited government. Occupy is about replacing our  democratic institutions with naked force, replacing the rule of law with the  intimidation of street thugs, and our constitutional republic with the same type  of autocratic tyranny that (notwithstanding naïve good intentions) always ends  up accompanying socialism.

In good Orwellian fashion, the occupiers chant: “this is what  democracy looks like,” as if they hadn’t been resoundingly trounced in the last  national elections.

In fact, they lost by historic margins in one of the  biggest landslides in the country’s history, including 63 House seats, 6 Senate  seats (7 if you count Scott  Brown’s victory earlier in the year), and over 675 state legislative  seats.

The occupiers arrogantly call themselves "the 99  percent,' but well over 50 percent of voters picked Republican candidates  campaigning to restrict government power, and we can probably conclude – by  virtue of their participation in the elections – that most voters who voted for  Democrats also prefer electing their leaders to appointing them via  street mob.

Some conservative activists focus a lot of time and  effort on the distinction between democracy and republicanism, suggesting that  in a democracy there are no constraints on majoritarian tyranny. Some  conservatives have even agreed that the Occupy mob is what democracy  looks like, going on to indict democracy itself.

This is a dangerous semantic game, because the vast  majority of Americans like democracy. They understand democracy as  referring to periodic free and fair elections – not to repealing all  constitutional constraints on majority rule.

Moreover, in our current political context, our  constitutional safeguards have been largely disarmed by an activist judiciary  and, like it or not, one of our best bulwarks against tyranny (majoritarian or  otherwise) is an informed citizenry actively engaging the democratic process  from the perspective of limited government. To cling to the noble notion that a  large sphere of human activity should be wholly protected from democratic  negotiation is to likely lose elections and any hope of advancing limits on  government power.

Which brings us to the incongruous spectacle of the Democratic  Party (named to suggest a strong commitment to democracy) heartily embracing  the decidedly undemocratic demands and tactics of the occupiers. Obama has  endorsed them; Pelosi has endorsed them; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is conducting a  petition drive to gather the broadest possible  support.

Which then begs the question, if so many Democrats  have betrayed their core value to support a movement that rejects democratic  elections, why should those Americans who do believe in voting choose to vote  for them?