Chris wrote on May 22, 2008 8:30 PM:The letter by Bob Limpus is just more of the same from the clueless. He trashes Eric Parish's letter but doesn't show where Parish is off base. Limpus just says that anyone ought to know what a threat the PLO is and that Parish should tune into what Iran's leadership is alabout. Again how many countries has Iran invaded and it was the US that oppened the door for the entry of Iran into Iraq. Limpus say's he is not a history buff. Well he got that right and decided to prove it.

sdraoul wrote on May 22, 2008 9:00 PM:J. Howard Crews forgets that John McCain is 71 years old and that his wife's family started their fortune when Arizona was but a wide spot in the road between San Diego and Texas. Naturally that business has grown exponentially in recent years and is worth a great deal of money.

So, Mrs. McCain owns a bunch of homes, so what? Did she or the Senator partner with any criminals to buy those homes?

Michelle Obama did when she and Barack bought their $1.5 million dollar house with a direct participation by one criminal Mr. Rezco – on trial right now for bribery and extortion -- and his wife.

The facts are that the Obama's had to team up with Mrs. Rezko to buy their house simultaneously with the purchase of a vacant lot next door by Mrs. Rezko. She paid $700,000 or so with a loan that she didn't qualify for because neither she nor her husband had jobs with incomes at the time. Mr. Rezko raised and/or contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to State Senator Barack Obama’s campaigns.

Michelle and Barack Obama rub elbows with con men crooks who also front for an Iraqi millionaire crook.

Does John or Mrs. McCain rub elbows with criminals? Check out the Rezko trial in Chicago at thisAntoin 'Tony' Rezko's fate now


Antoin 'Tony' Rezko's fate now lies with the jury
Prosecutors, defense wrap up closing arguments
By Jeff Coen and Bob Secter

Tribune reporters

11:02 PM CDT, May 13, 2008

The federal corruption trial that has sent ripples through the administration of Gov. Rod Blagojevich has reached its final stage, and the fate of political insider Antoin "Tony" Rezko is now in the hands of the jury.

The panel that spent more than two months listening to testimony deliberated for about half an hour Tuesday afternoon after closing arguments ended.

Jurors began their work after lawyers on opposite sides of the case again clashed over the key evidence against Rezko. A prosecutor urged the jury to believe the former Blagojevich adviser was at the center of a crooked scheme to use his clout to enrich himself and his friends.

"This is a crime, ladies and gentlemen," said Assistant U.S. Atty. Christopher Niewoehner, speaking with an intensity the jury hadn't yet seen from the soft-spoken prosecutor. "This is a crime that involves the highest levels of power in Illinois."

The names of many in Blagojevich's inner circle were mentioned daily as the trial unfolded, and a shadow was cast on the governor himself as prosecutors explained to the jury how Rezko allegedly went about rewarding campaign contributors with state positions."

ObAMACAN wrote on May 22, 2008 10:08 PM:SDRaoul at 9:00 p.m. continues his usual whitewashing of history.
He talks about individuals from Illinois who have some legal problems, but fails to note that there is no link whatsoever to Obama in any of their misdeeds. Guess what, Raoul, people who run for President know a lot of people. Ask McCain about Lincoln Savings and Charles Keating, where he was directly involved. Ask your really close buddy Darrel Issa about auto thieves - oops, that was not his buddies, that was himself! (Youthful indescretion, of course.)
As for Mrs. McCain's money, no one cares that she is rich.
Far more rich and ELITE than Obama or even Hillary.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is that she refuses to release the info so people can just look and see.
Can you imagine if Hillary had refused to release such info when Bill was running? Or if John Kerry had refused to release wealthy heiress wife Teresa's info in 2004? The right wing slime machine would have been howling, and hatchet man Raoul would have been leading the way.
Can you say double standard?
Can you say HYPOCRITE?

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope.

sdraoul wrote on May 22, 2008 10:26 PM:Obamacan somehow didn't read my post before he or she rose to the bait. The Obamas bought their house with direct help from the Rezkos. They couldn't have bought their house if Mrs. Rezko didn't buy the adjacent vacant lot because the owner of both parcels insisted on selling both simultaneously.

The Rezkos bought the empty lot and arranged for Obama's financing for their house.

Obamacan, ( a phony label because Obama has very little Republican support, less than five percent by my experienced reckoning) Obamacan can't read. As for Mrs. Kerry (nee Heinz) I do recall that she refused to release her inheried financial information to, as she put it, to "protect her kids," children of the deceased Senator Heinz.

I'm sure that the McCains will put all their assets into a blind trust after he is elected.

To sdraoul wrote on May 22, 2008 10:49 PM:You asked,

"Does John or Mrs. McCain rub elbows with criminals?"

Well he probably will never be indicted, but McCain has been awful close to GW the last few years, and what GW has done to the citizens of this land, and the world, is as much a crime as anything anyone has ever been convicted of.

Bill Too wrote on May 22, 2008 10:51 PM:Bob Limpus claims that some writers have a distorted view of the Israel-Palestine situation. It is true that the Palestinians do indeed strap explosives to their bodies and blow themselves and anyone near them to pieces - but then they do not have the jet fighter planes and tanks and heavy artillery that the Israelis have - and use - in retaliation for such events. I have an idea - lets give the Palestinians an equal amount of the same armaments and see how long it takes Israel to agree to peace talks. Let's not forget that when the US withdrew from Iraq after the first Gulf war they left all of the heavy weaponry - artillery & tanks, etc. - that we had taken over there for the Israeli forces. What would we do if some 5 million people were dropped into the middle of the US claiming that this was their homeland 2500 years ago - based on a book that they themselves had written?

Ed Hoarse wrote on May 23, 2008 12:18 AM:The United States is a REPUBLIC not a democracy.

"...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

Snowbird- wrote on May 23, 2008 5:29 AM:Hello you global warming fans. Where were you Thursday? I was here in Murrieta where cold rain and hail were suddenly pouring down from the sky. The water and hail were nearly over the curb. I wished you could see this. Hours later there were still piles of hail two inches deep in places around my lawn and palm trees. Meanwhile a few miles up highway 215 a tornado tipped over a loaded highway tractor and its semitrailer, then went on and tipped over six railway cars. Ok, so DD Wiz and Greenergy say that there are fluctions in temperature so that does not prove anything. Yeah! Well even if things are gradually getting warmer that still does not prove it is caused by man made CO2. It has been getting warmer with fluctions for how many years? Isn't it about 16,000 years now, with some setbacks. Anyhow I read that an increasing number of scientists predict we are now entering a major cooling period. Especially with the current sunspot cycle nearly over. Those babies, each larger than several earths emit huge amounts of very hot radiation. Meanwhile I have piles of ice remaining around my house here in Murrieta already hours after the storm left.

Alf wrote on May 23, 2008 7:11 AM:Moderator - Where are the letters from the 22nd? The url in my history won't work and they are not listed!! Regards, Alf.

Roger wrote on May 23, 2008 7:33 AM:Tornados and hail are a sure sign of no climate change?

Sometimes True Believers are amazing!

Greenergy wrote on May 23, 2008 7:50 AM:Snowbird at 5:29 a.m. continues to demonstrate the inability to distinguish between weather and climate.
And yes, the extreme fluctuations are symptoms of long-term climatic temperature increase.
Snowbird is correct that this is not the case just because DDWhiz or I say so.
It is correct because it is backed up by extensive scientific evidence as reported in the virtual unanimity of scientific consensus on the subject.

Hey sdraoul wrote on May 23, 2008 8:11 AM:Things seem to be going badly for John McCain and the Pandering Express lately. Please share with us you learned views on this.

Wars R Us wrote on May 23, 2008 8:25 AM:From today's NY Times QUOTE A Pentagon audit of $8.2 billion in American taxpayer money spent by the United States Army on contractors in Iraq has found that almost none of the payments followed federal rules and that in some cases, contracts worth millions of dollars were paid for despite little or no record of what, if anything, was received. ENDQUOTE Isn't it great to be a war profiteer in America under the Bush administration? Iraq has never been anything but a way for a bunch of people to become even wealthier. I have nothing against business, but when you see these crud flock to Iraq because Bush has set up a system without accountability (ignore the rules, and if you're caught, don't worry: I've made sure that you are immune from lawsuit or prosecution!). It's nothing but an enormous payday, no limits, for the lowest of the low, the people who see the cargnage and suffering of war as a glorious payday. There's a special place in hell for these folks and the man who set it up for them.

question for snowbird wrote on May 23, 2008 8:45 AM:We know, we know: you tell us whenever it's a cold day that this says someething about global warming. Strangely, though, when we have a weekend like we did a few days ago, with near-100 degree temperatures in May, we never hear from you? I don't get it. Does weather count or not as evidence about GW for you? If it does, like on cold days, then tell us about the other days too. If it doesn't, like on the hot days, then don't tell us about the other days either.

Good question Alf wrote on May 23, 2008 8:53 AM:Hello Moderator, Where are the letters from the 22nd?

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 9:19 AM:It is distressing to know that we have people in our own country who side with terrorists, Bob Limpus. Israel is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but they are not teaching their children to strap bombs onto their tiny little bodies, and then walk into pizza parlor's to blow up other little children.
Although the Palestinians may have a legitmate beef with the UN about the partitioning of the land, they have virtually thrown away any possibility of sympathy for their cause by their terrorist actions against Israel.
And the history is this is clear, when Arafat and the PLO was using Jordan as a staging ground for terrorist operations against Israel, the Jordanians kicked them out. Then these vipers moved into Lebanon to use that country as a staging ground, and we had civil war. So, who really are the terrorists here, and why do we have people, who must obviously know this same history, side with those who choose violence first as a remedy?
Now, the Palestinians have "elected" Hamas, who to date, will not openly say they respect the right of Israel to exist. And think about that for a second...
They won't even "consider", or are not open to considering Israel's right to exist. Since when is it right to openly say, and be acceptable to want to destroy a people? Within the Leftist Intelligensia within our own country, these ideas are running rampant. In my own opinion, to side with terrorists who openly say they will destroy a people, are, in fact, the same as the terrorists. Like I said, Israel is not perfect, but... they are NOT teaching their own children to strap bombs on their bodies. There is a difference, and those who claim there is no difference are either diluding themselves, or they are lying.

Me wrote on May 23, 2008 9:29 AM:Good question Alf
[-] wrote on May 23, 2008 8:53 AM: "Hello Moderator, Where are the letters"
I appreciate the NC Times providing this free forum (blog), but ever since it re-built the site, service has been absolutely atrocious. Also; I wish they could get all the screeners on the same page.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 10:01 AM:J. Howard Crews says: "Nothing wrong with wealth..." Of course there is Howard! You leftists are obsessed with wealth, except when your candidate has it. I am reminded of John Kerry, in the same exact position as McCain, where his wife owned virtually every single asset. But, in the liberal scheme of things, John Kerry was not an elitist? Excuse me, but did not John Kerry live the "opulent" lifestyle, the very best his wife's money could buy? I think he did! This is the liberal double standard regarding wealth. You see, if a liberal has it, then.. they earned it, and there's nothing wrong with their wealth. BUT, If if a Republican owns it, then he stole it, ripped somebody off to get it, or worse, inherited it.
Funny how the lib's never call the Kennedy's on the carpet with this charge, but that's the double standard. And it is hypocrisy.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 10:18 AM:But, instead of guessing at what Elitism is, let's look at what the dictionary says it is:
QUOTE: "Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern." END Quote
It is obvious, that McCain was not refering to Obama as an elitist because of wealth. Mr. Crews and other leftists quickly jump to that conclusion, because THEY are "obsessed" with other people's money. It is the heart of the modern day Democrat party. This incessant opportunism to point out socioeconomic status, as well as other divisions within our society. As I have said, when they have it, that is OK. Nothing wrong, because... "They are "good" people." And even though it is pointed out, that when given the opportunity to give to charitable causes, they are, in fact, stingy & cheap. I am again reminded of the differences between those who have wealth on the left, and those on the right, in regards to Dick Cheney. Hated by the left, his affiliation to Halliburton, and his own personl wealth {which he ran a company to earn}, when his tax returns were released they showed that he & Mrs. Cheney gave almost 70% of their personal income to charitable causes. What did the Obama tax returns show? They basically showed that while he talks a good game about the poor, and helping the poor, When it came with departing with his own money, he was cheap. Actions, my friend, actions! They speak louder than words.
Words, just words.. I understand. But, actions speak volumes about who you are as a person, than simply mouthing what people want to hear. It is said, that Charactor is what you do, when no one else is looking. Saying you care about the poor, then not giving of your own personal fortune says to me, you care far more about your lifestyle, than those you say you care about on the campaign trail. What have I told you about these people? Slick marketing & packaging, meant to fool you on a daily basis. They have to, because if you really knew who they really were, you would not give them the time of day.

JohnUSC wrote on May 23, 2008 10:19 AM:Snowbird saying that a single cold day in one corner of the Earth negates the evidence of long-term warming on a global scale is like saying "gas my Chevron went down 10 cents, therefore I don't global oil prices aren't going up." There will always be exceptions to the rule, Snowbird, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

jvc wrote on May 23, 2008 10:22 AM:Was it not why we voted in the Conservative Era because our taxes were too high and caused by people on the dole and the welfare queen? How many
welfare queens will it take to spend half trillion dollars that we have so far spent in Iraq? Did Congress just vote for
80 billion dollars for welfare for the American farmer? Can our action hero
governor find a solution to our State's budget deficits? Was Warren Buffett right when he said prop 13 should be repealed as a method of balancing the
State's budget ? Should governors step down if they are unable to offer a balanced budget? Is deficit spending at the national and state level really make for a Conservative Era?

Bill wrote on May 23, 2008 10:53 AM:Im still waiting for an explanation of how temperatures are rising on Venus and Mars when there are no cars or factories there?

That is indisputabnle proof that this is a natural phenomena and not man made.

Global warming is a hoax.Man doesnt have that kind of power over the planet.

Nothing but a thinly veiled attack on industry.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 10:54 AM:Within the Leftist Elitist circles is this belief and an attitude that they posess the attributes superior to most regular Americans. They believe that only they posess outstanding personal abilities, and intellect. This is the superiorist thinking I've been speaking to. Regardless of personal wealth, They lack any specialized or specific training or experience which they claim to posess. In fact, Obama has never run a business, or any economy of any kind, and yet.. he claims only he has the ability to fix the country. He is able to get away with this canard within liberal circles, because within the liberal ranks, it is not experience or specific training, or even a history of accomplishment that is necessary. It is ideologically driven. As he said, He wants to make the system "fair", not based upon what has proven to work, not based upon any specific evidence that his approach will fix anything, only that he will re-apportion, and redistribute wealth. This approach is far, far more dangerous than even inexperience. Because it says, regardless of the known outcome, he will do it simply to fulfill his own ideologically objectives. In that vein, it would seem he would be willing to send the economy into a tail spin, threatening all Americans, simply to meet his own particular ideological desires, based on "fairness."
How can that be fair? Because it is what I've been trying to tell you, when we are all equal, and in the rice paddies, then they will proclaim the utopia. When we all have to stand in the breadlines, they will pronounce they have achieved equality. All, except them. For them, the ruling elite.. they will still have their Limousines. It's funny, ya know? These liberals love to hear themselves talk about the social classes in this country, and how only they want to make them more equal. And yet.. when given the chance privately, they do nothing. Only when it involves other people's money do they then, speak to making the classes equal. But, more importantly, they will not, themselves stand in the breadlines, or work in the rice paddies. Oh, no!!! For them, the Vanguard, the ruling elite.. they have an entirely different idea for themselves. After they have achieved taking all of your money, and your having to beg them for your healthcare, and your sustenance, then they will be where they have always desired to be.
Total control.

Floyd wrote on May 23, 2008 10:55 AM:The distinction between weather and climate is that weather is exact while climate is approximate. When the outside temperature is 22 degrees F, you have cold weather and a cooling climate. When the outside temperature is 99 degrees F, you have hot weather and a warming climate. Because of the tilt of the earth, you can have a warm climate in the northern hemisphere and a cold climate in the southern hemisphere. Six months later, the climates are reversed. This is an annual cycle in which global warming and cooling occur simultaneously. Humans cannot change the global warming and cooling cycles that occur naturally.

McCain too busy to vote on GI Bill wrote on May 23, 2008 11:09 AM:Take note the next time you see these 22 Senators with the lapels on their suits adorned with the flag, Take note how often they refer to "our brave troops and their sacrifices". Check their military history to see not many ever served at all let alone during wartime. Yes these 22 "Bravehearts" all voted against the very troops they use for their own personal agendas by saying NAY to the GI BILL. Shouldn't we be ever so proud of them?

NAYs ---22
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Not Voting - 3
Coburn (R-OK) ?
Kennedy (D-MA) ILL
McCain (R-AZ) Raising campaign funds.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 11:12 AM:Blah blah blah blah lies hypocracy blah blah blah bs more bs blah blah blah look at me blah blah blah I know it all blah blah blah bad liberals blah blah blah look at me blah blah blah... could you repeat that please, Ron? Didn't get it the first time. Thanks.

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 11:18 AM:JVC: PLEASE repeal Prop. 13! As a Realtor I will make a FORTUNE as people move out of state, although the values will plummet -- again! Prop. 13 LIMITS EVERYONES increases to 2% per year -- can you imagine what YOUR taxes would be today after the huge value increases of 25%, 30% and even more, earlier in this decade?

Without Prop. 13, EVERYONE would be paying DOUBLE in taxes what they do today.

Lotsa Luck, JVC. If you want to double YOUR tax bill, or if Warren wants to double his, the County Tax Assessor is perfectly willing to take YOUR check!

Chris to jvc wrote on May 23, 2008 11:29 AM:I wouldn't pay any attention to what Warren Buffett says. These incredebly rich people care nothing about the little people. They are perfectly satisfied to live in their oppulence while everybody else lives in abject poverty. You must also realize that many of these rich people got that way because they were able to get in on the gravy train furnished by the taxpayer. They did not get their wealth just from the so-called free market.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 11:51 AM:It is now common knowledge that more than 40% of our own natural gas & oil resources are deliberately placed off limits by those who claim they care about regular Americans. These easily accessible, and cost effective resources are beneath public lands would deliver 19 billion barrels of oil, and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.
The worldwide production of oil is 85 billion, so it is easy to see that an influx of an additional 19 billion barrels would help to drive the price down.
But, as always, within the "can't do" wing of the Democrat party, the report drew sharp criticism from the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall-D, WV. Who pointed out that the amount of drilling on federal lands has increased steadily since 2000 -- even as gas prices rose.
"We simply cannot drill our way to lower prices at the pump," Rahall said.
Now, either Mr. Rahall does not understand market economics, or he is spouting the party line. OR... he has another motive. I happen to think it's a little of all three.
A) I think no Democrat wants to enable Bush or any Republican to receive any credit for the reduction of gas prices in the last few months til Nov. That's the political motive. As a party they have decided that YOU, the American people will suffer, and do nothing, until Bush leaves office.
B) Rahall represents West Virginia, a huge coal state. He is a coal-to-liquids backer. I would be willing to bet, that after Bush leaves office, we will see some advocacy on the Democrat side for other energy provisions, like coal-to-liquids, but they will wait until Bush is gone to do it.
C) Even if the releasing of these public land reserves did not reduce the price, at least, we would not be sending the billions of dollars overseas to people who hate us. That money would be spent here at home, increasing jobs, increasing GDP, expanding the economy. But, again.. the Democrats will make you wait until Bush is gone, a political motive, that will punish you, and not Bush. Sending money to terrorists is a national security problem, but again.. the Democrats show they can not be trusted to properly distinguish between their own personal political desires, and national security. Their own political wants & needs will always come first.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 12:05 PM:Hey "Chris" @11:29 AM.
I'm happy that you have brought up
Warren Buffett. You know, virtually every time the lib's want to say that higher taxes, or the death tax works, they trot out Warren Buffett. And why not? He is made to order. He has all the canned answers, the made for TV sound bites. He is a real master of influencing. His billions in personal assets, speaks for itself.
Most of the time, he is never asked HOW he made his billions. Basically, he made some of his money buying up all the businesses that were forced out of business by the very death tax he helps to promote. So, while he is smooth, and spouts very well the liberal position of equalizing the masses by virtue of this regressive form of taxation, he keenly profits from this tax. I don't know if those who trot him out understand this, I assume they do and it makes no difference to them cause for them, it's not really about equalizing or even money for that matter, because it's about control.
You really have to question a system, such as the death tax, that is promoted as equalizing the classes, yet, when in practise it allows the super rich to pick the bones clean of those felled by this tax, supposedly aimed to help provide a more equilizing effect.

Greenergy wrote on May 23, 2008 12:09 PM:Kudos to Daniel Offerman for trying to address the oil crisis, but sadly the "solutions" miss the actual cause of the problem and would be counterproductive.
The real culprit is not the Saudi's cutting back supplies (they have increased supply) but the Bush Treasury Department devaluing our currency, causing all import prices to leap.
The solution is to embark on a massive Manhattan-style emergency project to rapidly build massive supplies of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and fuel cells that don't promote dependence on imports from foreign terrorists or devastation to climate and environment.
When oil is $200 a barrel and no one is buying it, the problem will be solved.
In fact, the price would never get to $200 a barrel, as plummeting demand would cause the price to drop.
And of course, Ron at 11:51 a.m. just nods his head in agreement as he parrots the party line and continues to blather on and on and on about nothing like a good little sheep. Ditto. Ditto.

Alf wrote on May 23, 2008 12:09 PM:Well, "Ron" at 11:51AM, I almost never believe anything that follows the words "It is now common knowledge that (fill in the blank)" or its predessor "It's common knowledge that (fill in the blank)" . Please, just say what you're going to say without a preface that is virtually guaranteed to cause people to skip over the rest of your 11:51AM post like I did. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on May 23, 2008 12:14 PM:Good afternoon Moderator - Are you hiding the NCT letters from the 22nd or are there "technical problems" causing the NCT to lose the letters and comments? Regards, Alf.

to McCain too busy wrote on May 23, 2008 12:25 PM:Thanks for the information about the voting on the GI Bill. This is yet another example of how conservatives hate our men and women in military, even as they exploit them for personal and political gain. Anyone that loved the military and the people who serve would not go to war unless it was in self-defense. They would not approve of multiple tours in impossible conditions, or of stop-loss orders to draft our troops into extending their tours. They would not vote against the GI Bill, nor would they allow the medical and psychiatric treatment of the wounded fall into such disrepair. They would not approve of "consultant" merceneries being paid multiple times what our troops are paid for similar work. They would not treat the dead like bad news, bringing them home and burying them under dark of night, no press allowed. Before you enlist, or if you are talking to your kids about their desire to enlist, realize that it's mere exploitation by Republicans that have nothing but contempt for their stupidity. Then find a way for yourself or them to really serve their country.

Apollo wrote on May 23, 2008 12:28 PM:Re: Angela Lee (letter)
Aside from a questionable reference to those who do not hear or speak, she does not grasp the issue at all.
The Supreme Court did its job to INTERPRET the law. When a lesser law (statute) conflicts with a higher law (Constitution), the higher law takes precedence. Period. End of story. You may disagree with their interpretation, but it is interpreting the law to resolve as a contradiction between a statute and the State Constitution.
So instead of ridiculing the deaf, Angela needs to either learn sign language or "read my lips": even the majority cannot vote to pass unconstitutional initiatives.

Oh Good Grief wrote on May 23, 2008 12:28 PM:How did I know Reardon was a realtor???? In my business it's well known that realtors use everyone else's money but their own. Now it all makes sense.

Roger wrote on May 23, 2008 12:38 PM:Alf, at 12:09 PM, shows how open minded he is by reading the entire "It is now common knowledge..." before he skips Ron's post. I didn't get any further than "Ron", before skipping it. Soon as I install my Blowhard Blocker, I won't even need to read that much.

Shoes on the other foot wrote on May 23, 2008 12:46 PM:Those who are always justifying the US's foreign policy decisions should pay attention to how Russia and China are condemning our desire to build a missle shield in Europe. Think about this from the point of view of other nations, if you can. The US, packed to the hilt with WMD's, invader of Iraq, sword-rattler towards Syria, Iran, and N. Korea, is building devices which would make it easier to attack other nations without fear of retaliation. They are horrified and frightened, and reasonably so. They speak out against us to the international community. Perhaps they will go to the UN with their complaint. Does any of this upset Bush? Of course not, not a whit. He completely disregards the opinions of other nations and the world body. According to the same logic that he used to justify the Iraq invasion, any other nation in the world would be justified in bombing or invading us. I know, I know: "let em try". That's what's become of our shining city on the hill: a morality of "might makes right".

Those Darn Liberals wrote on May 23, 2008 12:48 PM:The price of a gallon of gasoline in the US when George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 was $1.66. Today it is $4.02, and rising.

It's just a coincidence that the Bush's happen to be in the oil business.

And when it comes to gas prices, only one fact is absolutely certain: They have nothing to do with oil company profits.

Record oil company profits.

They can't help it if they're lucky.

gerold wrote on May 23, 2008 12:49 PM:Energy solutions:
A couple of people yesterday asked about energy solutions after I described the simple minded and useless policy of the conservatives (drill in Alaska! Drill on the continental shelf!). I relied late yesterday, but I don't know if those comments ever made it, so I'll try again.
The solution is quite clear: solar photovoltaic (PV). Had we not been cheated during the 2000 election we might have that solution already, but 8 years of inaction by the Worst President Ever (WPE) have given us $135 oil instead.
Up til now PV has not been a viable solution because crystal silicon is too expensive to manufacture. However, new advances in thin film PV will change that. To see what it looks like, go to the Nanosolar website. They are a start-up with a very promising technology which has the potential of cutting the cost of PV by a factor of 10.
Eventually every building will have PV generation on the roof, giving us true energy independence. That is a solution which helps us economically, politically, and environmentally.

Vista Granny wrote on May 23, 2008 12:51 PM:Perhaps with oil more than $135 per barrel, the people who own the capped wells in Texas and parts of Oklahoma will start pumping again. You see, it wasn't environmentalists who said "cap those wells" - it was the corporations which owned the fields. The oil pumped in these wells is thick and takes a LOT of work and money to make it usable as gasoline. As long as oil in Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other places was cheaper than the cost to use the thick, poor quality oil here in the states, that's what the corporations did. But now? Maybe. Also, it may now become feasible to make oil (gasoline) from coal. All it takes is a profit motive to get them moving. But, your gas at the pump will not get cheaper if they do.

BTW - I come from oil country. Used to climb derricks when they left then on the wells -- they don't do that these days. Just pumps going up and down, up and down -- and that strange metallic echo down the well -- I can still hear it if I try.

Chuck wrote on May 23, 2008 12:51 PM:I just heard Maxine Waters let slip the liberal agenda. She said they want to socialize industry in this country and take over the oil companies. I see his name should now be Hussein Chazez Obama. It's really nothing new. Normal people knew all along thats what the liberals had in mind. At least its out in the open now./// PS Waters looks like she'll soon be crying and blubbering all over the place, just like the pathetic show put on by Senator Byrd

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 12:58 PM:While the worldwide production is oil is 85 billion barrels, with China & India coming on line, the need is greater than the supply, at 86.5 billion barrels. It is clear, to even first year economists, what we are facing is a supply/demand crisis, and not a conspiracy between oil companies.
I mean.. think about it for a second..
Exxon-Mobil controls 2% of the entire market, they are hardly in the position of controling the worldwide price.
But see, these facts do not thwart the liberals, especially the socialist liberals, like Maxine Waters. During the House hearing, where these oil company CEO's were condemned, Congresswomen Maxine Waters went further. In fact, she said, that if they could not lower the price, then they, the government would have to look very strongly at taking over the companies. Now, keep in mind, these oil companies have all been very heavily regulated for the last 100 years in this country. This very Congress has seen fit to place off limits our own domestic supply. And this same liberal wing of the Democrat party, has been in cahoots with all of the liberal environmentalist groups who have at every point, fought, and litigated, and sued each & every company attempting to do it's job. But, that's what the Stalinist Left wants. They want to nationalize every aspect of this economy. From healthcare to oil. Setting the upper limit on CEO pay, to the minimum wage. Eventually, they will get to your wage. The pain we will feel because of the purposeful inaction by the Democrat party is going to anger many more Americans. And why shouldn't it? When you place your party's needs above and beyond the needs of the American people, the people will get wind of that, and they are not as stupid as many liberals assume they are. Not to mention, that the real collusion going on here is between those in the Democrat party and those who will financially gain if the price of gas & oil stay high. Who are these people? People like Al Gore, of course.
Think about it....
These alternatives are only price effective, if the price of oil stays high. The market will not support these alternatives unless gas is taken off the market by price. What better way to force the price up, then by precluding supply? We are always lectured to by the left, of how the oil companies spend millions of dollars on lobbyists, why should it be so hard to believe, that on the other side, you have exactly the same thing going on? We saw what effective the "ethanol lobby" had a legislation, even though it is a disaster as a fuel source. But, who ever said it had to be logical?
They say: "Money, is the mother's milk of politics." I think they are right.
Some of that money, I suggest to you, is greener than the rest? Shall we say?

gerold wrote on May 23, 2008 1:04 PM:Price of oil: Greenenergy (12:09) writes that oil will never get to $200/barrel.

I hope that is true, but in the language of economics, that all depends on the elasticity of the supply/demand curve for the product, and I'm not sure where that curve levels off. Many americans have little option when it comes to transportation, and our auto-based transportation grid coupled with high housing costs has resulted in many people having very long commutes. If it comes to a choice between driving to work and selling your house, many people will lose more money by selling their house.
I have a 16 mile commute, and my car gets 30 mpg. It costs me about $4 to go to work and back, per day. Even if gas goes up to $8/gallon, I'll probably keep doing that. I won't like it, and maybe I'll try to arrange some car pooling, but for many people their demand curve for gas is highly inelastic.
The massive price increase for oil is the free market finding the true value of the commodity as demand outstrips supply. It might hit $200 - especially if Bush gets his wish and we attack Iran. Then the oil companies will really strike it rich!

hardtack wrote on May 23, 2008 1:16 PM:According to Vickie Petrus: “[Brian Bilbray] voted in support of offshore oil drilling . . . [and] he offers no option to our energy crisis.” You’re kidding, right?

Concerned One wrote on May 23, 2008 1:21 PM:Actually, the debate on global warming is heating up (sorry). Last month scientists discovered significant inconsistencies in the computer models widely used to support the global warming theory in regards to CO2. Skeptic Magazine compared the methodology to a math program that proves two plus two equals five, two thirds of the time. Not good math. Not good science. Yesterday George Will wrote a scathing column about the "green" movement and how it is really just a massive power grab by the left. As usual, he made some excellent points whether you agree or disagree. I personally don't think we have much to worry about in the way of "global warming. I am scared to death about all the harebrained solutions politicians are coming up with. And, I abhor the masses of hypocrites jumping on the green bandwagon. All that said, I'm all for new "smart" energy sources. Hydrogen powered cars and toxic light bulbs are, however, not the answer. Regards, C-1.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 1:32 PM:My good buddy "Greenergy" @12:09 PM completely unable to defeat my logic @ 11:51 a.m., must do, what all liberals must do, when faced with inescapable facts, turn to "the usual" retorts.
And like the totally predictable liberal, tht he is, he again changes the goal posts in his argument, to that of devaluing the currency. This is only a part of the problem, and it is one we would have faced, because of the insustainability of our entitlements.
I just love this line of reasoning that says, if we had not started a war, then evrything would be fine. Anyone who has looked at the budgets of this country, knows... that just anit so. So, shows an utter lack of honesty to say, that the War is the reason for our indebtness. I could have sworn that in the beginning of the Bush administration, we added to an already sinking ship of entitlements, another huge drug benefit? How come we never hear THAT as a cause of our debt? Are we actually to believe that every single borrowed dollar was only borrowed to fund the war? But, that's what the liberals want you to believe, at least, that's what they say.
No liberal will admit the truth, that at least half of what we borrowed just last year, went to pay for these massive government systems.
But.. I'll tell ya!
Like I said, anyone can take a look at any Federal budget and see for themselves, that even if we had not gone into Iraq, or Afganistan.. for the matter. We wouls still be borrowing hugely to fund those programs.
And that's.. the god's honest truth.

hardtack wrote on May 23, 2008 1:41 PM:Good luck with your “Three solutions,” Daniel Offerman. Not with the three economic morons vying for the presidency, and our spend-and-don’t-rock-the-boat Congress.

to Alf wrote on May 23, 2008 1:45 PM:You are more patient and forgiving than I am, Alf. When I see the post titled "Ron", I skip it right then. The record of dishonesty is just too long for me to bother with him any longer. But since you persist, please let us all know if Ron becomes more consistently honest. Thanks.

hardtack wrote on May 23, 2008 1:46 PM:Alf, you don’t get the NCT archived letters today for the same reason you don’t buy a car that was assembled on Friday.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 1:49 PM:But "Greenergy" @12:09 PM also confirms another theory of mine, about why the Democrats are willing to let gas prices go sky high, and make people suffer.
The liberals have always wanted higher gas prices, it is a bread & butter issue with them. Either by tax, or shutting down supply, they have continually sought to drive the price at the pump up, for their own political motives. Surely, the logic behind this is puzzling, as out of one side of their mouths they will say they care about the price hitting the poorest amoung us, yet.. out of the otherside, they have more gas taxes, carbon taxes, and carbon trading schemes.. all meant to drive up cost to individual Americans, especially the poor. Again, you don't have to be logical, to be liberal. But, I digress...
His main point is this:
QUOTE: "When oil is $200 a barrel and no one is buying it, the problem will be solved." Exactly Green! That is when all of the alternatives you guy's want will come into play, but not until the price of gas is driven up. These alternatives can not directly compete with oil, unless oil is placed at a disadvantage. The liberals have directly sought to remove oil supply, and placing it at this disadvantage, and giving their buddies in the "Green" movement, like Al Gore, a helping hand in getting into the marketplace, with their less than market ready solutions.
This is the real game folks. It is to drive gas soo high, that alternatives are then equilized with oil.

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 2:10 PM:Alf: I hope May 22 is not lost forever -- i want to see the Human Rights Activists reaction to the European Human Rights Commission hearing the case of a chimp that some activist wants declared "human."

Inquiring minds want to know!

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 2:20 PM:And then my good buddy "Greenergy"
@12:09 PM says: {I told ya, he's the girt that keeps on giving!}
QUOTE: "The solution is to embark on a massive Manhattan-style emergency project to rapidly build massive supplies of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and fuel cells that don't promote dependence on imports from foreign terrorists or devastation to climate and environment." END Quote
A couple of things...
First, Now Green.. we already had a "Manhattan-style emergency project"
to develop nuclear, but you guy's won't let us use it. Even though the French, and we know how you guy's love the Euro's, even though the French get nearly 80% of their power from nuclear power.
The second thing that hits me with his statement is this idea of a "Manhattan-style" government program, as if only the goverment can do this. But, this is the knee-jerk reaction by all lib's, only the government can do it.
He goes on to say: QUOTE: "...rapidly build massive supplies of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and fuel cells..." END Quote
Now here we begin the "double-talk."
For out of one side of their mouths will they say that we need all these things, but to actually put these things in place, we are stopped, at every turn. Have I not already covered this? In regards to solar, this is what they want. They want to mandate upon you citizens of placing a solar array on top of your home, so that you will then be forced to buy an electric car, so you can plug your car into your house. That's what they want, that's their utopia. Now, if you don't want to do this, they will MANDATE you do it. As he said yesterday. And they will also force you into electric cars, by eliminating fossil fuel, or the use of it by cars, ultimately, that's the goal.
As to the rest of it, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and fuel cells...
It is the liberal pipedream. For all their talk about these alternatives, they will not allow them to be build where they will do the most good. Look at the Powerlink, for example. Clean power coming in from the desert, and they won't let us plumb it in.
Windmills, we've been through that, kills birds, and hurts views. Geothermal won't happen in large volume, as most geo site are too close to national parks, and they won't have it. Hydroelectric, pleaseeeee! When was the last dam built?
And fuel cells are so far off, it is wishful thinking at this stage of the game. We need a temporary solution to our current needs, an intermediate stage of adding more supply until such time we can employ alternatives, and make them as readily available as gasoline is now.
But, that does not fit into the political strategy of the Democrats.
Remember when they said: "Good news in Iraq, woud not be good for them?"
Kinda like that. Think about it.

Asteroid wrote on May 23, 2008 2:27 PM:Chris to jvc
[-] wrote on May 23, 2008 11:29 AM: Spoken like a true jealous Marxist.

Matt M wrote on May 23, 2008 2:28 PM:I take it that "JohnUSC" is not an English Major!

hardtack wrote on May 23, 2008 2:30 PM:Greenergy, if those of the man-made global warming persuasion can fail to distinguish between “contribute to” and “cause” why not allow Snowbird to fail to distinguish between “weather” and “climate?”

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 3:37 PM:Alf: From the Heritage Foundation:

"DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently published its Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands' Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development. The report concludes that onshore federal lands are "estimated to contain 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 21 billion barrels of oil, which represents 76 percent of onshore Federal oil and gas resources." That 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to supply all of America's households for 39 years, and 21 billion barrels of oil represents over 30 years' worth of current imports from Saudi Arabia."

(2006)

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 4:26 PM:While we are trying to find ways to increase production, key Democrat leader Congresswoman Maxine Waters let the cat out of the Democratic bag, on tape, yesterday, as she said to the Oil Executives: "This liberal would be all about socializing…uh..ah...taking over your companies and running them."

Of course, she is only speaking for herself. Isn't she?

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 4:37 PM:The LA Times/KTLA has polled the potential Defense of Marriage (or whatever it is officially called) proposition soon-to-be scheduled for the November election. The proposition, in that poll, would pass 54% to 35% -- which the LA Times, a “neutral’ newspaper, called a “narrow” victory.

19% is “narrow?” ‘Ya gotta’ love the LA Times!

Alf wrote on May 23, 2008 5:40 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 3:37PM, thanks for the information. I have been watching a DVD about photographing Yellowstone. Mrs. Alf has a CME conference in Big Sky, Montana in a few months and I'm going to get some wild photographs. The advice contains the refrain "You can use (such and such) lens, but a polarizing filter is a must for ......", good thing I have one of each diameter necessary.
I still don't know where the letters from the 22nd went, off into the ozone, I guess. Regards, Alf.

Jack_D wrote on May 23, 2008 5:49 PM:Alf is right- I can't access yesterday's letters. What's wrong?

Apollo wrote on May 23, 2008 5:50 PM:Re: Angela Lee (letter)
Aside from a questionable reference to those who do not hear or speak, she does not grasp the issue at all.
The Supreme Court did its job to INTERPRET the law. When a lesser law (statute) conflicts with a higher law (Constitution), the higher law takes precedence. Period. End of story. You may disagree with their interpretation, but it is interpreting the law to resolve as a contradiction between a statute and the State Constitution.
So instead of ridiculing the deaf, Angela needs to either learn some different sign language or "read my lips": even the majority cannot vote to pass unconstitutional initiatives.

Submit 12:28 p.m. - re-submit 5:50 p.m.

Keating wrote on May 23, 2008 6:16 PM:SDRaoul asks if McCain "rubs elbows with criminals."
Does the name Charles Keating ring a bell?
Lincoln Savings and Loan?
Spent a little time in the "Big House"?
By the way, Raoul, it is not illegal to buy a vacant lot from someone, even if it turns out that the seller was involved in a crime that had nothing to do with you. You are really grasping at straws here!

Liberal wrote on May 23, 2008 6:25 PM:Does anyone else notice that, when the moderator(s) finally come back on duty, the first letters that get cherry picked for approval are from the conservatives like Ron and Reardon?
Then they go back and eventually remember that North County does have a few liberals that buy their paper?
Every time Ron submits a post - and they are many and lengthy but filled with factual inaccuracies and rambling nonsense - they appear within minutes.
Must be nice to be treated with favoritism.
Maybe the NCT doesn't really want a balanced dialogue.

Popularity of gay marriage wrote on May 23, 2008 7:00 PM:Geez, you guys. Equal rights and non-discrimination, more than anything, is not a matter of a poll or vote. You should know that. It doesn't matter if most Americans think African-Americans, women, older people, or gays are inferior: the Constitution overrides it. Imagine if a majority of people were anti-gun. You would say, correctly, that this is unimportant: the second amendment trumps popularity contests. Same with discrimination against homosexuals. Simple.

Suddenly democratic Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 7:19 PM:Scientific consensus among experts on climate change? Balderdash! More than 2/3 of Americans against the Iraq war? Poppycock! Oh, but gloriosky!, Americans are homophobic! Make a law! Make a law! (and this is the one that involves the actual Constitution) Great integrity, Reardon.

To Popularity of gay marriage wrote on May 23, 2008 7:20 PM:Gee Fella, Sorry your feelings got hurt!!

Hey Liberal wrote on May 23, 2008 7:33 PM:Have you ever considered that the NCT monitors post Ron's drivel "within minutes" because, like the rest of us, they don't bother to read them? May not be a matter of "favoritism", just sparing themselves the mindless tedium.

chuck wrote on May 23, 2008 7:41 PM:>>>>Does anyone else notice that, when the moderator(s) finally come back on duty, the first letters that get cherry picked for approval are from the conservatives like Ron and Reardon?>>>>
Maybe if liberals had anything worthwhike to say, they would get more. But, like good little liberals they prefer to try to censor what normal people write

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 7:58 PM:To Suddenly: The subject was not the proposition. The subject was not the poll! Both of those subjects were factual data from the article, to set up the subject. (The only poll that counts is November and I happen to favor Gay Rights.)

The subject was the LA Times saying that 19% is "narrow!"

(Mumble, mumble, mumble...)

Chris to Asteroid wrote on May 23, 2008 8:13 PM:Haven't you gotten to the point in your orbit where you head off into the outer solar system?

To Liberal wrote on May 23, 2008 8:23 PM:To Liberal at 6:25 p.m.:
When the North County Times thinks of the "Three Rs" they're not thinking about education.
It is Ron, Reardon and Raoul.
Oh, and then that 4th R - Republicanism.
The conservative golden boys get their posts processed immediately.
If you are progressive, go to the back of the bus.
Don't worry, it'll get posted. Eventually.

Floyd wrote on May 23, 2008 11:13 PM:Don't be so certain the conservative opinion always gets rushed onto the blogs. I think the editors are looking for postings that, somehow, extend the discussion. As I'm sure you know, I have offered to apply for the job of full-time blog editor, but I can't get enough references from the other bloggers to follow through. (Is that a sigh a relief I hear in the background?)