Jack_D wrote on Jan 5, 2008 8:47 PM:Chris Pulse' letter was left-wing ignorance at its worst. The military, Mr.Pulse, does not make policy. Sanctions on Iraq were put in place by civilian leaders. The military is not responsible for George Bush's mistakes. While there a few bad apples in the military--who are as we see in Haditha quickly prosecuted-- the vast majority are patriotic people.

RHINOSAURUSREX....... wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:42 PM:Ron Paul is polling over 10% in NH and has
earned a place at the table with all the rest...in Iowa Rudy Guiliani got only 3% of the vote and Ron Paul got 10% and has
raised more money than any other candidate
in the last month to the tune of........
$20 MILLION dollars.............

sdraoul wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:43 PM:Brian Williams and Chris are cut from the same cloth, a terribly uninformed and simple minded cloth. Williams hasn't a clue about Mexico and he demonstrates that by mentioning losing candidate Leftist Lopez Obrador who fancies himself President of Mexico like Al Gore does here. He lost, Brian, he lost by not carrying a single state north of the poverty line of Indians in Mexico. Obrador lost because he offered nothing to a modern Mexico that is slowly and successfully working itself into the First World. Obrador wants to junk NAFTA, not renogotiate it just like Hilalry Clinton wants to do. He wanted Mexico to return to Pre-Colombian agriculture and the rule of leftist politics by demonstration. He is an old PRI guy who joined the semi-communist PRD a political party that resembles the Old PRI from which Obrador learned his tactics and philosophy. As for Chris, how dare he even mention a "million" dead Iraqis from "Sanctions" ordered by the United Nations and the invasion that killed very few Iraqis. Any "million" Iraqis killed were killed by Iraqis, not us. Moreover, the Iraq invasion was justified and approved by the United Nations Security council and the Congress of the United States. Nothing revisionists and propagandists can say, now, in retrospect changes the truth. As for "three million" Vietnamese, blame the North Vietnamese Communists for all the deaths, not us. we were there under SEATO Treaty obligations. The North Vietnamese invaded the South after we crushed the Viet Cong. They were supplied by the Soviets and the Chinese. We did not invade North Vietnam, even though we should have and we should have bombed Hanoi off the map. Take that Chris and keep drinkling your less-than-truthful simple minded Kool Aid. Remember Pol Pot and the two million of his own that he slaughtered. He was supported by the Soviets and the Chinese also. Then count the thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese who lost their lives trying to escape from the Viet Commies and those who died in reindoctrination camps and those who today work for slave wages making your NIKES.

Ron wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:46 PM:>>>I think now is the time that everybody shall pay the same percentage of tax from their gross income, without subtracting anything before paying taxes.>>> Can't argue with your logic,
Frederik Rosenveldt. An even playing field. Now this sounds really American to me!

Ron wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:52 PM:>>>How can a few thousand people in Iowa, of whom are mostly white, feel that this so-called vote/straw poll applies to the rest of the country?>>>
This Nutty person is repeating a diatribe I've grown to hate. I mean.. really. Mostly White? They voted in droves for Obama. ... They have obviously been watching too much Main Stream Media coverage, cause that's where I kept hearing this nonsense. What is with these silent bigots inthe media?

Chris to Nick wrote on Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM:I just love how you ended your blog to me yesterday by saying that it is the
Arabs who won't listen. Was it the Arabs that emegrated into the lands that the eastern european Jews lived in and took over and did the ethnic cleansing in 1948? Is it the Arabs who are buiding a wall that extends into Israel or is it the Israelis that are building that monstasity on Arab land? Is it the Arabs that are building settlements in Israel instead of Israel building settlements on Arab lands in the west bank while at the same time trying to give the impression that they are looking for peace. Comeon now. I agree with most of you post but blaming the Arabs is blaming the victim. By the way National Geographic had an issue out years ago that I read and one of the Jews who's ancestors lived in Palestine for many generations said that the Jews and arabs got along fine until the Zionist came and they had another article talking about how the Jews were hogging the water for themselves but we all know that the National Geographic is nothing but liberal propaganda.

Chris to Jack wrote on Jan 5, 2008 11:34 PM:How the war is conducted is based on military policy. The ignoring of human rights, using fire power like that done in Iwo Jima on a city of five million people is military policy, lying to congress and the American people is military policy, covering up war crimes is military policy. Enough already of trying to excuse the way this war was conducted by the military. The German military tried to make the same excuses you make but it didn't wash in Nuremberg.

Chris to sdraoul wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:09 AM:The U.S. is responsable for the rise of Pol Pot because when prince Sihanouk wouldn't involve Cambodia in the Vietnam war the U.S. formed a coup and put a compliant leader in his place. The new leader was hated by the Cambodians, that and the carpet bombing of Cambodia caused the Cambodians to hate he U.S. and to support Pol Pot. When Pol Pot was overthrown in 1979 by the North Vietnamese he went to China and the U.S. supported him there in hopes he would be able to resume power and get the North Vietanmese out of Cambodia. It's too bad you will never educate yourself but instead just write these LONG blogs.

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:58 AM:... We have had regional drops in housing prices many time, but not since 1933 have housing prices dropped simultaneously across the entire nation. The inventory of unsold new homes continues to rise. Economist Gary Schilling estimates that 2 million excess homes have been built in the last decade. They are sitting out there empty. They will be empty for many months, equity tied up and non-producing. Major drops in housing in the past have lasted on average about six to seven years before recovery. Dr.
Shilling projects housing prices will drop by about 25%. Some will say that Schilling is way too bearish, but Bank of America estimates support Professor Robert Shiller of Yale, who suggested in a Times Online article that homeowners have lost about $1 trillion and could lose three times that much over the next few years. That is consistent with a 20-25% drop in home prices. And areas, such as San Diego and Las Vegas, which have seen the greatest excesses, will be hit hardest in this correction.
But the housing problem is only one facet of the economic problems this nation faces. The fundamental economic crisis threatening America is not a sub-prime problem. It is a CREDIT CRISIS that pervades commercial real estate, corporate loans and broker shenanigans throughout the financial world. Gary Meyers (letter today) is so right in his statement that “real estate is now a crap shoot, just like the stock market.” The crisis is not confined just to the United States, for like the Chinese who have shipped poisoned toys to the world, the United States, on a far more draconian scale, has shipped poisoned “investment” instruments and financial products all around the world. Europeans, Japanese, Asians, Gulf states in the Middle East - are alarmed and angry with Wall Street. Watch out for the blowback against the dollar.




the inventory of new homes is continuing to rise. Also, that new home sales have not fallen to the level of 1991. There is still significant potential downside for new home sales. Separate work by Shilling suggests that some 2,000,000 excess homes have been built over the past decade. These have been bought by speculators and people who we are now discovering they cannot afford to make the payments on the homes. Low rates, rising prices, and reckless lending standards spurred an irrational rush into housing speculation, and sent the wrong signals to builders, who responded by overbuilding.
New home construction is still way too high given the inventory levels, and will fall further. It is way too early to call a bottom of the housing market, or a recovery of home builders. Now let's look at the next chart:
Shilling projects housing prices to drop by about 25%. Some will counter that Gary is way too bearish, but Bank of America estimates are not far from that. Professor Robert Shiller of Yale, who created the S&P Case/Shiller index which tracks housing prices, recently suggested in a Times Online article that homeowners have lost about $1 trillion and could lose three times that much over the next few years. That is consistent with a 20-25% drop in home prices.
And remember, that is a national average. Some areas in California, Nevada, and Florida where speculation was particularly rampant could see drops of up to 50%. Writes Shilling: "And there's lots more to go. As noted earlier, it would take a 24% decline in prices to re-establish the normal relationship with building costs. A 27% fall is required to bring house prices back in line with rents. And a 50% drop is needed to return to norm when house prices are adjusted for overall inflation and their growing size." Ouch.
One last chart from Gary to illustrate the problem. Vacant properties are at an all-time high. Speculators who bought homes to flip are now in a cash crunch. They can either rent at a loss, or see their homes foreclosed. This is going to create a real oversupply of homes for at least several years.

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 1:07 AM:... RhinosaurusRex (9:42 PM) hits on a very sore spot of the most outspoken and agitated political movement, the Ron Paul army of supporters. Why is FOX news censoring Ron Paul from the debate tonight? As he stated, Paul polled over 10% in Iowa against only 3% for Giuliani. Giuliani will be included, but Paul excluded. FOX has apparently got orders from corporate headquarters to shut Paul down. Paul, after all, has said he will cut off their corporate welfare and require free enterprise competition - minus government bailouts and handouts.

SOLON .. wrote on Jan 6, 2008 1:46 AM:... On the Keith Olberman program Friday night John Edwards said QUOTE “Between the three of us, I think the most important thing is that we nominate a candidate--and I think it's either myself or Senator Obama--who will actually fight for the changes we need.” END QUOTE.
That last quote is particularly significant. The Hillary campaign was no doubt hoping that Edwards would focus his fire on Obama now that he has emerged as the front-runner. But it looks like the Edwards campaign has different plans. Edwards is focusing his fire on Clinton, trying to liken himself to Obama and contrast himself with Clinton. Needless to say, that's a really bad sign for Clinton. It’s now two against one. It’s a strategy that will work for CHANGE in America. I think she miscalculated the mood of America. People are sick of the status quo politicians in Washington, and the old boys who have been running the show for decades. And Holy Huckabee, who was outspent by 19 to 1 by Millard Mitt Romney, showed that a sincere message is far more powerful than a Madison Ave. makeup job. Romney is an empty dancing suit, waffling in the wind, blown away by the conservative Christian soldiers of Iowa. It's a fortunate event for the Dems, as “Gomer Pyle” Huckabee is a weaker candidate at the national level with about as much foreign experience as George W. Bush had before he entered the White House. The Huck-and-Chuck team has populist appeal to the Nascar crowd, but not to the serious voter. But don’t underestimate this crowd. Image can be as powerful as substance in America.

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:01 AM:... An interesting statistic shows that Obama is the candidate of CHANGE, propelled by a wave of new, younger voters: Fifty percent of voters who were 44 and younger supported Mr. Obama in Iowa, compared with 16 percent for Mrs. Clinton, according to a poll of Democrats entering caucus sites Thursday. Over all, 52 percent of voters said they backed the candidate who would bring needed change, and Mr. Obama won 51 percent of their support.
It is exhilarating to see young people become engaged in politics again. Haven’t really seen this since JFK. It’s about time for us older generation to step aside and let fresh new ideas come back into government. The last seven years of government have been brackish and fusty. And Hillary has been drifting around in that stuff.

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:13 AM:... On Jan. 5, 1914, Henry Ford, head of the Ford Motor Company, introduced a minimum wage scale of $5 per day. That was a time when you could buy a 3-bedroom house for $9,000. Today that house would cost you $500,000, but fortunately the federal minimum wage will jump up to $6.55 per hour in July of this year. Workers of America are really participating in the promise of America, I would say. (Statistic comes from the NY Times today).

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:48 AM:Well, "Chris to Jack" at 11:34PM, when we get into who sets military policy, there is a big can of worms, some politics and some purely military. The current policy does not please everyone, such is the art of compromise. If this "war" was conducted purely on military objectives, we would not have invaded Iraq in the first place. Unfortunately for over 3,900 American Troops we have a nin-com-poop for a Commander-in-Chief who says he is after one thing (terrorists) and then goes in the opposite direction (totally wrong country). Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:52 AM:It's unfortunate that "sdraoul" continues to distort reality and keeps revising the past to suit his agenda. Whether it's the Constitution, the obvious intent of those words, the complete disdain of the actual words, the reality of a given historical fact, he chooses to invent that which he finds useful to his purpose. Regards, Alf.

theWolf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 8:01 AM:To Pulsed: Actually very few regular military folks from the German army were prosecuted as war criminals. The record shows that the SS and other special operations types were the criminals.

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 8:01 AM:>>in Iowa Rudy Guiliani got only 3% of the vote>> Thats 3% more than that liberal deserves. Bush says he's republican and acts like a liberal and Rudy is way left of Bush, as Hillary, Hussein, and SlipNFall have fallen over the socialist edge to pure communism

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 8:12 AM:>>How about Ted Kennedy, Boxer et al blocking oil from Alaska where the natives want it drilled>> Of course Kennedy and Boxer will block all oil exploration. The more they can ruin the American economy by propping up Russia, Venezuela, Mexico and the Arabs with out oil money, the more the middle class will become dependent on government. It's clear that oil and commodity price rises are causing inflation and a recession is creeping in. Therefor pay raises will be zero or negligible, benefits will be cut, and liberals will be in heaven because of it.

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 8:19 AM:The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and prohibited slavery, and prohibits involuntary servitude. The Amendment was clearly aimed at freeing black slaves after the conclusion of our Civil War in 1865. But, the left and leftist judges who believe in a "Living Constitution" have focused on four words: "slavery and involuntary servitude" and reinterpreted this amendment to also apply to labor unions. This is an expansion well above and beyond any actual historic intent of the passage of this law, but it does show you how creative they will be in having their agenda pushed, when no actual law exists. The newest tact is to complain to the court about "wage slavery." They claim wage workers are powerless to improve working conditions and in effect bound to a contractual servitude if they are not union members. The 13th amendment, they argue, obliges the government to eliminate any such system. Their point is fairly obvious, the amendment can be used as a valuable union organizing tool to bolster failing union membership. And that is the crux of the matter, the dwindling numbers of unionized labor. The union bosses will take a law, twist it, squeeze it, and manipulate it, until it meets their particular needs, even though the actual law never envisioned their group. The mind set is very clear, if your not in a union, then your under some form of slavery or involuntary servitude. ...

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 8:26 AM:It wasn’t even supposed to be a thought about Hillary winning. Some of the idiots in the media were telling us nobody could stop her. Virtually every poll leading in the Iowa caucuses had her in front. And they were wrong! They were wrong when exit polls had John Kerry as the winner, and they were again wrong this time. They’ve been wrong for a long time now. But did you also notice how many times the media said Iowans were white? I wonder who planted that little gem?
And Hil finished behind two guy’s who had only one term in the Senate. Wasn’t “her experience” supposed to catapult her into the win?
The best thing for Democrats to do is lose the two Clinton’s, as quickly as possible. The problem, it would seem to me is that; the party is filled with Clinton sycophants.
And this insane speech after the loss? She should fire this Mark Penn guy, really. What kind of baloney is this man feeding her? The speech, in all fairness, could have been written by Baghdad Bob. All the way up to this point, we have been told she’s inevitable, it’ll be a coronation. But you know what really told the story to me about how bad this loss really was? Bill Clinton’s face. After all, his legacy is tied to her winning, he’s looking for confirmation that the American people temporarily lost their collective minds, and put Bush in the White House, twice. And that is a very typical liberal point of view. If they win, they compliment you... your smart, you’re intelligent, and you made the right choice. But... if you go the otherway, your stupid, you were fooled, and you’ll just see that I was right. It is as if, every once in a while.. the personality twists, and you get a chance to see the real person.

Almost true wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:01 AM:The supporter of Rudy exaggerates certain things about his man. First, the crime rate in NYC was already dropping when Rudy took office. He did an excellent job increasing this trend. Second, he did inherit a deficit and he did start to close that gap, but by the time he was in his second term, the deficit was growing again. Rudy, unfortunately, has no interest in being President of the USA. Rudy wants to be King of the USA. He wants total leadership, no dissenters, complete loyalty from those he works with. He has no interest in talking to people who disagree with him. And, looking at his personal affairs and dealings, he believes that morals and laws are for mere commoners. If all this sounds familiar, it should. It's been a quality of the Bush administration from day one. Not the best of Bush's qualities, I might add. King Rudy? No thanks.

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:07 AM:Liberals will question your intelligence whenever you don’t vote with them, or for them.
You see this when ever an artist gets rejected. If the audience accepts the work, he then will lay out all the compliments of, how smart you are, your so intelligent, and blah, blah, blah. However, If the audience rejects the artists work, typical comments will be: they’re not ready for it; they don’t get it, even though the thing might be a steaming pile of poo. I'll never foget the sight of Gore and Bush debating. The sounds and looks eminating from Gore told the story: I'm such a superior person, why am I stuck on stage with this nimrod? Total elitist mentality.

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:16 AM:But what of the winner? Barack Obama. What will happen to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton if Obama wins? I say, they lose, and lose big. It will finally put to rest this pap they’ve pushed, and made loads of money on. In the whitest of white states, the voters voted for Barack Obama. In 2006, all we heard was how the Republicans were rigging machines, interfering with voters, and all kinds of other vote infringement. And in particular, racial harassment and infringement. But at 9pm, when the results started coming in, all those talking points stopped. The Democrats were ahead, so the talking points ended.
Obama will put an end to this nonsense, if elected. And i sincerely hope those two will be out of a job. Between Sharpton and Jackson, they have built a huge industry of racial politics. It is their bread and bread. And the Democrats are the plantation owners. They go hand in hand. It’s almost as if they are keeping pets. They are not in the business of actually solving these problems; they are in the business of “managing” the problem. So, they occasionally throw them a bone, staving off the hunger. In conservative circles, we believe in teaching people to fish, Democrats will hand you “A” fish. Of course, you’ll have to return, and they will hand you another. This kind of mentality can only be described plantation thinking. I will go to the Massa’s house, and ask him for my dinner.
If you don’t have a house, they give you subsidized housing. If you need food, they’ll hand you a food stamp. It’s almost as if they have sick and twisted form of Munchausen’s syndrome, where they first make you sick, and latter, offer an asprin, all the while praising themselves as saviours, knowing full well, the headache will return.

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:30 AM:The "War on Terror" was purportedly, according to GWB, the liar-in-chief, to go after the organization that committed 9/11, have we got their leader, YET? Have we got their organization, YET? Are we even in the same country as he and his organization? This is a reminder to those who support GWB's illegal, immoral and un-Constitutional invasion and occupation of Iraq. We must go to where "they" are and get stronger by the day based upon GWB's stupidity. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:35 AM:"By means of glasses, hotbeds and hotwalls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine too can be made of them at about 30 times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of Claret and Burgundy in Scotland?"
--Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.
And there you have the Democrat view of trade, by imposing laws to prevent free trade, thus imposing higher prices on American consumers. Specifically, they do it for unions, one of their bread & butter constiuents. As for the complaints of the protectionists and the anti-globalization crowd, I would take those complaints a lot more seriously if they weren't just brought up whenever a free trade agreement was going to be considered. Alas, that is the only time we hear about labor and environmental standards from the protectionists and the anti-globalization crowd. They use labor and environmental standards as Trojan horses to wreck free trade. And that makes them utterly and completely disingenuous. And in the event that it is not clear, I view the protectionists and the anti-globalization crowd in the same way I view those who deny the existence of a heliocentric universe.

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:40 AM:Remember The Lancet Report On casualties In Iraq? Sure you do. It told us that casualties were over 650,000 and conveniently served to increase the tone and tenor of the critiques and attacks leveled at the American reconstruction effort in Iraq. "The reality-based community" was especially taken with the Lancet survey. And as with a great many things "the reality-based community" is taken with, the Lancet survey turned out to be disastrously wrong. Key passage:
"Officials at Iraq Body Count strongly opposed the Iraq war yet issued a detailed critique of the Lancet II study. Researchers wading into a field that is this fraught with danger have a responsibility not to be reckless with statistics, the group said. The numbers claimed by the Lancet study would, under the normal ratios of warfare, result in more than a million Iraqis wounded seriously enough to require medical treatment, according to this critique. Yet official sources in Iraq have not reported any such phenomenon. An Iraq Body Count analysis showed that the Lancet II numbers would have meant that 1,000 Iraqis were dying every day during the first half of 2006, "with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms." The February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque is widely credited with plunging Iraq into civil war, yet the Lancet II report posits the equivalent of five to 10 bombings of this magnitude in Iraq every day for three years."
"In the light of such extreme and improbable implications," the Iraq Body Count report stated, "a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data."

Will we have any response to all of this from "the reality-based community"? Probably not. Once the propaganda point is made and it permeates the public consciousness, our friends on the other side of the ideological divide don't really like to revisit the subject matter of that propaganda. Why mess up a convenient meme, after all?

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:55 AM:The post from "Ron" (10:46pm) shows his continued efforts to wage war against the productive middle class and stomp out small business ownership, which actually needs to be nurtured as the engine that drives our economy. He endorses a quote that, "now is the time that everybody shall pay the same percentage of tax from their gross income, without subtracting anything before paying taxes." At first blush, this has a ring of fairness to it. But when you actually look at the proposal, it is an attack on the middle class. By eliminating progressive, graduated rate structures, which are 100% fair because every single person pays exactly the same rate on the portion of tax in equivalent income layers, the tax burden shifts from those who already have the most and most enjoy the fruits of this great country (and have the most being protected by law enforcement and defense), to the middle class, which has already been squeezed to the limit. The poor pay more and are hurt the worst in a true flat tax on all income with no "subtractions" (i.e., not even a primary income exemption layer, which is really a progressive tax with the first bracket being a zero rate) but they do not carry the brunt of the burden because they have the least to be taxed from. It is the middle class that gets squeezed. And look at one very insidious aspect of this: "without subtracting anything" from the gross. No deductions. So, as usual, "Ron" wants to destroy private entrepreneurship like the true corporatist he is. Consider two working guys. They're both plumbers. They both receive checks throughout the year paid to them, which total $100,000. The first guy is employed by a corporation. He works for a company that has a scheduler who sets his appointments, and provides him with a truck and tools. The second guy is a self-employed entrepreneurial small business owner (sole proprietorship, and let's say most of his income is from a handful of corporate clients who report their payments to him on 1099's). He hires a secretary to schedule his appointments and pays her $30,000. He buys a truck for $25,000. He spends $5,000 more on tools. So he actually takes home $40,000 but "Ron" doesn't want to allow any deductions from his gross income, so he would be taxed the same as an employee earning $100,000. That is how "Ron" believes small business owners should be penalized. The issue should not be to eliminate all deductions, but to isolate legitimate ones and separate them from welfare for the rich. By the way, "Ron," please answer this: does your proposal to eliminate different tax rates also eliminate the separate, lower rate for unearned capital gains income?

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:56 AM:"SOLON" @1:46 AM... reminds me, cause I also watched the part of that program. For starters, Chris Mathews can say he is an Independent til he's blue in the face, he's not independent. ... But what is up with having Rachel Maddow on the show? I mean... what exactly is her relevance here? I mean ... she's a very nice young man, and all.. but come on! How does her temporary and part-time stint at a failed Air Amerikka radio give her something intelligent to offer? What exactly is her expertise? But... that's the failing MSNBC for you. ...

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:59 AM:Being married to an M.D., a pediatrician, one could ask the same question - how does one assign "merit pay"? The answer is - What do they know? How current are they? Are they interjecting their opinion in place of fact? A teacher who ignores the curriculum or a doctor who ignores their teachings belong "out the door", PERIOD. For teachers, the ultimate question is - Given the constraints of all the EXTERNAL variables, has that teacher done his or her BEST to provide knowledge? The second question is - How well? I place absolutely no one on a pedestal, "not no one, not no how". You see, I know when I am butchering the English language, it is apparent that most high school graduates, of late, have no idea how horribly they slaughter the English language. Du U C? Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:04 AM:Good morning "Chuck"! While my belly is still full of Tony's Jacal food, possibly the best Mexican restaurant food that there is, you might possibly have an edge. Take it while you can. Got Bin Laden YET?? Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:04 AM:The post from "Ron" (8:26am) demonstrates one of his typical tactics of deception: bait and switch. He refers to inaccuracies in polls in Iowa, and then compares them to exit polls showing John Kerry won by a whisker in Florida. Advance polls are notoriously inaccurate, especially for caucuses where a small and unpredictable number of people actually participate, and then have the option of changing their minds, moving support to second choices, etc. Even in actual elections, polls are getting better, but there are just too many variables, which is why they also disclaim a certain "margin of error" which is calculated to factor in the variables but which is, itself, subject to a margin of error. In contrast, by monitoring key polling stations in demographically representative precincts, and asking people not if they are going to vote (which is unreliable) but who have actually just voted, who they voted for, the accuracy level is extremely high. In fact, it is one of the tools election watchers use to measure fraud when overseeing third-world counties' elections. Exit polling is extremely reliable, except of course when someone is trying to steal an election in a state where is brother is governor and his state campaign chair is Secretary of State.

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:11 AM:>>but fortunately the federal minimum wage will jump up to $6.55 per hour in July of this year. Workers of America are really participating in the promise of America>>> LOL. The minimum wage is meant to be a training wage. You liberals make it sound like the whole work force is on the minimum wage. LOL. The fact is very few, other than students, are on the minimum wage if they've been at the same job for much more than a month or two. Liberals spew about the minimum wage because several unions have their contracts based on a multiple of the minimum wage-- meaning liberals dont give a crap about those on minimum wage, they just want a higher minimum wage because it gives their union wage a boost. So stop the hypocrisy

To SOLON/Weatherman wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:12 AM:Who won the worstest person in the world segment Friday night? Oh gee was it Bill O? AGAIN??? What's with K. O."s obsession with Bill O, and why would anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence view that puerile garbage and use it here for source material?

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:15 AM:I like what I heard Fred Thompson so succinctly say about oil company demagoguery. Asked: "What about their profits?" Fred: I take note of their profits. I take note of their losses. It’s supply and demand.
Well said Fred!
Conversely, on the Democrat side, the answer goes a little something like this: I make note of their profits, and I'll take them. When they lose money, I won't have them to blame anymore.
I'll simply find another scapegoat.
I demand they supply me.

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:17 AM:>> Robert Shiller of Yale, who suggested in a Times Online article that homeowners have lost about $1 trillion and could lose three times that much>> And liberals want to pile on, by raising taxes and fees. And of course, dont forget the massive new taxes on oil companies they want to institute that will raise the price even higher, guaranteeing a recession with inflation (ah, the Peanut Carter Stagflation days)

Nick wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:46 AM:"Chris", you need to dig a little deeper into the history question I posed to you the other day. It wasn't always the palestinians land, keep going back my friend. Besides, the Philistines just disappeared. If you want to blame someone, blame the Brits. They're responsible for splitting Kashmir too. As far as I'm concerned, The Palestinians are cowards! They don't wage war against the Israeli Government, they chose to murder innocent women, children and civilians with suicide bombers. That's not war, that's cowardice, plain & simple. I guess you would be OK with us Indians blowing up innocents with suicide bombers because the White Man stole our land. Keep digging "Chris", and you might actually see the light.

Karl wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:47 AM:Enough with the diatribes today. go Chargers.

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:58 AM:Amid all the talk amoung Demcorats about the coming national universe healthcare plan, I missed something in my post from the otherday, that is very, very relavent, and very revealing about existing Euro plans, which we are supposed to mimic. On (1/4) @2:38 PM, I gave the quote of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's speech to the British NHS staff. One of the focuses of his message was aimed at achieving an 18 week waiting target for medical care by year end, 2008. In reading his speech, I totally missed a real gem. Sorry, I'm only human, but it is a very succinct point I've been trying to make for the longest time. He says: "...by end of the year will mean the shortest waiting times since the NHS was established - almost unthinkable just a few years ago."
Forget about the idea of improving, he specifically says: "..will mean the shortest waiting times since the NHS was established..." Since it was ESTABLISHED??? So, from the gate they have had longer than 18 weeks of waiting to get in to see a doctor. And remember, they started this boondoggle in 1948! How many years of reform will it take to get it down to ONLY 18 weeks? Let me see... that's 1948, it's now 2008... that's 60 years folks, to maybe.. maybe get to 18.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/DH_081585

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:58 AM:>>While my belly is still full of Tony's Jacal food>> I agree about Tony's. It's the only place in town whose hot sauce can bring me to my knees. Their turkey beats the crap out of anything their next door competition serves. (are we turning this board into restaurant reviews?)

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:12 AM:>>The Huck-and-Chuck team has populist appeal to the Nascar crowd,>> As the Hill-Hussein-SlipNFall team has populist appeal with the abortionist, homosexual, and global warming religion crowd. At least the Nascar crowd is pro-America, pro-troop and pro-business because they know where they paychecks come from, which is exactly the opposite of the liberal crowd

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:21 AM:>>How many years of reform will it take to get it down to ONLY 18 weeks?>> LOL, if I had to do it over, I'd be a dentist or orthodontist for 8 months a year over in England, making a fortune. There's more teeth at a hockey match than there is in England

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:35 AM:>> "What about their (oil company) profits?" Fred: I take note of their profits>> Last I looked, the oil companies make 12-13 cents a gallon. On the other hand, the Feds take an 18 cent a gallon excise tax, and Ahnuld takes an 18 cent a gallon excise tax and a 25 cent a gallon sales tax, as Venezuela, Mexico, Russia and the Arabs drain this nations cash because liberals block every attempt to develop our oil resources

Reardon wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:36 AM:I hate to impose on this small, closed society, but there is an excellent article -- well hidden, deep in the bowels or today's "Perspective" -- titled: Pitfalls of Mass Transit. I commend it to everyone whose eyes bug at the concept of the $60 million estimated cost Sprinter actually costing $477 million. I suspect this is a subject Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans can unite against -- not just government waste, but government waste from which NO ONE LOSES THEIR JOB! (Try "News Search" on the left of the NCTimes Masthad, and type in "Pitfalls." -- it is the third entry.)

Tell us a dead dog story ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:42 AM:... Enjoy a little respite, Alf, while you can and don’t contaminate your wonderful Mexican meal (10:04 AM) with Ron’s bile. Let him be. Maybe Ron can tell us a “dead dog story” like Mike Amerika’s.

theWolf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 11:46 AM:According to economist Gary Shilling, 1 of 6 americans receives a check for public assistance. The phoney welfare reform of 1996 just moved folks in the SSI disability program and off welfare directly. Bush and the conservative party have increased spending 27 percent overall and 4.5% on discretionary non-entltlement programs. And some think housing is a problem?

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:02 PM:... Chuck, what do you have against the “homosexual, and global warming …crowd”? (11:12 AM). This appears to be a non-sequitur. Can’t follow you. What do they have to do with paychecks?

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:05 PM:No, "Chuck" at 10:58AM, we are not. At least you are not. Do you see why I declined the invite to the "North County Forum"? I need the people who differ from my opinion to learn. Growth does not happen when one's opinion is ONLY reinforced, it happens when the opinion is challenged. My 1973 340 Challenger tested me to my driving limits (after I "built" it), and then some. Your opinions offer me the opportunity to grow, or at least to find the flaws in my reasoning. "Karl", "Focal Point", "Conservative-1", "Chris"and "Ron" as well as many others have helped me to grow and to hone my critical thinking whether they intended to or not. Thank you all!!!!! Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:09 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 11:36AM, are we talking about the insanity of governmental waste or simply corruption? That was a tease! Regards, Alf.

To Chris wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:11 PM:If we didn't have enemies we would have to stop feeding the military-industrial complex. And, heaven forbid, return taxes to those who pay them in the form of benefits. Education, health care, social security, Oh no! that would be called socialism. Capitalism is when you steal from the masses and give to the rich. It's called corporate welfare. The rich corporations control this country and your tax dollars. They pay themselves by lobbying and bribing politicians to get contracts to build bombs, creating huge potholes in the sands of Iraq instead of fixing the potholes in the streets of America. Eisenhower warned us about the takeover of America by the militery-industrial complex. He was absolutely right. You can watch this from 1961 speech on youtube ...

How bout it SOLON? wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:18 PM:Anything new with Keith O, or just the sam ol...Bill O did this...Bill O said that scatology. Curious, I've never heard Bill O even mention Keith Overbite....why's that?

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:29 PM:>>Chuck, what do you have against the “homosexual, and global warming …crowd”?>> I have no use for frauds, just as you have no use for the Nascar crowd

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:31 PM:For you image verification junkies, I just got 11o01. Needless to say, that dog don't hunt

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:35 PM:>>> I suspect this is a subject Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans can unite against>>> But the bureaucrat and union employees who raked in the massive overtime

Chuck wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:39 PM:>>helped me to grow and to hone my critical thinking >> I prefer my point of view to critical thinking. I try not to be critical of anyone. Can't we all just get along

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:44 PM:The post from "theWolf" (11:46am) makes the claim that: "According to economist Gary Shilling, 1 of 6 americans receives a check for public assistance." Why cite a conservative economics writer? Why not just provide a link to a government statistics site -- you're allowed to include ".gov" links. Please define "public assistance." Does it include Social Security? Disability? Unemployment? Job training? Earned retirement and pension benefits? I can assure you, there is nothing close to 1 in 6 (fifty million) on direct welfare (TANF "Temporary Aid to Needy Families", formerly AFDC "Aid to Families with Dependent Children") even if you include dependents. I'll tell ya what, "theWolf," -- I'll help you. According the official Federal statistics, as of 2003, less than 5,000,000 were on welfare (TANF) (less than 1 out of 30, not 1 out of 6). Further, the site notes that this is a 53% reduction since welfare reform of 1996. ".gov" Website: http://www.os.dhhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030903.html
"theWolf" would begin to have a smidgen of credibility if he would define his terms operationally and provide support from official statistics instead of conservative economic theorists.

Reardon wrote on Jan 6, 2008 1:48 PM:Alf: "Corruption" need not be individuals accepting cash in envelopes. In this case, it is the system that is corrupt. Any system that permits the unaccountable expenditure of someone else's money is, by definition, corruptible. It is almost counter-intuitive to ask local bureaucrats and politicians to forbear wasting "free" money from the federal government.

Chris to Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:09 PM:The thing is that the military was given a job of conquering Iraq. How they did it was up to them. This shock and awe is fine in Iwo Jima but not so fine in a populated city especially in this so-called war. I know they did it in WW11 but the germans I believe started it but there may have been some justification there (although that maybe doubfull) but going into a coutry with no real military power who have done nothing to us and bombing the hell out of a city wich is predomently composed of no-combatants is criminal. Shooting ambulences, bombing hospitals, firing on hotels with reporters, using white phosphourus in a resedential community (then lying about it), destroying civilian infrastructure to name a few are violations of the geneva conventions and a war crime. These decisions were all made by the military so we cannot blame Bush. Yes there were few ordinary German soldiers prosecuted but if there was sufficient evidence of them murdering innocent civilians they were punished. When the Germans massecred a whole village in order to send a message they were tried and convicted. Now also the difference was that it was a multinational court in Nuremberg whereas in this case our troops are tried by their own military and in many cases given a free pass. Remember that Marine that killed that unarmed and wounded Iraqi in the Mosque. Eventhough it was filmed and braodcast he was given a free pass. So in short to blame all the crimminal activties of our military on the civilians leadership is wrong.

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:23 PM:... Chuck, you don’t make sense. Are you saying that the Nascar crowd and homosexuals are a fraud? (12:29 PM) What is fraudulent about them? They both seem quite real, and a part of the great country. What’s your beef?

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:43 PM:... Well said, indeed, Ron (10:15 AM): So your guru, Fred Thompson, dismissed the obscene profits of the oil companies by saying “it’s supply and demand.” When Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever in history, $36 billion, its retiring chairman reaped extravagant benefits. Lee Raymond demanded one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes. Yes, Exxon demanded excessive prices from the public, the public supplied it; by like manner, Lee Raymond demanded his loot, and Exxon supplied it. Like you said, “it’s supply and demand.” I think I perceive your irrational corporatist mind.

Focal Point wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:39 PM:SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:43 PM:
They did it on 12 cents to 13 cents profit per gallon of gas per Chuck.

vegetarian wrote on Jan 6, 2008 3:47 PM:I think Peter Murnieks says it all about the outdoorsmen of today. Ride that dirtbike or snowmobile up to the nearest moose, shoot him to death with a high-powered rifle in a fair fight, then give away frozen moose steaks to all your friends for months. For Mr. Murnieks information, this isn't 100 years ago, and we don't all adore Pres. Teddy Roosevelt anyway. Meat and fish DO come from the store these days, or else you have more free time than most meat-eaters to kill all your own animal protein. So your plan seems to be to open up all the wilderness left in N. America to rifle-toting off-road hunters who can send the rest of our wildlife to extinction. Great plan.

Nick wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:02 PM:Vegetarian....just an old Indian word for lousy hunter!

Chris to moderator wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:06 PM:what happened to my blog Chris to Nick. I go to all this work an I can't get an answer to what happeded. a word in my blog is Minachim Begin Editor's Note: Not finding it. Please provide other key words repost blog.

SOLON ... wrote on Jan 6, 2008 4:22 PM:... The flat tax is a ruse, just as DD Wiz states (9:55 AM), to shift the tax burden even further onto the working middle and lower income people. DD explains it very clearly. Consider this: Who pays the most for a pound of coffee, a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas - the rich or the poor? Well, of course, they pay the same, generally. Suppose, with a 10% flat tax rate, a $10 million dollar income broker, is left with an after tax income of $9 million. Supposed also a 10% flat tax rate for a $40 K income laborer, who is left with $36 K after taxes. Struggling to get by on $9 million is quite different from getting by on $36 K. Furthermore, this is the system in third world countries. Not the kind of society we want for the United States.

hardtack wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:02 PM:Now that the football is over ... for the day ..., on to less-important agendas. Let’s see: PERSPECTIVE . . . “Obama will move the country forward.” I’m sure that is true. But what direction? “Giuliani tested, ready for presidential role.” Maybe. Personally, I prefer Ron Paul. At least he seems to have read and understands the Constitution.

Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:17 PM:May you all have a fine Sunday Dinner! It's the day for my wife to shine and try another new, and hopefully good, recipe. We are both "above-ground" and, therefore, it's a great day! Peace, love and happiness to you all! Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:00 PM:"Alf wrote on Jan 6, 2008 12:05 PM". Amen brother Alf. What I particularly like about your blogs is that they do not come from talking points on the right or left. I disagree with your point of view many times but you seem to get my attention and I will listen. As far as your comment the other day (the movie with the wife) naming my (and your) lonely brain cell some word I cannot comprehend, don't go (insert name here) on me. Kee