Greenergy wrote on May 24, 2008 7:28 PM:Brian Eberhard's letter shows he just does not understand the issues of energy and environment.
Yes, Democrats understand how silly it is to be diverting oil into an emergency reserve that is almost completely full when oil companies (and those who invest in them) are profiteering off of suffering Americans, but the solution to energy costs has nothing to do with new drilling.
For the umpteenth time: when people are no longer dependent on gasoline, the price will drop because of the reduced demand.
There should be no new drilling at all. All funds slated for drilling should be directed toward funding of clean renewable energy sources and the vehicles they could be powering without gasoline.
The cause of the price spike is the Bush Treasury Dept devaluation of the dollar against foreign currencies.
It is amazing to me that people run off at the keyboard with no understanding of the fundamental issues in here, of suppy, demand, and monetary policy.

sdraoul wrote on May 24, 2008 8:33 PM:Bishara Sarraf of Oceanside needs lessons in history. Jews were in "Palestine" for thousands of years before the first Arab or Muslim was even born.

The Muslim leadership of "Palestine" spent WW II in Berlin as guest of Adolf Hitler.

Jews of Palestine in special units fought in the Brtish Army against Germany during WWII. There were no Arab units fighting Germans.

Arabs in Iraq fought on the side of Germany with German arms, money and Army officer advisors.

Pre-WWI Palestinian Arabs were happy as Clams under Muslim Turkish rule accepting it without revolt or protest. They didn't even revolt when Lawrence of Arabia organized Saudi tribes and led them to Damascus.

Palestine was not stolen from Arabs, the facts were that they were not native to the area while Jews were. It was Arabs who stole Jewish land.

Bill wrote on May 25, 2008 6:09 AM:SDRaoul

Thats exactly right.

Arabs originated in the Arabian peninsula.

Thats why they are called Arabs.

Some in here need a geography lesson.

Palestine isnt on the Arabian Peninsula.

It really is quite simple but some dont get it.

Wolf wrote on May 25, 2008 6:41 AM:Recent scientific studies are making a direct connection between global warming triggering a subsequent ice age. So, the greens are going to get what they want-more humans dead as it it well documented that cold weather kills more people than heat.

To sdraoul wrote on May 25, 2008 7:39 AM:Sounds like the whites in America that cry over illeglas when it's the whites that are on stolen land.

Alf wrote on May 25, 2008 8:04 AM:From yesterday, "The illegal issue" at 7:05 PM asks "It seems to me that this is the litmus test for racism: if, agree with it or not, a general amnesty law was passed and signed, so that no immigrant was "illegal", would you be cool with them all?" and it is a good question. The U.S. already granted citizenship to all current illegal aliens a few years ago, the result was a perceived weakness that has prompted an increase of people entering the U.S. illegally. Part of the purpose of legal immigration is to limit the rate of entry. I have been employed in Garden Grove where there were many Southeast Asians (from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.) and one common thread among all with whom I worked was that they wanted to learn our language, earn a living, assimilate and yet keep their heritage. Assimilation and retention of heritage are not mutually exclusive, contrary to the attitude of many. My answer to the "litmus test" is that if, even after granting amnesty to all current illegal aliens, the massive influx of more illegals continued and whether or not the majority of the new illegals were Hispanic (Mexican and further south) I would still call for the removal of all illegal aliens, all illegal immigrants, no matter what their skin color and no matter what their country of origin. I can not make it any clearer than to say that, to me, race is not the issue, illegality is the issue. Regards, Alf.

Keyboard Greenergy wrote on May 25, 2008 8:24 AM:I always read these blogs after someone writes letters to the editor, the proper way. Then to have someone like Greenergy smack someone for running to the keyboard; talk about hypocrite. Just like the rest of these bloggers.

Greenergy wrote on May 25, 2008 9:11 AM:Wolf at 6:41 a.m. offers the perfect example of the old expression, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
It is true that runaway global climate change with escalating temperatures (imminent, short range) will eventually lead to a reactive snap-back effect of massive global cooling (long range, thousands of years in the future). Both extremes, hotter then colder, will be far outside the normal upper/lower control limits for natural historical cycles.
The solution is obvious. Prevent the global warming in the first place, then the reactive snap-back won't be generated.
And yes, the conservatives who want to obstruct real solutions to very real problems are, indeed, extremely dangerous.

As for the remark by Keyboard at 8:24 a.m., this is a person who obviously can't distinguish between intelligent dialogue and "running off at the mouth" and then relate that to the corresponding keyboard equivalents. This, of course, is not surprising.

Alf wrote on May 25, 2008 9:51 AM:The letter from Thomas Calabrese misses a big part of the problem. People have felt at ease living far away from where they worked because gasoline was cheap. Commuting from the 'burbs became commonplace because gasoline was so cheap. People bought gas-guzzlers because gasoline was so cheap. Both job security and job loyalty became less important with a "portable" society because gasoline was so cheap. There was always more room to build more 'burbs because gasoline was so cheap. There was always "some other time, later on down the road" to develope real fuel-efficient cars or functional mass transit because gasoline was so cheap. WELL, it ain't cheap no more, is it? Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow or next week or next year or next decade? Why? Because tomorrow does come and it has arrived. It seems that many people like Thomas Calabrese want to blame someone, anyone else because of our collective lack of wisdom. You cannot base a personal budget on your overtime pay because sooner or later the overtime will stop (maybe your employer hires another employee), then what do you do? Regards, Alf.

Floyd wrote on May 25, 2008 10:10 AM:Rephrasing Greenenergy's comment: "When people quit exhaling, we will reduce our carbon footprint. To save the planet, people must stop breathing. There should be no new breathing at all! All funds slated for breathing should be spent on something else."

Crucial point Alf wrote on May 25, 2008 10:28 AM:You say that assimilation and retaining culture of origin are not mutually exclusive. I greatly appreciate your pointing this out. Other than the slave population kept that way by the peculiar institution, and to some degree the native tribal populations forced onto the rez, no immigrant group has for long avoided assimilation. To complain or worry about this is truly absurd. Unless America chooses to keep some group in a getto, that group will inevitably assimilate. Period. Nevertheless, as I said yesterday, the land bridge matters and would likely change the dynamics of this process in complicated ways. My view is that this is simpy interesting, fascinating. I'd find it ridiculous to blanket the whole, complex phonomenon by the words "good" or "bad". The Latino culture has a lot to teach us about hard work, the importance of family, the meaning of tradition, and the really complicated legacy of the conquest. I'd never presume to cast judgment on such a large historical process. The earlier immigrants from across the sea were in a different boat, a one-way boat. To say that they, unlike the southern immigrants, "embraced" the new land is poppycock. For one thing, they had no choice: there was no going back. For another, we forget that their first generation also kept their old culture and assimilated with great difficulty. Whole neighborhoods' business was conducted in the old language; there were local newspapers in the old language; traditions, alliances and enmities were acted out from city block to city block. The kids assimilated via the public school system. But puh-lease, let's not make cartoon heroes out of their parents. It was mixed up and complex then, just as now. Best to enjoy the whole, great process.

Who stole whos land wrote on May 25, 2008 10:33 AM:This game about who was there first is juvenile, isn't it? Pick the side you like, find a time they were there, and call that the beginning. Brilliant. (Yawn) Fact is, it goes back before the concept of private property or the nation or even tribal state existed. People in groups lived on the land. No one owned it, so no one could steal it. Almost all of the time they shared the land or worked out compromises. Sometimes they fought over some bit of it, and this got a lot of press because of the drama of death. None of this has anything to do with modern history, except in the views of people who want to use legend and the past to justify something for their own purposes. THe word "truth" has no meaning here. Let's move on, ok?

Ron wrote on May 25, 2008 10:44 AM:People like Bishara Sarraf bother me when they make statements, such as this: "...the state of Israel is alive and well as long as it's serving as the imperial guard of the empire."
Clearly a bad choice of words: "Alive & well", as if that were a possiblity.
Does this not seem to you, a kind of veiled hatred about Israel and the Jews? It strikes me that way. The idea that Israel is an illegitimate country is just hateful and ignorant speech making.
Reasonable people, and that's a key term here: r-e-a-s-o-n-a-b-l-e people... understand that Israel is not going away. They were founded by a UN resolution, and have existed for 60 years. It is the fanatical rantings of the obviously insane, and terrorists who decry Israei, and wish for it NOT to exist.

Greenergy wrote on May 25, 2008 10:51 AM:Floyd at 10:10 a.m. makes it clear that, in addition to completely misstating my views that he claims to be "paraphrasing," that the conservative mentality can only see things in bizarre extremes.
The only choice he sees is between having humans continue recklessly polluting or stop breating entirely.
No actual, serious solutions. Just obstruction and extremism.
Like I said, dangerous.

Ron wrote on May 25, 2008 11:02 AM:Both sdraoul @8:33 PM & Bill @6:09 AM are right.
Let me add to their already stellar statements, one other to consider.
These "other" Arab countries who publically declare their "solidarity" with the Palestinian cause, but privately could care less. It's a chess game, with the Palestinians being used as pons by other Arabs.
Look at the history! Their supposed brother Arab countries kicked out these "poor lost souls." Jordan, at one point, was being used by Arafat, the PLO, and the Palestinians as a staging ground for terrorist attacks against Israel, and then King Abdullah gave them the boot, and rightly so. These vipers then went to Lebanon, creating problems in that country.
They have lost all sympathy because of their violent actions against Israel.
Only those who maintain this fantasy of the illegitimacy of Israel believe this clap-trap.
And virtually, evry single one who voices this same nonsense, also believes that America is illegitimate.

US wrote on May 25, 2008 11:10 AM:Wow, whites on stolen land? Funny but also very inaccurate. The land was purchased. What part of bought for and settled do you not understand?

Focal Point wrote on May 25, 2008 11:21 AM:Brian Eberhard: Man where did you get the silly notion the the oil companies wuuld lower the price of retail refined gas to the American people if drilling was permitted in ANWAR? Just for the record what were you Republicans doing about drilling when you had control of the Congress for over six years under a Republican President? LOL

Ron wrote on May 25, 2008 11:22 AM:Well.. isn't that what we just got from you? "Greenergy" @7:28 PM? A "run{ning} off at the keyboard with no understanding of the fundamental issues in here, of suppy, demand, and monetary policy?"
I will again restate what the current situation is in the worldwide oil supply & demand crisis.
The total worldwide supply is 85 billion barrels a day. The demand is 86.5 barrels a day. Now, clearly what we have is a supply problem.
What is the liberal Democrat reponse?
QUOTE: "There should be no new drilling at all." END Quote
Starting today, how would the Democrats propose we reduce our oil dependence?
QUOTE: " All funds slated for drilling should be directed toward funding of clean renewable energy sources and the vehicles they could be powering without gasoline." END Quote
Now, this will take time to transition, we all will not be driving electric cars, plugged into our homes tomorrow.
In the meantime... What is the Democrat plan, as China comes on line, as India increases it's oil consumption and the price of fuel continues to rise?
That's right! Nothing... put on a sweater.
His comment tells us what we need to know, as it is so often stated by the
environmentalist wing of the liberals.
The environment comes first. All other considerations come second. My example, drinking water. Just look at when this kook burger judge placed Sacramento delta water off limits to people? The kooky environmentalists went nuts, crying justice!!! In the mean time, crops go un-watered, and we have cut backs in available drinking water. Our solution was to build a desal plant along the ocean. But, again.. we can't have that, because THAT would hurt fishies. This is the double-standard, this is the double-talk. For out of one side of their mouths they shout alternatives, and then out of the otherside, they shout: STOP! It's hurting the enviroment.
They have completely gone over to the otherside on this, the enviroment comes first. YOU come second.

Alf wrote on May 25, 2008 11:26 AM:The letter from Rod Wilson hit a nerve. Our priorities are really mixed up if we have "dog parks" and "dog beaches", places I would not want children to play in the grass or on the sand specifically because of irresponsible pet owners who do not obey the law and pick up the feces of their pet in public and the "nature of the beast" which is to urinate and defecate whenever and wherever the urge happens. Another point is that we are catering to people who own dogs with public money while at the same time there are people who are homeless and in need of food. Mixed up priorities is an understatement, ... Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on May 25, 2008 11:55 AM:The post from "Floyd" (10:10am) amazingly invents a completely fabricated quote that he falsely attributes to "Greenergy" (calling it a "rephrasing" of course), basically accusing "Greenergy" of advocating extermination of humankind.
I know one thing, if I (or any liberal) had similarly completely made up a false quote, attributed it to a conservative participant, and basically accused them of hoping for the destruction of the human species, it would never see the light of this message board.
I supposed liberals should take it as a compliment that they are held to so much higher standards.

Floyd wrote on May 25, 2008 12:20 PM:Hooray for Greenenergy, he got my point: his views represent the bizarre extreme of thinking. There is hope for him yet!

GFN wrote on May 25, 2008 12:35 PM:Alf, 8:04; Crucial Point Alf, 10:28...terrific words which really distill tough issues to a clear, hard-to-argue with understanding...although some still will!!! Thanks.

GFN wrote on May 25, 2008 12:47 PM:Two problems: too many feral cats and too many coyotes. Coyotes meet feral cats. One problem.

Greenergy wrote on May 25, 2008 1:14 PM:Ron at 11:22 a.m. joins Floyd's various posts when they continue to blame Democrats for putting the environment first and people somewhere down the list of lower priorities.
As many of the environmentalists have made eminenetly clear to anyone with an objective mind, the idea that you have to choose between people and the environment is a false choice.
True liberals want better lives for humans. That will not occur by destroying the environment.
There will be no economic success (even for oil stock investors) if there is no world to sustain us.
As in many areas of life, we can do best when we bring our goals and desires into harmony with what is the right thing to do, and create economic prosperity with green businesses providing new energy through new technologies, and being free from dependence on buying energy from terrorists.
Look at your $4.00 gas and tell us how well that Bush/McCain/Cheney policy is working for you.

Chris to sdraoul wrote on May 25, 2008 1:36 PM:You need a lesson in history but I won't hold my breath. First of all the Zionist that took over Palestine are not the descendents of the Ancient Israelites and even if they were they had no right to invade and take over a land that they didn't live in for thousands of years. Just maybe the Palestinians had sympathy for the Germans because it was The British that made it possible for the Zionist to take over their land. But as I said I won't hold my breath waiting for you to learn anything about history.

Chris to US wrote on May 25, 2008 1:45 PM:We whites never paid for land in the eastern part of the country. We paid France for the Louisiana Purchase. What gave France the right to sell it. How did they get it. We paid Mexico for the western part of the country after we invaded and held a gun to their heads. Beside what gave Mexico the right to sell it. Where did they get the land. So basically we stole the land from the idiginous people who live there. But of course let's bend history on Palestine and the US in order to justify our and our friends(Zionist) actions.

hardtack wrote on May 25, 2008 2:14 PM:Is the problem with immigrants, or us?

As I watched the film, Broken Trail, last night, the hero asked a destitute man why he came all the way from China to Montana. The Chinaman said he “heard about the gold.”

Fast-forward to 2008. A poor man in Nicaragua hears about our welfare state. Where is he going to go? Where would you go?

As the late Harry Browne said: “A welfare state will eventually be afraid of every poor person who tries to get in, and every rich person who tries to get out.”

Reardon wrote on May 25, 2008 3:35 PM:Hardtack (2:14) identifies human nature – people act in their own enlightened self interest. Workers come north for jobs, and their families come north for school and medical care because Mothers will do what is necessary for their children. The Mothers face rigorous and dangerous travel, high financial cost, the very high possibility of rape – in their mind they have earned the right to a better life with their sacrifice.

Of course their sacrifice gives benefit to others south of our borders, not to those who pay the bills for their eventual benefits, but that is one level of economic sophistication too high for them.

The reason for borders is the same as locks on your home, and car door – just to raise the level of difficulty. Raising the cost of breaking into the country is good – it is obviously not a sufficiently high cost, yet.

Yes, it would be better for this nation to end the welfare state, but there is no hope for that. The welfare state has also had a terrible impact on our citizens – we now accept violations of our rights (like seat belts, smoking bans and motorcycle helmets that protect us only from ourselves)because the taxpayers are the last resort for medical bills.

The welfare state makes citizen and illegal immigrant comfortable – at a much higher cost than the perceived price.

DD Wiz wrote on May 25, 2008 4:26 PM:The posts from "hardtack" (2:14pm) and "Reardon" (3:35pm) raise some thoughtful concerns regarding problems of the "welfare state," but conflate the specific problem of services for undocumented immigrants with general issues of the "welfare state" and reach flawed conclusions.
First, it needs to be emphasized that, with a few emergency exceptions, no undocumented immigrant is eligible for regular welfare benefits such as TANF (formerly AFDC), SSI, etc.
If [an illegal immigrant] is collecting such benefits they are already committimg some type of fraud or other crime to do so, which would at best show the futility of passing more laws if incompetent administrations are incapable of administering the ones we already have.
Second, liberals and conservatives have both known for decades that simple cash-grant benefit welfare "giveaways" are not successful. But the reforms proposed by each are unacceptable to the other, and in gridlocked Washington neither has been able to pass their reforms. Even the Clinton 1996 reform was a compromise cobbled together that was not really satisfactory to either side.
Conservatives want to, as "Reardon" said, "end the 'welfare state.'" This perpetuates the unequal playing field of those born through no merit or blame of their own to better or worse conditions.
In contrast, liberals want to replace cash benefits with increased education, job training, job placement, personal development, and the like, which conservatives dismiss as bureaucratic "guv'mint programs" notwithstanding the record of success they have had in preventing problems proactively instead of responding to problems reactively, and the resultant prosperity and economic stability during liberal administrations.

sdraoul wrote on May 25, 2008 4:49 PM:Zionest, schmienist Chris. There were always Jews in the area--always since Moses lead them out of Egypt for HOME. The fact that Jews in general decided to go to or return to the homeland of 5000 years is nothing.

As so well put above, Arabs came from Arabia and didn't come to "Palestine" until Mohammed invaded in the 600s when he invented Islam from a dream he had.

Israel is and always was the home of the Jews.

Palestinians are compaining because wrote on May 25, 2008 5:08 PM:Israel made theland flourish, which the Palestinians werent able to do ever.

Floyd wrote on May 25, 2008 5:29 PM:Greenenergy wants to tell us that environmentalists believe that choosing between people and the environment is a false choice. Maybe he hasn't been following the news: "The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement," said John Lewis, an FBI deputy assistant director and top official in charge of domestic terrorism. ... There is nothing else going on in this country, over the last several years, that is racking up the high number of violent crimes and terrorist actions, arsons, etc, that this particular area of domestic terrorism has caused." ("Domestic Terror: Who's Most Dangerous?" CNN, August 24, 2005). Then there's Dave Forman, founder of Earth First!, who said "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental". Clearly, environmentalists ARE making that choice and are actively working to exterminate us!

Karl wrote on May 25, 2008 5:45 PM:We have all heard the rhetoric on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue, and I am not going to get into the back and forth of who was there first and whose land it is, etc...what I want to find out is, does Israel really want peace with the Palestinians, and if so, under what conditions? If Hamas and all the rest of the Palestinian factions suddenly came out and supported Israel unconditionally, would the Jewish state accept giving the Palestinians their own country? Personally I don't believe this to be the case, because as long as there is conflict, Israel gets whatever it wants from America; that includes billions a year in monetary aid, as well as billions more in free weaponry. Seems to me that it is not to Israel's best interest to genuinely pursue everlasting peace in the region.

Reardon wrote on May 25, 2008 5:54 PM:DD: So long as you are willing to have the loss of personal liberties, and the magnet influx of illegal aliens, I suppose the cost is acceptable to you.

It is an immutable law of economics, whatever you tax you will have less of, and whatever you subsidize you will have more of.

The cost of K-12 education is zero -- and everyone will buy it at that price including anyone who can get here, however they can get here. If the cost of medical care is zero, everyone will buy it at that price including anyone who can get here, however they can get here.

It is not just illegal alien parents, it is citizen parents. If the medical cost of having children is zero, and the cost of educating them is zero (instead of $11,000+ per child/per year,) you have huge externalities and light the population bomb.

If that is an acceptable economic and social cost to the people, fine, but as Browne noted, the poor will come and the rich will leave.
(Or at least their corporations, and their money will move off-shore. I watched the Formula 1 race from Monaco this morning, and most of the VERY well-paid drivers live there!)

Focal Point wrote on May 25, 2008 6:03 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on May 24, 2008 8:33 PM:
That is right, they have been there since Moses led them out of the desert. Of course, by direction of God, the Jews had to slay the original tribes in the area and steal their land.

El Guero wrote on May 25, 2008 6:24 PM:Oh but surely, oh Grand Wizzard, the children of 'undocumented' immigrants are eligible for application to numerous federal and state welfare programs, due to their parents' poor financial circumstances, aren't they? And doesn't U.S. citizenship for one member of the family, if in circumstances of need, entitle the rest to enjoy the benefits bestowed by law on the U.S.-born child?

DD Wiz wrote on May 25, 2008 7:00 PM:The post from "Reardon" (5:54pm) seems to indicate a failure to grasp the point I was making, thus I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly.
1. I do not agree that a proper welfare system, focusing on providing opportunity rather than cash benefits, either subsidizes something undesirable or causes a loss of personal liberties.
Liberty involves freedom to choose. Providing more options to those with less options, real and substantive ways that teach him to fish instead of giving him a fish, expands their freedoms as well as their ability to contribute to everyone. Again, as I have said before, the emphasis is on equality of OPPORTUNITY (not outcomes like the socialists or simply no opportunities like the conservatives).
2. You are changing the subject when you say "It is not just illegal alien parents, it is citizen parents."
Before you were talking about undocumented immigrants. Now you are talking about their children. Like it or not, under current law, the children are not here out of status. They are fully legal. They are citizens. That is the law.
But again, ultimately, the solution is real welfare reform focusing on proactive measures to prevent problems and provide equality of opportunity (not outcomes).

Greenergy wrote on May 25, 2008 7:10 PM:Floyd at 5:29 p.m. continues to engage in vicious name-calling and extremist insults.
First, earlier today he falsely accused me of advocating the eradication of the human species, using a "paraphrased quote" of his own invention.
Now, he wants to lump all environmental groups into one basket. Sorry, guy, but Sierra Club and Audubon cannot be compare to Earth First! (or even PETA) any more than the Republican Party can be compared to Timothy McVeigh.
Please, try to discuss issues and not engage in personal insults, character assassination or "guilt by association." More than 99% of environmentalists reject the extremist groups that, in desperation, you cite. You have lost all credibility. Issues, please, not personal attacks.

Reardon wrote on May 25, 2008 7:28 PM:DD: Apparently, you are incapable of holding two related thoughts simultaneously. In the future I will not add anything to the single subject under discussion.

I thought that I had properly expanded the original concept (“It is not just illegal alien parents, it is citizen parents”.), please note the JUST – but I will simplify just for you.

DD Wiz wrote on May 25, 2008 8:15 PM:The post from "Reardon" (7:28pm) shows I am still not explaining myself clearly. Again, I apologize.
"Reardon" mentions "two related thoughts" and then mentions welfare for undocumented immigrants and benefits for native-born U.S. citizens. These are not related thoughts.
The citizens may be related to the immigrants, but their status is not.
Again, you may not like the law as it is. But that is the law.
And it is not just any law, it is the Constitution (14th Amendment).
You want to change it? Get it to pass the Congress and 3/4 states.
Follow the law. What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

Chris to sdraoul wrote on May 25, 2008 8:16 PM:I have said it many times before. There are two kinds of Jews. The one is the Sephartic Jew who was the descendents of the ancient Israelites. They were in Palestine all along and got along fine with the muslims until the Zionist came. The Zionist are the Ashkenazi Jews and they came from the Khazars who converted to Jewdaism around 700 AD. The Jews that lived in Palestine didn't like it when these Zionist came and took over. Now according to your reasoning then there should be no problem when the Mexicans with their "La Raza" take back California because they were here before we were. But I wonder how many of these Zionist supporters would like what happened in Palestine to happen here. The only difference is that these Zionist never had ancestors tha lived in palestine. As I said you know nothing about history or else you would know that all this stuff about Moses is pure fiction. There never was such a guy and Israel never was much of a country.

Chris to Karl wrote on May 25, 2008 8:34 PM:I agree with practically everything you say about Israel except their goal is to get rid of all the Palestinians in order to create their Greater Israel. You will notice that eveytime the Palestinians are willing to try to come to terms with Israel, Israel does something to scuttle the upcoming talks. For instance you will notice that when the so-called peace talks are taking place Israel is announcing more settlements or the expansion of existing ones. Or just before the peace talks Israel will assasinate some Palestinian leader.

Floyd wrote on May 25, 2008 8:35 PM:So, calling someone an "environmentalist" is now name-calling and an "extremist insult"? Quoting reliable sources about the terrorist activities of environmentalists is not discussing the issue? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Sierra Club is actively interfering with the Sunrise Powerlink in an effort to prevent us from receiving a desperately needed source of new energy needed for current and future needs. If you don't agree with the expressed goals and activities of the environmental movement, you shouldn't identify yourself as an environmentalist!

Reardon wrote on May 25, 2008 9:56 PM:DD: Try this. I never mentioned welfare for illegal immigrants -- I mentioned the Welfare State in general and public schools and taxpayer medical care in particular. These are just several components of the welfare state, but they attract illegal immigrant families. No welfare -- the welfare state. Comprende?

Greenergy wrote on May 26, 2008 5:21 AM:Floyd at 8:35 p.m. still continues to dishonestly try to lump all environmentalists into one bucket.
He says: "So, calling someone an "environmentalist" is now name-calling and an "extremist insult"? Quoting reliable sources about the terrorist activities of environmentalists is not discussing the issue?"
Sorry, but you are backpedaling now.
At 10:10 a.m. you completely fabricated a false quote that does not reflect my views and attributed it to me.
At 5:29 p.m. you specifically linked me to Earth First!, which is an extremist fringe group whose opinions, goals and tactics I do not share. I (and most environmentalists) see environmentalism as the way to improve the quality of life for humans (which incidentally makes the environment better for other species) and reject terror tactics such as setting bombs or fires on construction sites. Most environmentalists do not share the extremist goal of "phasing out the human race" but want to stop the pro-polluter lobby from policies that will do just that, but only through legal, reasonable means.
And comparing the Sierra Club to Earth First! is definitely dishonest. Yes, Sierra Club does oppose Sunrise Powerlink, as many responsible environmentalists do, because it is a 1.3 billion dollar boondoggle designed to enrich stockholders of SDG&E on the backs of ratepayers, when that same money could be better used to install on-site solar but, oops, that wouldn't enrich the stockholders, would it.
There can be a reasonable debate on whether or not Sunrise is a good idea.
But neither I nor the Sierra Club has proposed acts of violence or terror against it (or anything else), and your attempt to link us to organizations and extremists that do is just as slanderous as if I were to try to link you and all conservatives to Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or the Christian Identity Movement.
The only reason you feel compelled to link us with viewpoints we do not share is because you are utterly incapable of responding to our actual views because ours are reasonable and yours are the ones that are actually extreme.

Scott wrote on May 26, 2008 11:33 AM:They have written books about the Rise
and Fall of Roman Empire, and then the
British Empire. If we don't get out of the Middle East soon, and develop new
energy sources, historians will be writing a book about the 'Rise and Fall of the Great American Empire'.

Floyd wrote on May 26, 2008 1:52 PM:Poor Greenenergy can't stand the light of truth. The statement wasn't a completely fabricated false quote, it was a restatement of your own comment showing how extreme and unworkable the logic is. I haven't said you were a part of Earth First! or that the Sierra Club is a terrorist organization, but I have said that environmentalists are opposed to the continued well-being of the human race. Take the Audubon Society, for example, which filed suit to prevent the operation of the Altamont Pass windmills that are generating needed green energy or the environmentalists who filed suit in Northern California to cause our current water crisis. Here in San Diego we've got environmentalists opposed to desalinated water and the Sunrise Powerlink, two critical infrastructure projects to meet current and projected needs. If you don't agree with the goal of the environmental movement to cause pain and destruction to humanity, don't call yourself an environmentalist. It's really that simple.

B.J. wrote on May 26, 2008 4:13 PM:Talk about who should be here and who should not. Who has the right anyway, even though the U>S> is very much overcrowded and continuing to do so. The throwing around of if a poor, or black want to come and the fact of him being poor. What right do anyou or anyone have to decide? You let other foreigners in and overcrowd and over populate even the small cities, yet you complain about a few poor people of color. and you want to keep them out. GOD'S LAND