Please NC Times wrote on Feb 28, 2008 1:18 AM:The headline writers for the letters always show personal biases or false conclusions. Take today's letter from Mary Ellen Gregg. McCain's absence on votes hardly qualifies as "doesn't care about". You do not say Obama "doesn't care about" in the 200 odd votes which he voted present.

Nature Lover wrote on Feb 28, 2008 1:45 AM:I just love how nature left us those vast deposits of Beautiful Black Oil as hidden treasure for those who find it and for those who unlock it�s wonders and uses it to bring prosperity, and security to our country and Canada. I got interested in a small Canadian Energy Company traded OTC on the NASDAC, that hopes to bring to market a lot of oil and gas. They have some land to explore for oil up in the Northwest Territories of Canada near the Arctic Circle, and are doing seismic studies looking for places to drill test wells. There are some other successful wells nearby owned by another company. This is exciting to be in at the ground level and read their progress reports. They also have some land way up in the Yukon near Alaska. They used to look for oil and then sell out to larger companies, but now they are expanding to produce and sell the oil themselves. So now they are an energy company themselves. Some of their locations have shale oil, and others regular oil just waiting to be pumped out. DD will probably find some excuse to complain. But in this case DD�s usual complaints of �Big Oil Bullies�, �elite executives and investors with BILLIONS�, �dependence on terrorists and dictators� simply do not apply here. And this is NOT FILTHY OIL. IT IS NICE CLEAN BLACK OIL FROM THE ARCTIC.
These are hard working oil engineers and some of them have acquired business management skills too. Later there will be hard working oil drillers too. Go for it boys! Bring in more of the beautiful Black oil! It is believed nature has placed vast deposits of Beautiful Black Oil as hidden treasure right there for those who find it and for those who unlock it�s wonders and use it to bring prosperity to themselves and those who have invested in their work. Every oil field helps to increase the security of our country and Canada. And there is lots of nature, ice, snow, rivers and woods, mountains and streams
for nature lovers to go out and explore.

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:17 AM:Like I said, don't doubt me...
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/governments/010739.html

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:59 AM:I just love when I'm issued a challege, especially when it comes from the wizzer!
He thinks he's got this whole scenario all wrapped up, but sadly his mythology of history and revisionist tact can always be counted on. So, a warning to all... please take what he says with "A grain of salt."
As of 2008, the Interest Expense is $178,480,274,585.65. Last year, 2007, it was $429,977,998,108.20.
As to cost/benefit analysis... where do you want to start? Fall of the Berlin Wall? Pushing Hussein back out of Kuwait? And that's only if you believe that our deficit spending is all military. I don't believe that. I believe, with the costs of entitlements rising so fast, we are borrowing to maintain the welfare state. You know, so granny won't burden the family, and still make it to the casino.
But, the Treasury page brings to light something I've been asking you about for quite awhile now, the Clinton years, and these so-called surpluses. If you look at the page below:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
What you see is the annual deficit spending by year. Please note, that in each of the Clinton years, every year except for one year, 1999, the deficit spending goes up each and every year, except for one year, 1999 where the deficit dropped from $363,823,722,920.26 in 1998 to $353,511,471,722.87 in 1999. It's the only year the deficit dropped, even though OMB reports 3 consecutive years of surpluses. Now, how is that done?
Bush reported no surplus, yet his deficit dropped in one year also. Clinton reported 3, and yet every year but one, his numbers rose. How is that?
Oh great accountant that you are?!
I know how it's done, but let's see if you do.
In 2000, it again rises to $361,997,734,302.36. But also note, that under Bush, almost the same trend line, except in 2002 at the height of the recession, it again dropped from $359,507,635,242.41 in 2001, to $332,536,958,599.42 in 2002.
Like I said, don't doubt me.

Chuck wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:19 AM:>> Regardless of the stupid scenarios you describe about 777, it's meant to curb the abuse of kids who struggle with their sexuality.>> Thats laughable. Its meant to spread the radical gay agenda

Chuck wrote on Feb 28, 2008 5:24 AM:>>I'm sure you don't need the crime stats. Why bother with them when you can just make stuff up.>> Make it up???? Why dont you ask the 8 who were shot by a rapper gang banger in LA lat night, if they see crime decreasing?

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:35 AM:As to the specific documentation of the specific errors in Gore's book and movie. I would refer my good friend, el wizbo, to post I made back on
Feb 24, @11:13 AM, in which I laid out specifics as to each Gore lie. I re=post for you here: QUOTE: "And in further futile defense of the Pope, Wiz @9:37 AM asserts that Gore's book (and accompanying video), "An Inconvenient Truth" is excellent?
GORE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, wizzer cites: "a few small errors..." but overall it presents an accurate message. The number of these inaccuracies are 9 (Nine) to be exact.
These so-called "few minor errors" found by the Brit judge, he said were: "nine scientific errors", and bad enough to require amending Teacher's instructional manuals to prevent the Alarmist definitions of Gore's book into a classroom. So, What were these "minor errors" Wizz wants to defend?
1. Gore asserts a 20 foot sea level rise in the near future. The judge said, the science shows it's a millennia away. And has since been "amended" to 3 feet by the IPCC.
2. Gore says low lying atolls have been evacuated. The judge said, no such evacuation has taken place.
3. Gore says the Gulf Stream which wamrs the Atlantic would shut down. The judge says, it's very unlikely.
4. Gore says Graphs show {that would be "his" graphs show} CO2 and temp. rise are exact matches. The judges says, there's a connection, but they {the graphs} do not show what Gore claims they do.
5. Then his ridiculous citing of Mt. Kilimanjaro snow levels.
6. Lake Chad... they have a drought. And let's also remember an increased demand on the lake's water from the local population has likely accelerated its shrinkage over the past 40 years.
7. Katrina... please.
8. Gore & polar bears. Weve found 4 dead polar bears. Hardly a crisis.
9. The judge specifically cited that Gore can not make the "leap" to global warming factors, without considering additional factors such as over-fishing & polution.
The only reason Gore would use these Alarmist definitions was to create the crisis, to scare people in order to do the kinds of things they want to accomplish. It's slick marketing & packaging. Like I said before, Film producers are allowed a certain amount of dramatic license. But documentarys, should be a lot closer to the facts.
I think, seen in conjuction with his marketing of carbon offsets, I think I know exactly why Gore made this film. To sell stuff. Like we talked about the otherday, which came first, the DEMAND, or the SUPPLY? If no demand exists, create one. Gore did exactly that. END QUOTE
Like I said, don't doubt me.

Chrisian wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:41 AM:Hey Tania Bowman: Gee, I wonder how the parents of the four children killed on their school bus in Minnesota (by an illegal who lied to police and who had no right to even be in the U.S.) would feel about your comments? Howcome it never occurs to you folks that we have immigration rules for a reason? Where do we draw the line, Tania? Just let anyone in, no background checks, health screening, etc.? (Oh duh, we already "allow" that to happen). The funny thing is that if YOU were in the same boat as the parents in Minnesota, you would probably the one screaming the loudest to your leaders as to why nothing was done to stop this lawlessness. It's OK, Tania; we've got your back as we're the ones beating back these amnesties for "undocumented workers" who show over and over again that they have no interest in America except "to make money." Sorry, that alone does not make a "citizen."

No one is on a witch hunt and no one I know wants any harm to come to them, but we certainly DO want them to obey and respect our laws, the very same ones you and I have to do every day. Being able to be here in the U.S. is a privilege, not a right.

WE ARE NOT THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT TO THE WORLD!

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:42 AM:And those government tax/income/asset statistics I have, regarding how much the Rich actually pay in total taxes, instead of the mindless drivel we hear from the left about "the Rich" not paying their fair share? I got those too!!!
According to DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Public Affairs March 2, 2005 FACT SHEET: Who Pays the Most Individual Income Taxes? QUOTE: The individual income tax is highly progressive � a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual incometaxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group�s tax share has grown faster than their income share. Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total. The President�s {That would be Bush} tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. END QUOTE
You can read the rest...
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:YLr84Ts0FSIJ:www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf+top+1%25+of+taxpayers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
Like I said, don't doubt me.

Old White Man wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:52 AM:Facts are not necessary as long as one has attitude.

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 7:58 AM:And finally... as to whether Eisenhower deserve any credit for our InterState Highway System. Yes, exactly as I stated about Gore. Both took an idea from smart guy's, and backed it, with Government money. That's the credit they both deserve, they used the levers of Government to take an idea from the Really Smart Guy's and push it. Eisenhower, of course, never really envisioned an American Highway system, until he saw what the Germans had done with the Autobaun, and brought that really smart idea back home, as are so many American success's.
But, of course, you knew all that, had nothing of value to write, and had to re-post the same mantra for days, showing all of us that you truly have nothing to actually say, except by the talking points given to you. Oh, one more thing about the SuperHighway, as you like to call it. The Automakers wanted it, and pushed it too, do they deserve credit too? As to inventing, that would infer Creation, or creating it. I think J. C. R. Licklider, who back in 1958, saw universal networking as a potential unifying human revolution, might disagree with Gore getting so much credit. Don't you? Or those who worked with Licklider, who had recruited Lawrence Roberts to head a project to implement a network, and Roberts based the technology on the work of Paul Baran. I mean.. how old was Gore then, 12? LOL Your too funny el wizbo... but keep coming back.

No-Spin Doctor wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:02 AM:(Anti-Mexican witch hunt) Which part of illegal do you not understand? I, as the rest of the nation, have no problem with assimilated legal immigrants from Mexico or any other nation. The reason we have legal immigration is: as a sovereign nation, our leaders know how much legal immigration our infrastructure, schools,fire protection,policing,welfare,and a host of other entitlements can AFFORD. So anyone that agrees that we can't AFFORD to take in more than the dam will hold is labeled racist,bigots,anti-mexican etc. Maybe americans that believe in illegal immigration and open borders could cut checks now for these border jumpers.My money would be better spent on legal immigrants and or own citizens. Imagine the removal of ALL illegals. The state of california would have a budget surplus.

theWolf wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:06 AM:Maralyn Johnson is obviously a liberal ... She decries David Brooks-a columnist not a reporter-but I did not see her letter about the "reporting" smear job on McCain or the continuing nuttiness of columinsts Paul Krugman and Fran Rich. I admired the NY Times as a journalism student but now it is a liberal mouthpiece. A shame.

Oh, Chuck wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:08 AM:So you're saying that until there is zero crime, it must be increasing? And that the government's statistics on crime are fictional? Like I said, pardon me for my error: trying to have an adult conversation with you. It won't happen again.

To Anti-mexican witch hunt wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:09 AM:You are exactly right. The Mexican community needs to come out of its fearful shadows and start publicly denouncing the gangs, drug smugglers , human traffickers and thugs. It is crucial that the Mexican community stop fearing retaliation by other Mexicans that behave badly. Until them, of course all Mexicans will be grouped into one category. Americans embrace the Mexican culture and traditions, but we detest gangs, graffiti, drugs and naughtiness that sometimes occurs in these communities. Attitude towards Mexicans , change is in your hands, make it happen.

Oh, Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:12 AM:The figures you give about taxes and "fair share" are potentially very interesting. But full disclosure is a necessity in such debates. Go back and find for us the share of wealth that each of these percentage groups holds, as well as their income. The percentage of taxes they pay are meaningless (if you want to talk about fair share) unless you include these figures as well. You say their tax share has grown faster than their income share. Maybe it's just catching up to what it should be. Who knows? We need all the data, not just the parts picked to make your point.

to Nature Lover wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:25 AM:You could be the lead in "There Will be Blood". Have you seen that film? It could have inspired your posts. Three cheers for Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of the good oil driller you describe.

Oh, Ron PS wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:31 AM:BTW, your logic on "fair share" leads to this corollary: if the numbers of impoverished people in the nation grow, by definition those who make a lot of money will be paying a larger share of the taxes. The more people pay no taxes because they have no, or virtually no, income, the larger percentage the rich pay. This is the kind of reasoning that shows why your whole approach is a spin. Sorry. I don't doubt you, ever: you reliably spin. Never fail.

Land of the free wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:34 AM:From the NY Times, QUOTE: For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report tracking the surge in inmate population and urging states to rein in corrections costs with alternative sentencing programs.The report, released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.ENDQUOTE The conservatives' dream state. The haves and the imprisoned. No tax dollar spent on the prison system is wasted in their view. Building the land they love. And God forbid investing in education. Can't have more competition in that marketplace, can we? But of course with all those people in prison, not paying taxes, it falls to us wealthy people to pay an even GREATER share of the nation's taxes. No fair!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:35 AM: The post from "Please NC Times" (1:18am) whines about unfairness in the NCT's creation of headlines for letters. There may or may not be occasional bias or error that slips into writing of headlines, but the example cited does not match the conclusion. In the case of the published letter from Mary Ellen Gregg that is mentioned, the headline accurately represents the view of the letter accompanying it, whether or not one agrees with the writer's viewpoint.
As for comparing missed 100% of votes on a particular serious issue (the environment) in the Senate, that clearly shows a lack of interest in that subject. He didn't even vote at all! Comparing that to Obama's votes of "present" on specific votes in the Illinois legislature were strategic moves utilizing specific arcane rules unique to the Illinois legislature for the purpose of advancing bills, and were done at the request of those advocating for specific positions. These have been explained in the media, and I don't want to re-hash them here, but the point is that "Please...." is spouting off about something he/she knows nothing about. UNLIKE McCAIN, on the issues in question, Obama DID VOTE, but he utilized a unique strategic procedural move to advance his bills at the request of the sponsors.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:36 AM: The post from "Nature Lover" (1:45am) confirms his vested interest in profiteering from pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, and expects us to give him/her the slightest credibility on the subject.
We don't.
The pollution-generating product is FILTHY.
Its drilling devastates the surrounding environment.
Its transport befouls our coasts (ask the Exxon Valdez).
Its use fouls the air and environment.
It is FILTHY.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:37 AM: The posts from "Ron" (4:17am, 4:59am and 7:35 am) claim to provide documentation for past claims.
They don't.
I did not dispute the amount of costs for the "elderly" previously cited by "Ron" (2/27 -11:07am)... I merely asked him to define what he meant by costs for the "elderly" and then to back up the number. Now he has done this. He provided a link that shows the total expenses for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
This, of course, would not be an accurate representation of the costs for the "elderly" since Social Security payments to the elderly are a return on their own deposits, and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security itself, include many expenses for NON-ELDERLY such as survivors' benefits and medical coverage for the poor and disabled. Once again, "Ron" provides "documentation" that does not support what he claimed. But at least he's getting closer. At least he had a number, even if it wasn't what he said it would be. Keep trying, "Ron."
"Ron" continues to question the figures about the deficits and surpluses in relation to the National Debt. He continues to cite what he claims are conflicting data, from the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and the Treasury Department, and then whines because *I* have not reconciled these. While I appreciate his confidence in making me an accountant, I am not one (though my wife is), but neither she nor I compiled these. I cited official OMB figures showing the LBJ and Clinton surpluses. It is not my job to explain why the Bush administration has conflicting data.
However, the point is moot because, even though it is not my job to explain this, I already did so when "Ron" brought up the same thing when he brought this up back on Feb 15. We went back and forth in a series of exchanges on that date. "Ron" made the same point, and UNLIKE "Ron" I actually read and cited the fine print on the source HE provided, which stated that they used a different accounting method, which cited the face value of bond indebtedness obligations, not the net present value as is usually done in standard accounting. "Ron" then railed at me for having the "nerve" to point out this accounting anomaly (clearly identified) in the definitions from HIS SOURCE, ridiculing me and criticizing the accounting of my business, even though I never endorsed that accounting method and merely pointed out that it was the method used by HIS SOURCE to come up with the numbers HE USED to try to turn the Clinton SURPLUS into a deficit.
OK, "Ron," you can have it your way. We agree that the site YOU PROVIDED used voodoo economics, and the OMB site I provided is correct in showing the CLINTON SURPLUS. Fine! I'm glad we now agree. Thank you for that.
As for verifying his allegations against Gore, which are irrelevant to anything since Gore is not a scientist and I have never cited him as a primary source, he has not done so. All he did was just list again the same items he provided before, with no additional support or documentation. Several of them do include the few small errors that required (and received) an errata sheet; others just list and dismiss (with ridicule) statements by Gore that are, in fact, justified by hard evidence. But all "Ron" has done is just copy and paste his original undocumented list. It is just as worthless this time as the first time, though does have the redeeming value of confirming, yet again, "Ron's" inability to document his claims.

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:47 AM:My first response to Oh, Ron @8:12 AM, who then again posted as: Oh, Ron PS @8:31 AM, proves at least one thing. Your computer works, and quite frankly, I'm tired of doing YOUR homework for you. But, being the soul that I am, and answer that question, if it confuses you. The figuires I gave ARE the exact figuires the Government requires to be reported. What you are asking, in requesting "full disclosure" is a red herring. That would be the same as the Government wanting know how much you paid for yur car? Or how many TV set's you own. All of those are Assets, But not required to be disclosed to Government for tax computing purposes.
Just as you might have a 401K, that whole portion of your income is tax-defered, in short, not counted in this tax year. But it shall be computed in future tax years, when you begin to withdraw. Do you not grasp this?
rich people invest in a lot of things, many of those things are tax deferred. they are smart, and it shows. What you and el wizbo do all the time, is generally what most envious liberals do, you hate them for having more. And then you hate them even more when they out smart these government hacks who try to take it from them. They didn't get to where they are in the food chain by being dumb. And that just eats you up, doesn't it? In fact, you should be in awe of them, and try to learn from the best. No.. sadly, your type & kind try to bring low these people... The old saying is: For every finger you point, three are pointing back at you...

Oh, Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:03 AM:Your reply is amusing. You might recall that it was YOU who whined about the rich paying an unfair share. I'm not complaining about the rich at all. I'm saying that their share of the tax burden seems pretty appropriate in light of their wealth. But you have an imagined foe, the envious liberal, or some such. No. Remember, it was YOU who began the whine-fest about "it's not fair". I'm just pointing out that you found (as is your usual practice) a few select figures to support your whine. The necessary figures, which neither of us wants to bother finding, are absent. Ron: all spin, all the time. As for being in "awe" of the rich, I learned a long time ago that money doesn't buy happiness (and now there is a lot of research that supports this). I reserve awe for people who really earn it: the ML Kings, the Ghandis, the monks in Burma. Those are the people I envy, the ones that have so much more courage and moral fortitude than I do, regardless of their material holdings.

Mazz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:12 AM:Darlene Dittus... You have to actually READ the paper. As of Feb 23, there are daily articles on Nader's presidential bid.

heckuva job, W wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:14 AM:From the McCatchy papers, QUOTE: WASHINGTON - When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion. Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion.
That estimate from Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz also serves as the title of his new book, �The Three Trillion Dollar War,� which hits store shelves Friday. The book, co-authored with Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes, builds on previous research that was published in January 2006. The two argued then and now that the cost to America of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is wildly underestimated. When other factors are added - such as interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans - they think that the wars� costs range from $5 trillion to $7 trillion. ENDQUOTE No, military spending is tiny compared to 'entitlements'. Can we ask that Bush please stay in Africa, where he is appreciated, until January? Can we again ask that anyone that voted for him, especially the second time, relinquish their vote for at least a decade as a way of apologizing to the nation for their sins. Please? Have you not caused enough misery and damange?

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:18 AM:You keep holding on to that OMB report
not a Wiz @9:37 AM. I hope the rest of you see how this works by now. You see, what the not a wiz does is this: He asks for data, then when you supply the data, he rejects it, if it does not match his version of the facts. He does this ALL the time. With Global Warming, with taxes, with anything. It's a great debate tactic, but that's all it is. A tactic. He obviously has nothing to back his assertions, other than a very few "pet" cites, that he constantly retorts with. If he truly had "the Facts", he'd be able to multi-source, which he does not.
As for the "elderly" he cannot retort, that's the data, so he must shuck-n-jive around them. Typically.. not a wiz.
As to the National Debt, again he can not face facts. I purposely posted conflicting data to show the discrepancy of "The Facts" according to one side of Government, with another side of Government. Every smart business man knows, more eyes on a project limits mistakes. As in Enron, a bought and paid for accounting firm, showed nothing but blue skies ahead, by purposely "fudging the numbers." In the end, we all know what happened, people got their life savings scammed away from them. Same to with this Government. An example, This Government only shows Social Security as an income item in all of their budgets. They never carry the liabilities in Social Security. What "They" call a Unified Budget, is a joke, it is smoke and mirrors. They hide the out year liabillities, on purpose. Current liabilities in between Social Security & Medi-Care are about $45 trillion, with a very large "T", and they place the debt into a bucket, inside the Social Security Administration, instead of carrying it on their books. Of course, not a wiz knows this, or I'd certainly hope he would. But again, it does not fit "his agenda", he must purport the mythology in order for "his World" to continue. This is why, at all costs, he must rejects facts that conflict with his view of the World.
He did cited OMB figures showing the LBJ and Clinton surpluses, while borrowing from Social Security. Sorry not a wiz, that don't count in any... I mean ANY real accountants world. If your total debt goes up, even if it's delayed, that might help you in the short run, but in the long run, those costs are still there. And that is exactly how both LBJ & Clinton were able to show a surplus, by stealing money that was not their's to steal. It would be like, raiding your own child's college fund, to pay for health insurance today. Sure, they are covered today, but they won't make it into college, until YOU PUT THE MONEY BACK.
Again, it fits his selection of "the Facts." And then he dodges by saying: "It is not my job to explain why the Bush administration has conflicting data." Right, the Bush Administration.... oh brother.
As for verifying the Gore lies.. perhaps people have forgotten, but I shall remind them. Gore is a trained journalist, I understand he's not a
a scientist. but what it shows, that even as a supposedly "trained journalist" he can't get his facts straight. But, like I said, even a British judge found his lies so egregious, he directed "the data" in Gore's book & movie be amended before it could be taught, or shown. A disclaimer, in short. So much for being a journalist. And since Gore is a trained journalist, I think we all know what he intended to do with his movie & book. Don't we?

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:25 AM:No, again.. I must correct this perception by Oh, Ron @10:03 AM. I have on occasion complained about how "the Rich" are treated, not by the amount they pay. According to our system, or progressive taxation, they pay what the Government tells them to pay, just as you pay what the Government tells you to pay. No, my complaint was, Since we now know they pay far more than anyone else in this Country, don't you think it's about time to start laying off them? And just say: Thank You for caring for MY Granny?
But, sadly.. NO! What your side always wants to know is: How much MORE do they got!?

Chris to Christian wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:31 AM:Oh, how you are so upset over those four children who were killed by an illegal alien. Yet I don't see any of you Christians concerned about the hundreds of thousands and counting the sanctions over a million Iraqis killed in our outlaw war. But it's all about us isn't it. We have the right to interfere in other counties with the result of millions dead over our brief history but how indignant we get when someone violates our sacred laws and then causes death to one of our own. This atitued of the American people is why I don't give a damn about illegal aliens comming over here because of what we have done what right do we have to condmn anyone else for what they do.

Interesting wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:33 AM:Looks to me like estaban is going to implode when Obama gets elected President in November. RIP.

Care for the Elderly wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:40 AM:What Ron fails to take into account is that some people do not have family to take of them. Some people are childless, by choice or not; and some people's children pre-decease them such as my next door neighbor who's son was killed in Iraq last year. Everything is black and white in Ron's world, but that is not reality.

Citizenship matters! wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:47 AM:What has happened to common sense regarding illegal immigration?

As long as it's ignored, it will continue to flourish and the operative word is "illegal."

Amnesty is not the answer. They entered the country illegally, gained employment illegally, drive vehicles of all sizes illegally, and engage in various businesses illegally. Its nomenclature is imbedded in terminology that obscures its negative effect on American society. People who object to illegal immigration have been called racists, bigots and isolationists.

Social tinkerers describe the illegal population as the "undocumented" (no paper trail) and American citizens as the "documented." The 'undocumented' change their names at will to avoid sanctions, while the 'documented,' (legal citizens) have their names and life histories recorded by town, state and federal agencies, military and medical facilities. Eighteen-year-old American males are required to register for Selective Service. Federal law requires undocumented males to register as well; however, most do not.

America is a nation whose people expect justice and equality under the "the rule of law." It is unconscionable that the illegal population is allowed to live outside the law.

Every society has a core set of rules and sanctions used to enforce those rules in order to preserve order, protect the health, security and rights of its members. The blatant disregard for those laws by illegal aliens is especially troubling.

While middle class families are struggling to send their children to college and pay the bills, it is unthinkable that millions will be spent on illegal aliens or their children.

The mantra "It's a federal issue" is an excuse for inaction.

No-Spin Doctor wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:48 AM:(Anti-mexican witch hunt wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:09 AM:You are exactly right. The Mexican community needs to come out of its fearful shadows and start publicly denouncing the gangs, drug smugglers , human traffickers and thugs. It is crucial that the Mexican community stop fearing retaliation by other Mexicans that behave badly.) Dream on!!! Can you spell Mexican Culture. That is the way it is in Mexico. Call the cops there and someone is gonna get taxed, so why call. And if you make that mistake and do call, I'm almost positive that retaliation would be worse than the original dispute,or crime.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:54 AM: The published letter from Darlene Dittus whines about a lack of coverage for the fringe lunatic campaign bid by Ralph Nader. While the post from "Mazz" (10:12am) puts the lie to the allegation it has not been covered, I'm sure the coverage does not meet Darlene's expectations.
Sorry, Darlene, I'm sure the dreamy supporters of Ron Paul and Mike Gravel feel the same way, and both of them have more support than Harold Stassen, I mean Nader.
In 2000 Nader had his best shot, but now he keeps on tilting toward the perpetual windmill of his fantasies. All he accomplished in 2000 was to siphon off enough votes in Florida and New Hampshire where his vote total was greater than Bush's margin of victory (and I use the term "victory" guardedly as to Florida where allowing those votes for Gore would have provided a cheat-proof majority). While I support everyone's right to participatory democracy, and do not accuse Nader of any immoral or illegal breach as I do Bush, from a strategic perspective the result was to put Bush in the White House. The so-called "green" party, which has never passed a single piece of environmental, civil rights, civil liberties, labor, consumer protection or economic legislation, took the single greatest step toward undoing and preventing Democrats, who have actually done all those things, from doing more.
I do support Instant Runoff Voting (also known as "Ranked Preference" voting) and other electoral reforms that would allow Greens and Democrats (and also Republicans with perhaps Libertarians on some issues) to become natural allies by mutually agreeing to play backup to each other, but in the meantime all the Greens or Nader supporters are doing is helping Republicans. Their efforts are either counterproductive or diabolically strategic genius in a Rovian sense. It was this issue, increasing support for Greens and diversion of support away from liberals who have actually gotten results, that led to my reduced involvement with the North County Forum after 2000. As much as I cherish my friendships with its founder and many individual members, their sabotaging of strategic and realistic liberal advances is either unconscionable or, at best, just not very smart.
The good news is that this time, despite Darlene's crying and moaning and groaning, Nader will be nothing more than an annoying gnat.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:55 AM: The post from "Ron" (10:18am) really doesn't merit a response, but I am such a sucker sometimes. "Ron" whines: "You keep holding on to that OMB report." Uhm, yeah, well DUH! It happens to be THE OFFICIAL budget report of the United States, no matter how much you want to dispute the official statistics that don't match your fantasies and desires.
You whine about accounting shenanigans, but the ones you complained about were in the site YOU PROVIDED. Make up your mind! Look at the purposes of the different reports! The one you cited was to show long-term indebtedness, and for that specific purpose, used the face amount of outstanding bonds, NOT the usual net present value. It was not intended to be a documentation of the budget. Hello! That is what OMB is for!...
In any case, whatever figures and accounting methods were used by LBJ and Clinton, the same were also used by Reagan-Bush-Bush, so using "Ron's" pick-and-choose selective accounting, their deficits would be multiplied even further, an "inconvenient truth" he is silent about.
And "Ron" misrepresents the OMB page I cited: "He did cited OMB figures showing the LBJ and Clinton surpluses, while borrowing from Social Security." Actually, as "Ron" knows because he mentioned this before, the OMB page I cited showed both ON budget as well as OFF budget as well as COMBINED. All three modes show surpluses.
"Ron" continues to whine: "As for the "elderly" he cannot retort, that's the data, so he must shuck-n-jive around them." I should not dignify his racially-insensitive choice of terms here, but the FACT is, as I merely pointed out, the data he cited about the elderly did not show what he claimed. All he did was link to a page showing total payouts for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
As I noted, and I'll say it again, this is NOT JUST THE ELDERLY!
Social Security Administration outlays include many younger people who receive survivors' benefits.
SSA handles the administration of SSI payouts, which are a needs-based benefits program for the disabled.
SSA handles the administration of SSDI, for earned disability benefits.
Medicare has some qualified survivors enrolled, and Medicaid is primarily for the poor and disabled, not the elderly.
And even Social Security itself is a payout of earned deposits.
All I did was show that "Ron's" figure is not a valid measure of the elderly.
Shoot the messenger, why dontcha? Sorry, "Ron," I know it is discouraging. But that is the problem when the real facts don't support what you wish they would.

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:19 AM:And given the fact, that I'm trying to be environmentally concious, our Goverment has done it to us again!
After banning Thomas Edison's bulb, they then stick us with these pig tails, and now I find out: "Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break", according to The Boston Globe.
Touted as "...still the best idea out there." Get this. This is what "the Experts" recommend should you break one of these new bulbs: QUOTE:
The study recommended that if a compact fluorescent breaks, get children and pets out of the room. Ventilate the room. Never use a vacuum, even on a rug, to clean up a broken compact fluorescent lamps. Instead, use stiff paper such as index cards and tape to pick up pieces, and then wipe the area with a wet wipe or damp paper towel. If there are young children or pregnant woman in the house, consider cutting out the piece of carpet where the lamp broke as a precaution. Place the shards and cleanup debris in a glass jar with a screw top and remove the jar from the house.-
Disposal regulations vary from state to state, with some requiring broken compact fluorescent light bulbs, to be disposed of as household hazardous waste. Most states allow intact compact fluorescents to be thrown away, but some - such as Vermont, Minnesota, and California - ban disposal in trash, according to Bender. END QUOTE
Cut a piece out of MY carpet?!
Evacuate my children & pregnant wife?!
And on top of this madness... some States do not require you to "properly" dispose of them? So, they can chuck em' into the garbage? LOL

Oh, Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:31 AM:Backpedal all you like. Change your words all you like. You still seem to be challenged as a reader. As I said before. (1) I have nothing against the wealthy, in fact I'm not doing too badly myself! (2) I said nothing about taxing the wealthy more. (3) I claimed that you were the whiner about taxes being unfair to the rich. Even as you deny you say this, you say this again. BTW, I always have found that people use the word "fair" in interesting ways. In games and sports, where the rules are spelled out and agreed upon, the idea of fairness really applies. Otherwise, as with children, when people say "no fair" what they really mean is "it's not the way I want it". Who should decide or could decide what's the "fair" amount that anyone should pay in taxes? Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you believe that any taxation is communism, even one cent is unfair. There's no objective authority that's agreed upon in life, as there is in sports, the rulebook you can consult to settle such matters. So Ron, please stop whining, ok?

Ron wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:32 AM:You know, I don't know what all the clamoring is about on the Democrat side of the isle about our slowing economy.
If you didn't catch it, we're actually following the advice from our former President Bill Clinton.
Back on January 31, 2008, the
Former President was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife, and he said: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
So? What's all the comotion about on that side of the isle? Isn't this good for Gaya, Mother Earth?

Ron doesn't, care for the elderly wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:33 AM:As Ron has made perfectly clear, your life is your responsibility, period. If your kids are moral (and if they are alive) they should care for your senior years. But if they can't, or won't, no matter: your being needy is 100% your own fault. Don't come knockin' at Ron's door. Simple.

Jack_D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:36 AM:I hope Darlene Dittus was joking when she advocated Ralph Nader for President. Sure, you left-wing fools, vote for Nader. You might as well just vote directly for McCain. Did Ms. Dittus learn nothing from the election of 2000? Without Nader,we would be saying goodbye to President Al Gore.

Reardon wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:37 AM:From The Lonesome Dove News: The rumors have been confirmed�after a decades-long relationship between DD and Beautiful Black Oil, DD is dating a new, and reportedly underage, Sunshine! (She is reputedly a �high maintenance woman.�) Known more for his verbosity than critical thinking, DD is going around blasting his decade-long relationship, calling his former paramour FILTHY FINITE FOSSILE FUEL. DD is urging all locals to leave their long-term relationships for newer pastures, and take up with expensive, young eye-candy. (Another new hussy, WIND, died recently in West Texas, causing those lured by the siren-song, to return temporarily to the arms of their time-tested lover, Beautiful Black Oil.) It is rumored that some believe that the mouthy DD is a cad, and deserves a thrashing for his disrespect for his former love. Folks hereabouts ain't mad about DDs' dalliance, just his dissing his former, and true love for her new-found wrinkles. DD carries his own soapbox as he visits the local bars, touting his new love and dissing his old love. -30-

Jack_D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:44 AM:I think Mary Ellen Gregg's letter was unfair to McCain. McCain has, in fact, consistently sought to reduce greenhouse gases. He has advocated nuclear power, the only real alternative to oil, gas, and coal.

Reardon wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:47 AM:Re "The Elderly": One person's need does not constitute a claim on my money. Democrats claim that it does, at least for �X� amount. Republicans agree it does, but only for �Y� amount. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would personally come to my home and take my money, but both believe that they can insulate themselves from being thieves by hiring a third party -- government -- to do their dirty work. Sorry, theft is theft, regardless of proxies.

Ms M wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:49 AM:Jack_D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:36 AM Each party has their idiots as shown in the elections of 2000 and 2004. You boy won....need I say more!

esteban wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:52 AM:No, I won't implode. I'll sit back and watch as the country implodes. But I won't say I told you so...You... libs are so bent on getting Bush and the Repubs out, that you'll damage the nation just to spite us. Nice job.

esteban wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:54 AM:Chris...why do you jump for joy when an American dies? ...

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:56 AM: The published letter from Darlene Dittus whines about a lack of coverage for the fringe extremist campaign bid by Ralph Nader. While the post from "Mazz" (10:12am) accurately debunks the incorrect allegation that this has not been covered, I