Pilot Victim wrote on Jul 23, 2006 9:42 PM:The city of Oceanside is a slum landlord. It insists on raising the rent on the pilot tenants for substandard, shack-hangars. This is blaming the victims. Just like the proverbial slum landlords, the tenants are the "problem." No matter how much the tenants complain, the grubby slum landlord continues to ignore their complaints unless the law intervenes. The city slum landlord refuses to make the needed repairs and\or the replacement of these shack-hangars. Sanchez, Wood and Mackin are the slum landlords.

Ron wrote on Jul 23, 2006 9:54 PM:JOHN NARANJO their behavior is irrational and inexplicable. You know, there is nothing wrong with being educated, and psychology is a fine, and comendable science, but. A little common sense here, please. Did these guys murder their own people? Then they are murderers. Have they murdered innocent non-combatants? Then they are terrorists. Motive in any murder is always an interesting part of a criminal case, but it is the act, and not the reason, that concerns us. I think we all understand they hate us. Class dismissed.

Ron wrote on Jul 23, 2006 9:58 PM:And thank you J. HOWARD CREWS for your talking points from the DNC. Can you please give us the web site where you copied all that drival. Try it, Goggle: "Together, America can do better" See where it takes you, and how close Mr. Crews version is to the original.

People Vs Sanchez wrote on Jul 23, 2006 10:00 PM:Letter writer Ellis and his leter about the Oceanside Airport isn't logical and ignores the obvious and that Sanchez fail to see when she voted to increase the rents.Because of Councilwoman Sanchez,the city had already lost some $$$150,000 in federal grant money that would have been used to upgrade the airport!(Free Money)

Ron wrote on Jul 23, 2006 10:13 PM:Thank you BETTIE HELDRING for reminding us all, that with great wealth, comes great responsibility. This was born out recently when Mr. Buffet gave 30 billion of his personal wealth to the Gates Foundation. Again, when Vice President Cheney gave nearly 70% of his income last year to charities, per his tax forms filed this year. Carnegie, Nobel, and many others have given very generously over the years. The erroneous idea, and lies told about many wealthy people simply are not true. But, the Democrats will again break out the old playbook again this year. I got news for them, that dog is tired, and will not hunt.

Ron wrote on Jul 23, 2006 10:25 PM:Then might I suggest VALERIE CHERESKIN not drive, at all. Short term drilling, while expanding investment into alternatives is the way out for us. By securing more of our own oil at home, we are less dependent on foriegn sources, thus removing us from "bad" countries. Overtime, we will grow alternative sources, turn them into retail establishments, and become truly independent. I'm sitting here wondering if she's pro-alternatives? And if she is, would she be willing to have an ethanol refinery in Encinitas? I'm betting she doesn't.

Recall Her wrote on Jul 23, 2006 11:27 PM:Esther Sanchez is not the champion of the people. She only cares about herself. She has a full time job and is a very part time council member. She tries to wing it at the meetings when she is not prepared. She wants her way about everything. Wood and Mackin should stop giving into the spoiled child who will hold her breath until she gets her way. Let her turn blue or better yet, let her be recalled.

WORTHY PRECEPT wrote on Jul 23, 2006 11:39 PM:- "Together, America can do better" resonates so true to the heart I decided to google it, as someone suggested. It seems to have originated from the Democrats, though I think it really originated from the heart of America. I doubt that it is a new phrase, but if the Democrats are hailing this as their new mantra, I will sing it with them. God bless America. We can certainly do better.

Guiseppi = wrote on Jul 24, 2006 1:17 AM:…The most commonly heard argument against the estate tax - that it represents unfair double taxation - is fallacious. First, the estate tax does not even kick in until the assets left at death exceed $1.5 million, or $3 million per married couple - and those exemption amounts will more than double by 2009. Only relatively few Americans will even have to think about the estate tax, let alone worry about it coming on top of some other tax. Also, much of the wealth transferred at death has never been taxed to begin with. That's because capital gains on assets like houses, stocks and bonds are not taxed until the asset is sold. So, if it was never taxed in the first place, how can it be classified as double taxation? Obviously, if you inherit, say, a house, its owner didn't sell it, so never paid any capital gains tax on it. Furthermore, the we are in a critical state of war, and the nation desperately need the estate tax money. Bettie Heldring is repeating a lie often heard from the greedy who do not want to do their patriotic duty. Most of the profiteering from war has gone into the pockets of the rich. If a rich man doesn’t pay his share of war taxes, he shouldn’t object finally doing the patriotic think after he leaves this realm. “Unto whom much is given, much is required.” If the poor are willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters for war, then the least the Heldrings of the world can do is share some of their estate taxes. Fair is fair. Many of those who have been blessed with abundance simply do not want to pay their share. Never in the history of this country have we gone to war and simultaneously reduced taxes. Bettie claims that the estate tax is unconstitutional. I couldn’t find one word in the constitution about estate taxes. I know greed when I see it.

Wealthy Pilot wrote on Jul 24, 2006 3:48 AM:I will not pay more hanger fees; Do not raise them, if you please. I am wealthy, you can see; I only care about me, Me, ME!!!

Resident wrote on Jul 24, 2006 3:54 AM:The issue in the Oceanside City Council recall, spearheaded by LAWSON CHADWICK, is LAWSON CHADWICK. He felt personally offended. He stubbornly refused to deal with a personal offense, like a man, by forgiving and forgetting. Instead, he wants to drag all of us into his personal vandetta. Earth to LAWSON CHADWICK: grow up! You're not in Kansas anymore!~

Just a SLOGAN? wrote on Jul 24, 2006 6:47 AM:. I hope it is more than just a slogan. We need a real leader in America who can bring us back together again. I also remember when Americans could travel abroad and were respected and treated with deference. In the sixties and seventies I traveled all over the Middle East and Asia on business. I never feared being attacked (with normal precautions you would take in Detroit or Los Angeles). I remember sitting in outdoor cafes at night, dining with business partners, sightseeing alone with my camera in remote areas of Cairo, Amman, Damascus and Pakistan. I traveled hundreds of thousands of air miles to numerous countries in the course of my job. In most places in the Middle East I felt much safer than I did back home. I remember going into a bank in Morocco, and the people in line stepped aside to let me go first - because I was American. Boy, are those days long gone. How did America become such a hated country around the world? It all began to change in the eighties, but since Mr. Bush changed the world, I would never travel to many of the places I used to frequent. It’s just not the same world anymore. But then I don’t feel all that safe in in Atlanta anymore, either. It is my hope that somebody can bring us back together again. I wonder if America can become again the way it used to be.

Jack wrote on Jul 24, 2006 7:10 AM:Where did this slogan “Together, American can do better come from?” Looks like it came from the Democrats. Google pulled up names of people who are using this slogan and produced the names Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mark Pryor, Dick Durban, Maria Cantwell and John Kerry. ALL DEMOCRATS. I think they are leading in the right direction. I’m glad one of the parties is talking about bringing America back together again. I wonder if history will record George W. Bush as the great divider or THE GREAT DESTROYER.

crews brothers wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:08 AM:We have been blessed with a letter by each Crews brother in the last 7 days - everyone a masterpiece. Today's by J. Howard is one of the best I have ever seen in our NC Times. We CAN do better, America.

GFN wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:23 AM:Guiseppe, you said it so well, there is nothing to add but, excellent job. Mr. Crews, I agree with your letter and I too remember, and yearn for, that America. For someone to chide you because of where it originated is shallow and specious, especially since you made no political reference at all.

Is this Christian ethics? wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:26 AM:According to our President, if a group of people is perceived as a threat, it gives us the right (the duty!) to preemptively attack them, with shock and awe and much "collateral damage". Since this "enemy" does not wear a uniform, we have the right to kill those that might be the enemy. What if this ethic and logic were the guiding rule for all of us? If I were a person of color or a jew, knowing what the white supremacists think about me, killing any man that looks like he might be a bigot would be a right and duty. If I were white, and knew about La Raza, well going after all Latinos would be my right and duty, and of course the reverse is also true. Women know that almost all violence directed at them comes from men, so they are entitled to gendercide. Welcome to Bushworld, where Christian love reigns supreme.

subhuman Islamofacist wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:31 AM:I am sure glad our letters page is full of intelligent reasoned arguments based on facts - such as Neil Turner's erudite essay of today. I think he could have put in a little more name-calling however. I did like the 'non-citizen animals' line and also 'Iman-brainwashed cohorts'. The word 'subhuman' is so old though. I haven't seen that used so much since - oh, say the 1930s in Germany. Think of some more up-to-date slurs, Neil!

GFN wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:32 AM:"I see dead people", famous line in a great movie. "I see Prop F people", in the letters section. It seems the same old group of writers, same old pattern, relentless for sure, are now amusing themselves with the recall of Ms. Sanchez. I don't think they win this one.

GFN wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:35 AM:Great points, Mr.Sauerheber and Ms. Patton. Get the school district on the recycling program. It's unbelievable that they are not already!!

to Gary Kuebitz wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:36 AM:Let's all think about the world that Gary K envisions as America restored. The media would be owned or controlled by the government, to ensure that no anti-governmental or unpatriotic stories were published. Unions would be outlawed so that all working conditions would be set by employers. And, finally and redundantly, there'd be no illegal immigration, no foreigners here that the government didn't approve. Gosh, this sounds familiar, but I can't remember where this has been tried. Can anyone help me?

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 9:23 AM:Estate taxes are not a new phenomenon; they date back almost three thousand years. As early as 700 B.C., there appears to have been a 10 percent tax on the transfer of property at death in Egypt. In the first century A.D. In the United States, the tradition of taxing assets at death began with the Stamp Act of 1797. That set a pattern for the next hundred years or so in which estate taxes were used as a sporadic, and temporary, way to finance wars. When hostilities ceased, the tax was repealed. The Revenue Act of 1916, which introduced the modern-day income tax, also contained an estate tax with many features of today's system. However, this time the estate tax did not go away after World War 1 ended. Despite sizable budget surpluses, Congress increased rates and introduced a gift tax in 1924. Like the estate tax, the gift tax is a levy on the transfer of property from one person to another. During the 1920s through the 1940s, estate taxes were used as another way to attempt to redistribute income. Tax rates of up to 77 percent on the largest estates were supposed to prevent wealth becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Internal Revenue Code of 1954 overhauled the federal income tax, specifically; it expanded the tax base to include most life insurance proceeds, which could substantially raise an estate's tax bill. During the late 1960s and early 1970s loophole closing preoccupied tax reformers. These efforts culminated in a 1976 tax bill that overhauled estate taxation, giving us the system we still have today. Perhaps the biggest change was combining the previously separate exemptions for estate and gift taxes and transforming them into a single, unified estate and gift tax credit. The 1981 tax bill brought some relief. The top rate went from 70 percent to 50 percent. In 1997, Congress provided some relief with the first increase in the unified credit since 1987. Gradual increases, which began in 1999, are slated to raise the unified credit to $1 million by 2006. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was the first step toward totally eliminating the death tax. I go through this history to show, that taxation by the government has become less about “paying the bills”, and more about accumulating power, and social engineering. Not to mention, a small family business is greatly affected by estate taxes, due to the low unified estate and gift tax of $3 million. A small business owner with a gross business income of 2 million, with a $500K house in Southern California, a 401K plan, and life insurance can only expect to pass on 45% of his business. In my particular case, I carry enough life insurance to pay the estate taxes, and business debts. Which, isn't cheap, I can assure you. If that business includes inventory, it is taxable, and the heirs must pay the fair market price of that inventory. Most heirs simply do not have the ability to pay the tax, so they sell the family business in order to pay the tax. Keep in mind, the original idea of estate taxes in America was to pay for wars, after which, they were repealed. Not anymore, they are now considered part of the tax base. I want to also say, my Dad was a career Navy enlisted officer, now retired. My Dad wasn't rich in money, but he gave me something worth more, "Want To." I'm no Paris Hilton, my Daddy didn't just give it to me. I worked hard and earned it. People like Guiseppi like to say the rich don't earn it, they inherit. You take a look around, most millionaires today have made it by having a good idea, and successfully marketing their ideas. This is why America is so great. I know an Iraq man, came here in 1991 with nothing. Now, he owns three conveinence stores. Hard work and long days, my friend, Hard work.

Must be a Liberal organization! wrote on Jul 24, 2006 9:42 AM:In today's SF Chronicle: QUOTE 07-24) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A bipartisan panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that he applies as a means of ignoring or not enforcing laws passed by Congress. In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined. The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements. "The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA President Michael Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked." ENDQUOTE I've seen some on this blog say that this happens all the time, that all Presidents do it. The ABA feels differently.

Ignore Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 9:47 AM:Sorry for my absence, but I actually have a life. DON'T FORGET - Please do not respond to Ron. His comments are repetative and seriously flawed. He only tries to get a response out of others. He cannot possibly be as ignorant as his comments reveal."

To Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 9:53 AM:I find it amazing that a human being could call a letter about peace, respect, good jobs, the future, trust, honesty, tolerance,justice, human dignity and hope drivel. Boy, does it take all kinds!

To the North County Times wrote on Jul 24, 2006 9:56 AM:You should be ashamed that you published a letter from Neil Turner calling human beings sub-human. I guess you allow anything.

To Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 9:59 AM:In my book, you're right up there with Neil Turner, Ron. And as for what you set out to be a compliment to Mr. Crews, then cut him down--absolutely uncalled for. As for looking up "Together, America can do better", more smoke screening. Again, Ron's Delicatessen of Deceit serves up a stupendous baloney sandwich.

To James Regan wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:00 AM:If only the writers to the North County Times had half your intelligence! Thanks for giving me hope for the future! Thirty to seventy year olds don't seem to have a clue about what's important.

A revision wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:05 AM:Gary Kuebitz needs to make these revisions: 1. The media, for being in Bush's hands 2. CEO's for making 350 times what a worker makes 3. Businesses that hire illegals

Abolish the Paris Hilton tax? wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:11 AM:Why would anyone in their right mind want to give the rich yet another tax cut? FYI, Bettie Heldring, it was 100 years ago that intelligence and talent were used to amass fortunes. They didn't make nicey-nice while doing it either. Now their offspring want to get away scot-free and you're all for it!

DreSide wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:12 AM:Mr.Turner, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points. First point is that it doesn't matter whether they signed the Geneva conventions or not, we did and it behooves us to use them so that our standing in the international community is above reproach. We are governed by the rule of law which seperates us from the religious theocracies that are promoting these fanatics. Secondly, some of these individuals aren't terrorists and unless they are tried openly to present their defence then we as a government are no better than many third world didtators. I believe many of these men are in Guantanamo for legitimate reasons and should be jailed, but that doesn't give our government the right to throw all of the laws that our founding fathers fought so hard for right out the window. It's called throwing the baby out with the bath water. From your letter you seem intelligent enough to understand these nuances.

To Richard Hayes wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:23 AM:You're talking about things that happened over 50 years ago. Both Israelites and Palestinians have a right to be there. The problem is, the US has been suppyling Israel with state of the art weaponry that is being used against the Paletinians.

The question is wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:24 AM:Where does Bettie Heldring get her information?

to "subhuman" wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:26 AM:"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." I can't see in this basic statement of American philosophy anything that only refers to citizens. So you see, Neil and people like him MUST have the "enemy" be subhuman, or else their entire point of view falls apart. It's downright creepy how easily people judge others as subhuman, allowing all kinds of horrors everywhere. It's a special talent of humans, I think, to justify barbarism in this way.

DreSide wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:36 AM:Mr.Kuebitz, I find it diheartening when I read your letter. I cannot possibly imagine how people in unions who are fighting for higher wages and better health care for their families while CEO's of major corporations are walking away with 400 times the wages of their employees can possily be what's destroying the U.S. How about our government consolidating power into the executive office at an alarming rate not to mention illegal wiretapping of Americans,healthcare costs that are triple that of anywhere else in the world and a minimum wage that hasn't changed since 1997. All the while house and senate do nothing except give themselves yet another raise. Somehow I feel like your argument doesn't hold much water.

GI Joe wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:48 AM:RON: You might want to enrich your perspective of global warming by reading Bradley J. Fikes article (Silicon Beach) in Sundays NCT.

GI Joe wrote on Jul 24, 2006 10:50 AM:J. HOWARD CREWS: In my opinion, the hatred toward US citizens overseas began to grow during the Ronald Reagan administration and is reaching it's zenith under GWB. The young people of this country will never know that freedoms we once had.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 11:04 AM:There was a going back and forth yesterday, about the accuracy of exit polling, that still bugs me. Now, I'm no math genius, I'm the first to admit, but. If your science depends on humans to answer your questions honesty, and accurately, how can you possibly insure your getting the right answers, since we have secret ballots. You can't possibly know, how they voted. You might be able to look at their sample ballot, they take with them inside the booth, but it may differ, from how they actually voted. (oh, my god, I've gone crossed-eyed)

To Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 11:08 AM:On terrorists you state: "Have they murdered innocent non-combatants?". Where does that put us in Iraq as the 100,000 (plus or minus) can't all be terrorists. The Israelis kill hundreds of Lebanese (innocents) to kill a handful of "terrorists". It's call gerrymandering definitions!

to Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 11:28 AM:People are just more likely to tell the truth about what they just, a minute ago, did than when asked at any other time or place. Of course it's not 100% accurate, but think about it: they are being asked a very simple question (who did you vote for just now?), you are being assured the answer is just tallied and is anonymous. There just aren't many reasons for lying in this situation, and no time for forgetting, and, unlike pre-election polls, no effect of changing your mind. Can you see why this is so likely to be very accurate, even if not perfect? On top of this logic, there is the empirical fact that in probably thousands of elections at all levels in many places, the percentages that exit polls yeild are, in fact, very like the results when the ballots are counted. You really should at least read a textbook on this subject since it seems you might genuinely want to understand it better. Look at any local college catalogue, find the classes that are offered in Research Methods in Social Sciences, then call their bookstore to find out what textbooks are being used. You might enjoy it!

CR&R wrote on Jul 24, 2006 11:55 AM:Ideally, all public schools in the state should have manadated recycling programs. They do not. The good news: Temecula Valley High School adminstrators and students met with CR&R Incorporated two months ago and started the process of creating a school-wide recycling program. It will be begin during the 2006-07 school year.

Grant wrote on Jul 24, 2006 12:47 PM:Bettie Heldring is correct. The estate tax is not only double taxation, it possibly, and quite probably, represents a final fourth layer of taxation imposed upon the deceased. "The argument that the estate tax only affects the rich is absurd ... $1.5 - $3.0 million is nothing in today’s economy ... farmers, ranchers, and small business owners are hardly rich, but still would like to pass on what they have to their children. Yet when they die, their children rarely have the liquid cash needed to pay the death tax bill. Often the business and/or property must be sold or divided to raise money for the IRS. Many family farms across this country have been bought by large corporations because of the estate tax. Loss of jobs and the subdivision of open space for development are just two of the unintended consequences of the estate tax. But, ultimately, the argument against the estate tax is (if not a Constitutional one) a moral one . People should not be punished for working hard, saving, and building wealth. Our society should respect the most basic property right, namely the right to dispose of one's property as one wishes. The American dream is based on making a better life for one's children, despite the Marxist, egalitarian, class-warfare rhetoric of clever politicians who have somehow convinced the covetous that it is “greedy” to want to keep what one has worked their butt off to acquire. Building wealth is not sinister, it is admirable. Our tax rules should encourage the virtue of hard work and saving for the future.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 12:52 PM:On the terrorist issue, I did fail to use "intentional" in my definition. People intentionally target non-combatants sitting drinking coffee in a cafe, for example, are both murderers, and terrorists. They don't know these people, they want to make a statement. They attempt to instill fear into citizens from going about their normal activites. As opposed to, mistakeningly hitting a wrong target, a malfunction, or flying debis. All unintentional effects. Now, you can argue, that by sending the plane, to drop the bomb, with the knowledge you might create innocent victims, although your targeting combatants, I understand your point. You don't believe in war, or your a pacifist. I accept your thinking. You believe in talking and compromise, I think some people only respond to a show of force. We agree to disagree. You disagree with the war in Iraq, and along with that viewpoint, you believe our killing of innocent Iraqi's is intentional, and that makes us terrorists. I believe our intentions are to only kill terrorists, and not civilians. It is the intent, which defines the act.

on science wrote on Jul 24, 2006 12:55 PM:I've noticed that some bloggers to NCT scoff at the support of the human-global warming link that is endorsed by all the major scientific organizations in the field. The bloggers say something like, "I remember how the scientists were wrong about global cooling" or something else as their reason. This seems a terrible reason! If you think about all the things you do each day that, just by your doing them, endorses science: use your computer or car or air conditioner or cell phone or satellite tv or, or, or...clearly science is right about a whole lot of stuff!! And your behavior says you believe it, too. But along comes an issue that has been politicized by the right and suddenly, on this issue only, "Oh, I am so skeptical of these so-called scientists...look how wrong they've been!" Transparently bogus thinking...and it screams to me that anyone who argues this way is either an Exxon executive or a dupe of same.

Another on global warming wrote on Jul 24, 2006 1:06 PM:from the LA Times today: QUOTE: Global Warming-- Signed, Sealed, and Delivered Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the principal cause. by Naomi Oreskes An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!) My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause. Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." ENDQUOTE The journal "Science", BTW, is probably the most prestigeous journal in the Scientific community. So, as I've sent before, to strongly disbelieve this at this time (no one would suggest that new data wouldn't change opinions) would be either to suppose that thousands of the best scientists in the field in the world are somehow in a vast conspiracy to delude the world, or else to suppose that you somehow know better than they do, maybe because you can find someone with a PhD who agrees with you. Sorry, but either way it seems downright foolishness.

Mr. Conservative wrote on Jul 24, 2006 1:29 PM:Crank up those air conditioners, it's really hot out there.My SDGE stock is going up and up.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 1:32 PM:on science: Science is a process, trial and error. Failure, sometimes followed by success. You start with a theory, then prove it demonstratively. I'm one of those who point to past failures only to point out, it's been wrong before. Doesn't mean I don't see smog, and that's bad. We need to cut down on smog pollution, I'll go for that. I see it, ok, proven. I'll even go for reducing fossil fuel consumption if only for the reason, it gets us out of places like Saudi Arabia. I point to simple things like eggs, oatmeal, and coffee to make the point that even simple things, they get wrong. How much more about an atmosphere, no scientist claims to know "exactly" how it functions?

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 2:20 PM:Hey Mr. Conservative....... I was just wondering? How many global warming believers out there are running their air conditioning full blast today? I'm with you, it's like hell out there. Crank them up!!! When that little dial spins, it's like money in the bank.

GFN wrote on Jul 24, 2006 2:20 PM:I do believe in the estate tax, mainly because much of what is accumulated has not been taxed, however, I believe the rates should not so punitive that a family has to sell the business.

another course wrote on Jul 24, 2006 2:41 PM:Ron, you also need to get a more informed or sophisticated notion of how science works. Many colleges offer classes in the philosophy of science that you might find enlightening. Theories in science are rarely if ever proven, because much scientific activity is devoted to trying to DISprove theories...that's how they improve and better ideas replace worse ones. It's also why, at any moment, betting on the scientific consensus is a best strategy even if it's never perfect. But why, of all things scientific, do you doubt this particular idea (the human-warming link)? Clearly it's not based on your own reading of the scientific literature. So what is your doubt based on? My guess is that it's because either a Democrat was in favor of it, or because you've been sold on this doubt by the right-wing, vested interest media people like Rush, or both. What other explanations could there possibly be? Both are dumb reasons, even you would have to admit, to make a judgment about science.

kc wrote on Jul 24, 2006 2:52 PM:You know Ron, you seem to piss alot of people off. I love it. While sometimes wordy, and sometimes I don't agree, I enjoy reading your stuff. I mean that. You make all kinds of sense to me. I'll just sit back now and wait for all the venemous assaults directed at me because I happen to agree with you. Keep up the good work Ron, keep up the discussion, no matter what side you're on.

To Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 3:12 PM:Do the dead inoscents know that you meant well, and well, gee whiz I'm so sorry that I killed you by accident? Justifiable homicide huh!

Intentions wrote on Jul 24, 2006 3:19 PM:When we imposed severe economic sanctions on Nicaragua, Cuba, Iraq, etc., would you say that the incredible suffering this caused innocent civilians was intentional or that we only wanted the bad guys in these countries to suffer?

Wake up Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 4:57 PM:By the time you feel global warming it's tooooooooooo late!!!!!!!

Again! Ignore Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 5:01 PM:Please do not respond to Ron. His comments are repetative and seriously flawed. He only tries to get a response out of others. He cannot possibly be as ignorant as his comments reveal.

Rush wrote on Jul 24, 2006 5:04 PM:You are doing a fine job Ron, and I'm behind you 100 percent.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 5:22 PM:Another course, question? The scientists that do not agree with the consensus of other scientists, are they right wingers too? Bought off by Big Oil? or just plain dumb? I laid out my case, I see smog, I agree it's bad for us, but I'm not willing to take the leap required to equate carbon found in 10,000 year old ice, with our carbon output. Somehow, I get the feeling that I'm not allowed to think here. If I'm not totally in agreement with your position, and the other smart guys, somehow I'm...a what? Dumb right wing, Rush follower, can't think for myself, kinda guy? Try to look at me this way, I'm a moderate. I'm with you as far as I can accept, but I still hold the right to go the other way. Kinda like an agnostic, there might be, but I don't know for sure. I've said before, there is the possiblity humans are partially responsible for global warming. Little different suject, by still science. I was watching a program last night about fetal stem cell research. Everyone's supposedly for it, yet, did you know there are scientists saying fetal stem cell research could have unintended consequences? He liked it to genetic research on fruits and vegetables. We still have people fighting this, and some are actually banned for entering the U.S. Now, I'm all for smart guys, I have many friends that are very smart guys, highly educated. But these same smart guys, couldn't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag. In their area, super smart, common sense, lacking. Get my drift. I'm not quite ready to make that kind of commitment, romance me first. (now, that last line was funny, I don't care who you are!)

MB wrote on Jul 24, 2006 5:23 PM:To Mr Joe Ellis: You are one of 25 appartment renters paying $400 per month. The roof starts to leak; you call the landlord to fix it. The landlord doesn't fix the leaky roof, but rather raises you rent to $550 per month. Guess what you are going to do? The airport is in the same fix BUT it can repay the $450,000 to the city. Really. The city staff have shown that if the hangers were built, the $450,000 would be REPAID. All the hot air by Mayor Wood, Sanchez and Shari Macken is just that HOT air. I can't call it what it really is, but it smells - get it? Any good business man will make every effort to MAKE money - not Mayor Wood, Shari Macken. Sanchez makes every effort to defeat the profitability of the airport. The airport can make $1 million per year - hands down..

hotty town wrote on Jul 24, 2006 5:23 PM:Nice job by Saul on the pandering politicians. We sure have plenty of them locally like Mexcondido's Mayor Pfeiler, the best friend any illegal alien ever had. This Mayor has ruined Escondido with her liberal, soft policies towards illegal aliens, grafitti and over crowded housing and apartments w/too many people, vehicles, crime, etc. Thx...Saul.

David wrote on Jul 24, 2006 6:34 PM:To "Abolish the Paris Hilton tax?" - Is the suggestion here that everyone who has large sums of money is corrupt or dirty? Then what is considered rich? Many people of other countries would consider some of our poorest people to be rich, let alone our middle class and above. I'm sure there are a few out there who actually earned their wealth. Maybe even you.

Grant wrote on Jul 24, 2006 6:34 PM:GFN, re. Your 07242:20PM post: You believe “what is accumulated [estate property] has not been taxed.” Then let me count the ways: (1) the income is taxed when it is earned. (2) when after-tax income is saved, the returns on the saving are taxed ... double taxation. For example, if the saver puts his income into a bond or bank account, the interest earned is taxed. If the saver invests directly in a small business, his investment income from the proprietorship or partnership is taxed. If the saver buys a share of corporate stock, he must pay personal income tax on any dividends that the corporation distributes to him, and a capital gains tax on any increase in the share value (as occurs when income is retained for reinvestment) when he sells the asset. (3) even before the shareholder receives his dividend, or the corporation retains income to reinvest, there is the corporate tax that must be paid on the corporate income, which is really the income of the shareholder. (4) if any unspent assets remain above a modest exempt amount, the federal unified transfer (estate and gift) tax imposes another layer of federal tax on the already multiple-taxed saving. This added layer of tax is also imposed on tax-deferred savings, which are subject to the estate tax and are taxed again as income to non-spousal heirs. Thus, all saving in estates has already been or will soon be taxed under the income tax, and any taxation of estates is an added layer of tax on saving. Like an iceberg, GFN, just because you don’t see (or don’t want to see it) it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2006 7:48 PM:You know, you guys kill me. OK, so your opposed to the war, I get the point! But, it should interest you, that even at Nuremburg, the Nazi's on trial were only tried for the crimes they intended to commit. If the Hague, or Supreme Court had a warrant out for George Bush, then I would agree, he is a war criminal. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so. You have a right to your opinion, but everybody's got one. It might also interest you, that we pay families of Iraqi victims, when U.S. forces kill by accident. It doesn't matter whether we dropped a bomb, or hit em' with a skateboard. And I hear some are working it like a slot machine, kinda like some so-called Katrina victims. You think Saddam spent any money after his sons had raped, then had the husband killed because he objected to the raping of his wife? Not on your life. In Arab society a "spoiled women" is no longer wanted, she is left to do whatever she has to to survive, and usually that meant prositution. The difference, even if your not willing to see, or admit it, is when we do kill an unintended victim, we try to make amends. It will never bring them back, that's true, but we try, and that's the difference. We helped rebuild Europe after the 2nd World war, why? Obviously it was going to help the Germans, the French, etc. But it would also help us. It would help to prevent an angry mob coming after us later, and economically, they couldn't do it. All destroyed. How would people work, and live? We owed it to all of the innocents who were affected because of that nut case, and our bombs trying to get rid of him. Ever heard about family revenge? Very prevalent in Arab countries. You kill the father, years later, the son comes after you. They also believe in reparations (money) for killing a family member. Although not the best solution, they understand it to be an apology, and they accept it. It's been a tradition of Arab people's for hundreds of years. And other societies as well. On sanctions, they never work. The bad guys at the top still get fed, while the weaker starve. But, it's the favorite method of the U.N., so at least they like it. They won't sanction just going in, and cutting out the sickness, they punish the whole body. And sanctions are always violated, countries still wheel and deal under the table, on the black market. Oil for Food should have taught you that. And, by the way, that was failing too. So, no war, ever. And no sanctions, right? So, we do nothing. That's funny, cause in Bosnia we were told about the genocide from the U.N. and Bill Clinton. They said we needed to stop it. Most of that war was fought from the air by American bombers. And I understand we accidentally hit the Chinese embassy, killing several chinese citizens. Still a good war, for good reasons? Think sanctions would have worked? Doubtful. Keep em in the box, and let them continue to kill their own citizens. We allow that, how can we call ourselves civilized?

Kerry wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:04 PM:Guisuppe and Tom: Give me a break.You think that 3 million dollars is a fortune? That is ridiculous. It takes most people a lifetime to amass that much in property or cash. It is absolutely unfair to give the government more money; or that the heirs should have to sell an asset to pay the taxes. Ridiculous. You obviously have never taken a risk to own property or make money. If you had, you wouldn't be suggesting to give it back to the government. You should read the history of taxation in this country, and you will find that the government has over-extended its bounds on taxation. You might even agree with the Fairtax plan. Oh, and Tom. Those American you think are lazy, are just not willing or able to take the wage you are offering because it is not livable unless you are living 10 to an apartment and send the money to Mexico where it is worth 3X that amount! You have no right to have a business if you can't compete in the American marketplace with legal workers! You are a discredit to American businesses and a cheapskate!

More than a slogan again - wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:48 PM:- To GI Joe. I have to agree with you that the hatred toward US citizens overseas began to grow during the Ronald Reagan administration. During my many trips to so many countries, I began to notice the loss in respect shown Americans abroad began in the mid-eighties. My business travel was such a rich time of cultural learning for me then. It is tragic that today’s American youth are not free to travel to those parts of the world today to see and understand other people and exchange ideas with them. Truly sad.

I give up wrote on Jul 25, 2006 7:04 AM:Ron's response to the science question was a predictable cliche: I know educated people and they have no common sense. Only Ron, and people like him have that perfect balance of education and common sense that puts them way ahead of the pack. I'm joining "Ignore Ron" now. Pointless. And, as an aside, if you look at the scientists who strongly oppose the human-warming link, you do tend to find conflicts of interest and oil money...but why am I even bothering? G'bye Ron.

Lynnette wrote on Jul 26, 2006 6:49 PM:I see that the Vista School District wants to float a bond. Probably the same people who pay $30.00+ per hour to School Bus Drivers with full benefits, janitors nearly that much. Lets dump this bond like prop F...No education for Illegals..Sounds like a job for Randy Horton!!

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 29, 2006 8:26 AM:Have to reply to Betie Helding and Ron's standard "double taxation" and "generous donations" claims. First and foremost, most inheritance taxes are on previoulsy untaxed capital gains. Lest you be ignorant of tax laws, this means that the house you paid $30,000 for, now "worth" $400,000 falls in that capital gains territory. Unless you sell that house, you do not pay tax on the $370,000 capital gain. Of course, with houses, even then you only pay tax on a portion of the gain. The untaxed amount depending on whether you're single or married. Great wealth is most commonly accumulated through capital gains. People don't "save" billions of dollars out of their salary in 4% CD's. Second point, very few if any farmer's or small businesss owner's heirs need to sell the business to pay taxes. If they sell, it's probably because they'd rather have the money, than the work of running the businss. Banks readily loan money to successful businesses, if they qualify for captial gains tax. As for the huge donations to charity, that too can be misleading. If a very wealthy person does accumulate millions in EARNED income in a year, he can elect to give half of it away, get good karma from the gift and pay less income tax. Despite Bettie's rather artistic spelling of her name, I seriously doubt that she and her's have estates worth more than $3,000,000. Estate taxes are NOT DOUBLE TAXATION, that's a little bit of nonsense put out by wealthy right wing tax dodgers and the congressmen they treat to special goodies.