Chris wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:01 PM:This just shows how cluless these conservatives are. Edward Cooper blames Clinton for starting to tax social security payouts to seniors. No it was the icon of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who started taxing social securtiy although Clinto did raise the amount to be paid by higher income people. I am so tired of people that know not of what they speak. Then Cooper say's that Bush tried to shore up the trust fund that's been looted by the Democrats. What rubbish. What do you think is funding the war. The fact is that Bush's deficits far exceed those of Clinton. That is why our social security trust fund is being looted. I believe that Cooper is right as far as raising the retirement age in order to get the full amount of social secutity payout. These conservatives are absolutely clueless.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:02 PM: The published letter from J. Howard Crews is EXCELLENT! What part of ILLEGAL don't the Republicans understand. I'm sure the Republicans will be thrilled to support expanded "presidential" (I mean "royal") powers when King Barack or Queen Hillary sits upon the throne they have created.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:03 PM: The published letter from Edward Cooper has a lot of nerve to complain about fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats. According the the Office of Management and Budget, the only OFFICIAL "scorekeeper," the only presidents who had a combined total overall budget SURPLUS since 1960 are LBJ and Clinton, with Clinton doing it the last four years straight, with each year's surplus bigger than the year before.
In contrast, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II each brought deficits that set new records, and in each case, which were more than all the previous deficits of all the previous presidents COMBINED! Especially in the case of the current fiscal disaster, that is quite an achievement, since it has to include the deficits of his father and Reagan!
But we see the problem in Cooper's last sentence: he is too worried about having the government butt its nose into people's private relationships and medical choices to care about the economy, other than complaining about the Democrats who actually clean up the Republican borrow-and-spend irresponsbility.

Jack_D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:32 PM:Edward Cooper's article is preposterous. The Democrats have raided the trust fund for "social programs"? Name one program that is diverting money from Social Security. How about the $500 billion Medicare prescription bill or a $500 billion war? Oh, wait, those were passed by Republicans. Also, what do same-sex unions have to do with the work force. Not following that argument.

Chris to Jack D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:21 PM:I guess that Cooper's thought on abortions and same-sex unions have to deal with less children. Abortions kills would be workers and same-sex unions don't produce workers.

BA wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:30 PM:"Americans must object to our troops being tried for battlefield actions"

Yeah, imagine holding them reponsible!
Next thing you know they can't shoot innocent people!
It's the liberals fault.

BILL 1 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:44 PM:RE: Mexico just doesn't care; Deport,deport,deport to mexico or any other country an illegal is loyal to, because until All go through the same process and wait the same as millions before them and All thie income is taxed and tracked the same as all other law abiding CITIZENS they do not belong, have constitutional rights and should not have any of the same priviledges that I do, they are here on my dime and to me that is stealing so you can add that to trespassing and all the other nice crimes the worst of them commit!

Watch your gluteus maximus .. wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:01 AM: . Well there is a 3-letter word which the NC Times editor censors. Not a 4-letter word, mind you. It is the 3-letter word for gluteus maximus (the major muscle mass upon which we sit), and the editor considers it obscene. It was taken out of my blog TWICE (4:54 PM)? So-o-o-o-o to implement the editor?s criterion, the old Cajun saying would have to be QUOTE: When you?re up to your gluteus maximum in alligators, you forget that your original intention was to drain the swamp. END QUOTE. I never heard a Cajun speak like that. Hm-m-m-m-m. What was the noble animal upon which Mary, the expectant mother of Jesus, rode upon into Bethlehem? I?m not speaking of Mary?s gluteus maximus, either, but the noble animal, which is considered an obscene name by the Times censor. And, oh yes -- what is the symbol of the Democratic Party? Not a nasty 3-letter word, mind you -- it is the genus species Equus asinus (spelled with one s only ). And the name of such a prudish editor? ...

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:01 AM:On a previous day I was explaining something about SMOG in response to a comment by DD Wiz and a question by Just Curious. I made four factual comments that would clarify an issue under discussion. This involves (1) Photochemical Smog. (2) Smog made from soot and smoke in cities. (3) Particulates. (4) Background of cleaning up pollutants from auto exhaust. Then DD Wiz made a very negative comment on January 26 at 9:12 AM about my posts grouping all four together. This issue is still relevant. Senators Boxer and Feinstein are still making themselves look stupid in hearings now before a senate committee about the EPA denying California a waiver to regulate tailpipe emmission of CO2. I will repeat here: DD used there and other expressions against my comments.
(1) "…so ridiculous they don’t merit a response…"
(2) "Any citation from reputable peer-reviewed" blah blah "to support his crackpot theories."
(3) "Any explanation of why he knows more than all the experts who are in virtual unanimity" (blah blah peer-reviewed) "in disagreeing with him."
I have no idea what part of my comments he is referring too. I want DD to be specific IF any part of my posts is in error or else concede I am correct. As far as I know what I have posted is and has been generally accepted as fact for decades and is not in dispute. In order to make this comment not too long, I will submit two in a few minutes, and the other two later.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:09 AM:This is a specific follow on to my post a few minutes ago in which I objected to DD Wiz comments against a prior post similar to this one. I want something specific here.
Most relevant to Autos and California is "PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG" In the late 1940's there was something in the air around Los Angeles and near by towns that LOOKED LIKE FOG but it smarted the eyes, caused health problems to people and animals and considerable damage to citrus trees, caused some lawns and shrubs to die. Many days one could not even see the nearby mountains. For several years it was not well known what caused it. It was figured out that it was "photochemical smog." The requirements for it to form are sunshine and relatively still air plus the existence of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (written NO with x as the subscript for how many atoms of oxygen combined with each atom of Nitrogen. The NOX from cars was formed in the engine from the burning of gasoline at a high temperature. Both exist in various chemical forms and come from variety of sources. When they are present in the required ratios the action of the sunshine causes them to react chemically forming "photochemical smog". A lot of it was from automobiles, and a lot was from factories, power plants, and
other sources. How do I know the above? I lived in the Los Angeles, Alhambra, and Pasadena area 1936 to 1952. The rest is now history. Check most any dictionary, encyclopedia, auto repair book, environmentally sensitive high school and college textbooks, etc. Most smoke coming from tailpipes is from burning lubrication oil that got into the cylinders, not from gasoline. What looks like smoke on a cold morning until the engine is warmed up is the water vapor formed by the combustion of gasoline, condensed by the cold air until the engine, manifold, catalytic converter if any, muffler, and tailpipe get warmed up. Then the same amount of water comes out but it is so hot it stays evaporated. How do I know this? In high school chemistry class we learn that burning gasoline make CO2 and water. Approximately one gallon of water per gallon of gasoline. Same thing is taught in College chemistry.
Totally separate is what looks like thick white smoke that comes out the tailpipe when a head gasket or cracked head leaks coolant antifreeze and water into the cylinder. That is not smoke from combustion; it is overheated antifreeze and water vapor. How do I know that? It is common knowledge among auto mechanics and do it your self at home car fixers. I had repaired it myself on two different cars, and identified their problem for several other persons and sent them to their auto mechanic.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:12 AM:This is a specific follow on to my post a few minutes ago in which I objected to DD Wiz
Calling this comment "ridiculous", a "crackpot theory", and "all the experts disagree with you" on Jan 26 at 9:12 AM How about it DD. You surely did not mean to insult this explanation of smog did you? I stated Jan 26 at 3:28 AM there was another kind of "smog" besides photochemical smog. I remember vaguely from the news at that time, but this should be in any good dictionary or encyclopedia now. This kind of smog got so bad at times in England by the mid 1900’s that nearly 4,000 persons died from it in London in December 1952. It was formed in industrial areas. Soot and smoke act as condensation nuclei for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide. (CO) making something that looks like fog but is very harmful. Several years later England passed a Clean Air act and started the long process of cleaning up the sources. London was just an example. This was happening in many other locations too. Source: Most any college textbook on chemistry or any large encyclopedia. This industrial smog may be occurring even now in some emerging countries although there is a lot more knowledge about it now.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:23 AM:The news is reporting that Iraq's presidency is endorsing the execution of 'Chemical Ali'. You know, the scientist who baked up the chemical weapons of mass destruction that you liberals say Saddam never had, bur somehow killed ... thousands of Kurds

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:30 AM:>>I'm periodically dismayed to read on these pages that some still believe being gay is a choice when it has been well established that our sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is involuntary and fixed>>> If it's genetic,you'd the gene would have worked its way out of the population over these millions oy years, because it isnt being passed on to offspring, no matter how much they try?

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:54 AM:I'm all in favor of turning over the Gulf of Mexico and the ANWR over to the natives Indians. That way, they can tell the liberals to go shove it, and go into full drilling mode to save this economy. Alternative sources to support the US economy wont be available for 20 years.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:58 AM:Out of one side of the mouth of liberals comes the charge that Bush is using terrorism for the fear factor, and out of the other side of their mouths, they gum flap that global warming will sink all of the worlds islands

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:49 AM:I see the Queen allowed her grandson to go off and fight terrorism in Afghanistan, and as soon as the liberal media found out, they couldnt announce it to the terrorists fast enough. It's kinda like liberals here- As soon as we find a method to spy on terrorists here, liberals either announce it to Al Jazzera, or run to the courts to shut it down. I wish the Hillary the Spineless and Hussein the Chicken would see the same value in fighting terrorism instead of surrendering to it and allowing radical Islam to spread throughout the globe.

Hey Doug wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:58 AM:Why don't you write a letter to all of our upper class or maybe just Bill Gates and tell him to as you say "show some effort in making things better." I don't know where you get your information because honestly I am more concerned about what is happening here in the United States. Really do you think violent street crime is any less damaging than the white collar we face here in the United States? Crime is crime and we have our fair share here at all levels and I think the old adage of those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:05 AM:I heard another whiney teachers union memeber bemoaning about California's budget cuts and it's effect on the schools. She boldly proclaims: "we can't take chances with our kids" Just what does she think the public schools are doing when they fully support SB777, and allow the Planned Parenhood cabal to run their agenda in the schools behind the parents back. They replace books like Tom Sawyer with books like "Johnny has 2 daddies". They teach the proper method of fitting a condom on a cucumber instead of how to solve algebraic equations, etc, etc. I actually like hearing those whiney commercials, as I think to myself, the schools get what they deserve and reap what they sow.

Expat Doug wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:09 AM:Here's my bet.

On the day following the death of the greatest conservative mind of all times (Wm. F. Buckley), not a word will be spoken about him by the cast of intellectual midgets who frequent this room and view themselves as members of right wing think tanks.

Rest in Peace, Bill Buckley--from a liberal who will always admire the real, honorable conservatives of days gone by, who somehow were replaced with venomous hate mongers who can only claim to be what men like you actually were.

Invasive species wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:27 AM:Very funny Bob. Esther Sanchez must be thrilled with your grade school mentality.

Sharks wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:06 AM:I've read about the recent shark attacks off Ft Lauderdale. Scientists have wondered why there have been no attacks off of Boca and Palm Beach. It was determined that those sharks have the same number of teeth as the residents.

Old White Man wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:25 AM:Our President standing there and is unaware that economists are predicting that gasoline may go to $4.00 a gallon, "Really? I hadn't heard that." he says. God, you Liberals make me sick, you're ruining this country!

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 AM:Edward Coopers letter today is correct: "Democrats will ride us to the poor farm."
While I have my own disagreements with George Bush on several policies, in the Democrat scheme of things, it would have been a lot worse.
Take for example, The new Medi-Care drug benefit. Bush, in my opinion, wanted to "out Democrat.. the Democrats" in typical NeoCon style. In his version of "compassionate Conservatism", he thought, like FDR, that he could create a Government welfare constiuency that would pay off in Republican voters for years, perhaps even decades to come. This is the Genius of FDR, and his New Deal programs. They were designed to create voting blocks who were direct receipiants of Government welfare. Happy to continue to receive this welfare, these voters continued to vote Democrat. The only difference between Bush and the Democrats, Democrats say, is he did not spend enough. Whether your talking "No Child" or this "Drug Benefit", every single complaint by Democrats was over "lack of funding."
Obviously, they wanted to spend more, and that would have driven the debt & deficits even farther.
When Obamaman spoketh the other night, I was using my calculator, and for every dollar he said he'd save, he spent another $3.00. So much for good accounting. In the end, it is obvious to anyone who is clear thinking. When Democrats run out of tax money for spending, they will go looking for more.
If you think the supposed surpluses run by both LBJ & Clinton were "real", I suggest strongly he see how they were done. Even before the time of LBJ, our Federal Government has been raiding the Social Security system for income to spend today. During Clinton's term, the borrowing from Social Security was 33% of the National Government's entire income. That borrowing obviously has consequences. Is it any wonder why now the Democrats want to raise the cap on Social Security? The tax rate changes in 1986 to pre-pay for all the boomers who would retire, are all spent. For those who don't know how this works, simply, your SS taxes come out, go to the SS administration to pay current receipiants, the surplus in the Social Security Administration, then is siphoned off into the General Federal Budget to be spent today, on things like SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Sure, you get the benefit today, but in order for future retirees to collect, the money must be put back. It is not being put back, yet. The Congress issues Treasury Bills, or IOU's, to the Social Security Administration, to be collected on in the future. The question is obvious, where does Congress get that money? That's right, from you, me, and our neighbors. Most Americans already pay at least 12.4% of their entire life's wages into this system, so.. unwilling to ask us to pay a 18-24% tax rate, they want to lift the cap on those above the $97K level. You see, it's a Ponzi scheme, with the very first receipiant paying only $22 into the system, yet receiving $22,000 in benefits. Sounds' like cattle futures, huh? LOL
The point simply, not one... NOT ONE Administration has operated as if Social Security was not part of the Nation's budget. They borrowed it, knowing that our children would be on the hook for whatever they did. Like I said yesterday, it would be like using your child's college fund to pay for health insurance today. Yeah, you'll get the coverage today, but your kid's college career will be in jepardy, until you find "additional money" to put it back. They are finding the additional money, by breaking the cap that has existed since the inception of the program. They are breaking new ground folks.

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:45 AM:If it's natural, do it

I'm periodically dismayed to read on these pages that some still believe that loving children is a choice when it has been well established that our sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is involuntary and fixed. While virtually no reputable, professional scientific organizations agree on this. Neither did they agree back in the 50's & 60's, when "being gay" was considered mentally ill. The only choices older men and younger women make are the same ones the rest of us make -- the many decisions relating to our day-to-day behavior.

We human beings, gay or straight, may periodically seek gratification, support or fulfillment in relationships with those to whom we are attracted and have affection for. Or we may choose to remain unattached and celibate. What we are not very likely to do is to consistently behave in a way to deny our basic nature, which includes our sexual orientation. That would probably be unhealthy.

Thus, just as we never chose to be right- or left-handed, we didn't choose our sexual orientation. And just as I wouldn't advise people to abandon their natural handedness, I happily allow gay people to do what's natural for them, including marrying each other, if we would allow ALL others to equally seek the love of their life. Whether that be younger women, older men, poligamy, animals. Hey, if it's NATURAL, the sky's the limit, right? And who are you to tell me who I can love, and who I can't? Your violating my right to pursue my happiness.
I don't really believe any of that, but it's a great argument, Yes?

Ms M wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:55 AM:Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:49 AM...um Chuck I think it was Drudge who FIRST dropped a dime on the queens grandson LOL try again. It's going to be a looooooooong day - lies and ugliness so early in the morning. Take a chill pill and enjoy another beautiful SD day dude!

Two posts, three "errors" for Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:03 AM:I've only read two of Chuck's posts today so far, the ones at 3:23 and 3:58, and in those two tiny posts, three blunders. 1) No one on earth ever said Saddam never HAD WMDs, he just didn't have them when Bush and Powell said he did, to "justify" an invasion; 2) and 3) The difference between global warming fear and terror fear is that the first is true and the other false. Rather large difference, I'd say. Chuck wouldn't. Maybe tomorrow Chuck will post something honest.

to Expat Doug wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:06 AM:Right on, in your kind words about Bill Buckley. The yahoos here would hate Buckley. He had long, reasoned conversations with people. He expressed the conservative viewpoint honestly, clearly, creatively and did it all without shouting or telling his opponent to shut up. If "Firing Line" were on today, our posters would be screaming to turn it off. Anything that has long, interesting sentences and no shouting of insults just has to be liberal propaganda.

greeneyes wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:09 AM:Re: Mexico doesn't care. You're right Mexico doesn't care about their people. They've had water issues as long as I can remember-1960's. The old rich just stay rich and the poor just stay poor. I've heard the same old speech from the politicos for years.

Profiles in courage wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:17 AM:Isn't it inspiring to see national leaders, just like in the old days, there at the front with the troops. Prince Harry in Afghanistan. Bush and Cheney in Baghdad. What? Bush and Cheney rarely went NEAR Iraq? And when they did, there was no advanced notice, and they stayed behind the wall of the green zone, and the visit was as short as possible? Oh, never mind.

What he said wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:23 AM:Here's a bit of what Obama said about invading Iraq in October, 2002, QUOTE: After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. ENDQUOTE Obama had it right, he nailed it. This alone would be reason to vote for him over the perpetual war-mongering of the right, of McCain. Dumb wars. Rash wars. Wars that are not justified by dint of threat or last resort. Wars against "enemies" that have no armies. Wars for the sake of votes. As opposed to wars against those that attacked us, in places that are difficult to fight, that don't bring in the votes that "Missions Accomplished" bring in from the ingnorant and easily mislead. We are not compelled to repeat disaster. We have a choice.

Ms M wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:44 AM:Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 AM in the Democrat scheme of things, it would have been a lot worse.... Well time will tell if that is true come 2009. If history repeats itself, Dems. will clean up the mess that this current repub. adm. has created and we will once again have a surplus.

Mazz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:48 AM:Actually, MsM, You are wrong. It was an Austrailian Tabloid magazine, "New Idea" that broke the story...
and I quote: "Australians angrily condemned the decision of a weekly women's magazine to break the news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan.
The story was published in Australian tabloid magazine New Idea last month but not followed up by other media.
In an article on its website dated January 7, the magazine - nicknamed in Australia 'No Idea' - reported that Harry had seen front line action in Afghanistan despite opposition from the British government and members of the Royal family.
New Idea said it could "exclusively reveal" that the "maverick prince" had already seen front-line action.
The story was then picked up by a German newspaper and, yesterday, the US-based Drudge Report website, triggering world wide interest."
Liberals hate facts.

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:53 AM:If it's natural, do it? Some people may have natural desires for children and animals, too. Do we celebrate their natural orientation and allow them to marry also? Throughout human history, some have been gay. Whether we believe this to be by choice or by some genetic combination, marriage has always been accepted as a man-woman union. Why must that definition be changed now? Someone explain this, because Rocky did not.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:59 AM: The posts from "Snowbird-2" (1:01am, 1:09am, and 1:12am), going back to our exchange of over a month ago (1/16 - his of 3:28am et seq and mine of 9:12am), show how long it has taken him to finally figure out a response.
I regret, however, that the passage of time seems to have distorted his memory, because he misses the point I have consistently made.
I do not deny that there are many forms of pollution, any more than I do not deny (and in fact have consistently referred to) that there are many natural factors which contribute to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that we have seen throughout the entire geologic record. It would be silly to think that just because humans begin to introduce new factors, that all the old ones suddenly stop. It would be equally untenable to assume that you can create little (and sometimes big) CO2 producing machines in the billions, spread throughout all the continents of the world and think it isn't going to have a substantial impact, especially when that is supported by extensive PEER-REVIEWED evidence to show that CO2 levels, and corresponding effects on global mean temperature, far exceed anything ever produced in the known geologic record of those natural cycles.
The point is not to deny that other kinds of pollution exist, any more than to deny that there are other (natural) contributing factors to cycles of cooling and warming. All forms of pollution are problematic. But the fact that other forms exist being used to infer that, therefore, we can ignore the effects caused by non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, is unfounded.
So yes, if there are to be claims that these separate (and yes, important) issues are to be used to minimize and dismiss the importance of human-caused CO2 production as an additional contributing factor throwing off the natural cycles, and if those claims contradict those of PEER-REVIEWED science then, yes, "Snowbird-2" does need to justify those with the same level of qualified scientific support as that which he seeks to debunk.
And again, I ask, why is "Snowbird-2" so determined to go against the scientific consensus?
Why is he so motivated to attack and undermine those who are trying to create a world that is cleaner and more energy independent?
The only ones whose determination to undermine science and a clean environment that I can understand are those who have a direct financial conflict of interest, however, "Snowbird-2" has denied any such interest and I take him at his word.
My real question to "Snowbird-2" would be WHY he is so determined to fight science and promote non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS at the expense of cleaner, more energy-independent alternatives?

Randy wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:00 AM:I do not think it is unreasonable for the Drudge Report to keep Prince Harry's location secret so he can live out his dream. His military service is greater than any recent American President!

esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:31 AM:I fully support torture to get info from the enemy. I also like torture as a form of retribution. Obama and Hillary (in fact all libs) are gutless and will surrender, not exit Iraq, but surrender to them once they get the Office. Remember, a vote for the Dems is a vote against America. Liberals are dangerous to our way of life and they must not be brought to power.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:53 AM:At the end of this section, there is a brief statement summarizing a couple of the most basic rules of this forum.
Then there is a link that goes to a more detailed listing of rules, at:
http://www.nctimes.com/blogpolicy/
The second sentence of the third rule states:
"No comments that aren't relevant to the story."
I am wondering, have the blogeditors ever actually read these rules?
When I post, I ALWAYS begin each post identifying the exact published letter or previous accepted post that I am responding to. Yet I frequently note that the blogeditors repeatedly accept and include posts that are on completely unrelated topics. This is explicitly against your stated rules.
How to users of this forum no which of its own rules the NCT web comments pages takes seriously, and which it does not?

To esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:53 AM:"esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:31 AM:I fully support torture to get info from the enemy. I also like torture as a form of retribution. Obama and Hillary (in fact all libs) are gutless and will surrender, not exit Iraq, but surrender to them once they get the Office. Remember, a vote for the Dems is a vote against America. Liberals are dangerous to our way of life and they must not be brought to power." *gasp* *snort* *guffaw* esteban, please stop! Yer killin' me here! I see you unraveling more every day. I know the death of the old ways is hard for you to swallow, but please try to hold on. Your entertainment value is priceless.

Dave wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:03 AM:Rocky If it natrual, Keep me out of it. I don't want to hear about gay rights any more than i would want to see prostitutes on the street corner.
Being gay may be involuntary. Why do you need to have a parade about it?
I seek gratification with may partner in a fulfilling relationship. I'm to much of a gentleman to tell you about it.

esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:12 AM:To "to esteban"...Thanks. That's why I'm here.

thanks for clarifying, esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:17 AM:It's nice to finally hear you say it straight out: you like torture as a form of retribution. No excuses about "getting the critical information that could save lives". Not for you. Torturing people, getting the ok to do it, feels good. When people here remind us of how the Japanese were prosecuted by the US for waterboarding our GIs, some Bushies claimed that was different. The Japanese weren't trying to get crucial information, they were doing it for pleasure. Like esteban wants to. Esteban, honestly, why in the world do you not sign up at Blackwater or some such? I cannot understand what stops you. That job, which pays phenomenally, is everything good you want. Why sit around here like a hypocrite chicken-hawk on the sidelines? The game needs you in there!

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:22 AM:>>Being gay may be involuntary. Why do you need to have a parade about it? >> If being gay was involuntary, the gene would have alreaqdy worked its way out of the gene pool over these millions of years, because it isnt being reproduced in the normal manner

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:26 AM:>>Bush and Cheney rarely went NEAR Iraq? And when they did, there was no advanced notice>>> I didnt see Eisenhower in a fox hole in the Ardennes, either, did you?

to Dave wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:27 AM:Turn on the tv sometime, or go to the movies. Heterosexual intimacy 24/7. You want a straight parade? Go to any prom, among many other examples. The things we take for granted are invisible to us. One thing to thank the gay rights movement for is showing us many things about our straight selves, not all of them admirable. Keep the letters coming, Rocky!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:28 AM: The posts from "Snowbird-2" (1:01am, 1:09am, and 1:12am), harkening back to our exchange of over a month ago (1/16 - his of 3:28am et seq and mine of 9:12am)...
I do not deny that there are many forms of pollution, any more than I do not deny (and in fact have consistently referred to) that there are many natural factors which contribute to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that we have seen throughout the entire geologic record. It would be silly to think that just because humans begin to introduce new factors, that all the old ones suddenly stop. It would be equally untenable to assume that you can create little (and sometimes big) CO2 producing machines in the billions, spread throughout all the continents of the world and think it isn't going to have a substantial impact, especially when that is supported by extensive PEER-REVIEWED evidence to show that CO2 levels, and corresponding effects on global mean temperature, far exceed anything ever produced in the known geologic record of those natural cycles.
The point is not to deny that other kinds of pollution exist, any more than to deny that there are other (natural) contributing factors to cycles of cooling and warming. All forms of pollution are problematic. But the fact that other forms exist being used to infer that, therefore, we can ignore the effects caused by non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, is unfounded.
So yes, if there are to be claims that these separate (and yes, important) issues are to be used to minimize and dismiss the importance of human-caused CO2 production as an additional contributing factor throwing off the natural cycles, and if those claims contradict those of PEER-REVIEWED science then, yes, "Snowbird-2" does need to justify those with the same level of qualified scientific support as that which he seeks to debunk.
And again, I ask, why is "Snowbird-2" so determined to go against the scientific consensus?
Why is he so motivated to attack and undermine those who are trying to create a world that is cleaner and more energy independent?
The only ones whose determination to undermine science and a clean environment that I can understand are those who have a direct financial conflict of interest, however, "Snowbird-2" has denied any such interest and I take him at his word.
My real question to "Snowbird-2" would be WHY he is so determined to fight science and promote non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS at the expense of cleaner, more energy-independent alternatives? Even in the unlikely (and so far unsubstantiated) event that his challenge to climate change were to prove true, what would be the worst case scenario from acting on the current consensus? The WORST that would happen would be cleaner air and energy independence!

two more for Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:31 AM:Look around Chuck. There are many species (start with bees and ants and work forward) that have asexual individuals. Their genes are doing just fine. Your ignorance of biology matches that of your other "interests". The question to ask might be: if there is a gay gene, how would it have been selected for, since it obviously has been. Another question might be: can something be biologically determined and not be purely genetic? D'oy. Second, as I recall, Ike was on the airfields in Britain, which were at risk. I also seem to recall that prior to his being a general, Ike had a rather full military career. So the question remains: where were Bush and Cheney, now or ever? Profiles in courage, indeed.

CLOSET HIDING wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:33 AM:Dave says he is too much of a gentleman to be open about his relationship.
Does he have pictures of his "partner" on his office desk?
Does he hold hands in public?
Did he have a big wedding and invite lots of people?
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but a lot of straight people who do all these things complain if gays do exactly the same thing.
Seems to me all gays want is equal rights. Nothing special. Just equal.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:41 AM:>>>Seems to me all gays want is equal rights. Nothing special. Just equal>> I've never heard of straight pride week, or heard of parades where straights ride on a parade floats, dancing in leather bikiki thongs for entertainment. That isnt equal, thats jamming it down your throat

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:42 AM:So much for the "sacred cow" of not a Wiz @9:53 AM. The Infamous Peer-Review.... And exactly what I've been saying about this so-called "Holier than Thou" peer-review standard you keep propping up. I quote:
"Peer review is not considered a failure in cases of deliberate fraud by authors. Letters-to-the-editor that correct major errors in articles are a common indication of peer review failures. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters." end quote
Not a wiz notes: i.e. a listing of rules, "No comments that aren't relevant to the story."
And then he/she whines:
"I am wondering, have the blog editors ever actually read these rules?"
Further, I quote: "The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. Neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure." Like I said, don't doubt me... google "peer-review" and read for yourself.

Asteroid wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:46 AM:esteban for president. Get your tux pressed, I'm writting you in bro!

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:51 AM: >>So the question remains: where were Bush and Cheney, now or ever? Profiles in courage, indeed.>>> My point is that the Commander in Chief and dont go to the front lines. Bush & Cheney have gone to Iraq infinitely more times than Nancy Legosi & Harry Reid, and further Bush & Cheney go to support the troops, not to bash them on CNN's Larry GarlicBreath's show as soon as they get back like Piglosi and Murtha do. Certainly, Washington was on the front lines and possible Grant? But even Teddy's great cavalry charge was preceeding by Black Jack Pershing's attack with his regiment of blacks (hence, Black Jack)to clear the way. And, As for the queens grandson, we all say "Well Done Harry" , and I wonder if Hussein and Chris will call Harry a murderer

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:57 AM:Interesting thoughts there by "two more for Chuck" @10:31 AM, who then re-posted as CLOSET HIDING @10:33 AM, same troller, different name. But, I digress...
To what he/she proposed:
QUOTE: "The question to ask might be: if there is a gay gene...?" END QUOTE.
I too have asked this question, in regards to our perceptions regarding what is normal, should be considered normal, and what we might allow.
So, what about this Gay gene? Does it exist? And if it does, what's to preclude us from the theory, that if a "gay" gene does, in fact, exist. Does that not give us a reason to consider and believe, that there might be "other" genes controlling other types of sexual behavior? You know, there was a time in this country, when "being gay" was considered being mentally ill. It was not until the early 70's, I believe it was, when doctors changed their minds about being gay. Some like to refer to this as "enlightenment." Maybe, maybe...
But if we are just now enlightened that "being gay" is normal, why do we frown on other's who might be practising exactly what they are programmed by their own genes to do? Sexually speaking? Sure, for you or I, it may not be "our cup of tea", but who are we to prevent them from living fulfilling lives of their own?
Seems to me that gays, and "other sexually driven" behaviors want is equal rights. Nothing special. Just equal.

cHUCK wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:57 AM:>> Your ignorance of biology>> My ignorance of biology would never include the comparison of the reproductive of ants and bees, to be on the level of a human. And I believe that statement has been PEER REVIEWED

9dfet wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:59 AM:Dave wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:03 AM:Rocky If it natrual, Keep me out of it. I don't want to hear about gay rights any more than i would want to see prostitutes on the street corner.
Being gay may be involuntary. Why do you need to have a parade about it?
I seek gratification with may partner in a fulfilling relationship. I'm to much of a gentleman to tell you about it.

Gay Marriage wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:04 AM:If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:53 AM:If it's natural, do it? Some people may have natural desires for children and animals, too. Do we celebrate their natural orientation and allow them to marry also? Throughout human history, some have been gay. Whether we believe this to be by choice or by some genetic combination, marriage has always been accepted as a man-woman union. Why must that definition be changed now? Someone explain this, because Rocky did not."

The concept of gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.”

The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342 (remember, the Church and the State were synonymous back then). But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions even after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

So, why now all religious fervor against legally recognizing Gay marriage? By now, it should be obvious that it was the Church, not the State that co-opted what was, up to that time, largely a civil institution for its own benefit and selfish preservation.

In fact, in North America, despite the repeated protestations of the Church, the institution of marriage has remained largely State-sponsored. After all, even when a “person of the cloth” performs a marriage ceremony, don’t' they still conclude the proceedings by saying, “…by the power vested in me by the State of…….”?

And, as expected, the latest public furor against legalizing marriages between consenting homosexual adults has once again been orchestrated by a well-organized (but historically ignorant) combination of Roman Catholic and fundamentalist, evangelical “Christian” RELIGIOUS institutions who still seem hell-bent on turning their narrow religious beliefs about marriage into public policy.

These fundamentalist zealots apparently don't realize (nor do they apparently care) it was RELIGION that, for thousands of years has tried repeatedly to co-opt what originally was (and largely remains) a STATE-sponsored institution and not the other way around.

Thankfully, once again, this latest effort by the religious wing-nuts to continue controlling people's personal lives and fortunes are now failing…miserably. Just like the statues outlawing interracial unions and the use of birth control were struck down, more and more countries (like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Spain) and a growing list of US States (most recently, New Hampshire) are now striking down laws aimed at denying homosexuals their God-given rights and are adopting some form of homosexual marriage.

The bottom line here is that it's none of the Church's damn business…and it never SHOULD HAVE BEEN its business….if two consenting adults (homosexual or otherwise) now choose to marry and have that union officially called a "marriage" in the eyes of the State.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:08 AM:>>"other" genes controlling other types of sexual behavior?>>> Can't you just see what's coming- All the jailed sexual perverts will be looking for that magic gene and a flaming liberal judge that will free them from the clink, only to prey on the kiddies some more

Two more from Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:13 AM:Chuck, are you saying you're unaware of pageants in which women strut before men in bathing suits? Unaware of prom and homecoming parades with the king and queen being hailed? LIke I said earlier, for many of us, the out-gay behavior is interesting for showing us what we straights do but don't notice that we do. Except Chuck, who seems to insist that entertainment from the Dating Game to Miss America to burlesque all don't exist. Second, your ignorance of biology is only displayed more exuberantly when you seem to all but deny that ants and bees have genes like humans do. Funny how among a certain kind of person who combines ignorance with arrogance, bragging to show how ignorant they REALLY are feels like showing off. It's like they're saying, "Think that last remark was idiotic? Well how about THIS one!" Reminds me of the old festivals in Europe where they'd crown a King of Fools annually. I have a nomination. LOL

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:17 AM:>>The bottom line here is that it's none of the Church's damn business>> The bottom line is that it is the Church's business. The concept of propagation is of great importance to the church, where marriage is concerned. No matter how much gays try, and try and try, that just wont happen. So have your civil union and do what you need to do, but just dont jam it down our throats under the name of marriage

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:23 AM:>>The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives>>> I wonder if they were cute or really butt ugly, and if they made a mean bacon and egg breakfast?

Natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:26 AM:Natural and ducky are two different things. Humans, being mammals, tend to naturally be polygynous: in most mammals, and in just about every human group, males tend not to be faithful to a monogamous relationship. So cheating for a male is natural, but we've decided to condemn it (and therefore lie about it). The gay situation is different, IMHO. I simply cannot, for the life of me, come up with a rational reason to condemn homosexual behavior as long as it is between consenting adults and nothing like battery occurs. The best opponents can come up with boils down to "I don't like it." In a free society, that's not a good enough reason, period. I also agree with the earlier post which emphasizes the mixup of church and state in marriage. I believe that because religious freedom is so important, anyone who wants a