John wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:58 AM:Atta boy DDGOD, thanks for setting us straight according to DD..

Chuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:48 AM:Why is it that only the liberals are against increased drilling, oil production and nuclear power plants? Could it be that they enjoy watching job carnage and this commodity price inflation, because it fits right into their agenda?? The sweat beads are already forming on the forheads of Hussein, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer and the liberals running for re-election because the American worker and consumer is now aroused and the liberals are telling them to go screw themselves

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:23 AM:From yesterday - Well, "Reardon" at 4:53PM and 9:51PM, I answered you, albeit a bit convoluted, at 2:56PM. If I did not answer all of what you asked, please specify what is left unanswered. Regards, Alf.

To Chuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:50 AM:If what you say is true, then you have nothing to be mad about because the liberals are playing right into your hands. It's an odd thing though, that Obama is leading in the polls. I guess the american worker and consumer hasn't gotten your memo yet.

The newest one wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:54 AM:Hoop-de-do, if "let's drill more" hasn't become the idea of the day! But, as we've been discussing for a few days, why drill more when the oil companies already have vast acres already leased that they aren't drilling? If you say it's the environmentalists that are preventing them from drilling on their land, then the same will be true for any new drilling that you're all buzzing about. Figure out a way for them to drill on the land they already lease and get off this bandwagon to hand over even more territory to them.

Floyd wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:26 AM:So what's your plan to stop the environmentalists from blocking progress on fuel, energy, water, and roads? Maybe we should borrow some pages from their playbook: impose new fees on environmental organizations, subpoena their membership to long drawn-out hearings during working hours, and require them to submit multi-volume economic impact reports every time they do anything.

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:28 AM:Yesterday, my good buddy "To Ron"
{Jun 19} @3:12 PM, Asked me:
"why do you use the plight of the minimum wage worker to attack the liberals..."

The short answer for my dear friend is:
Because your attacking them. Your policies are attacking them, their way of life, their ability to provide for themselves, and to provide for their familys.

Surfer wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:40 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:48 AM:
Well, Dude, I do not speak for liberals. But, I can venture a guess. They are not for nuclear plants until a method and protocol of disposal of nuclear rods and materials is developed. I am all for it provided the spent radioactive material can be deposited in your back yard. Drilling in our territories will not provide the product at lower cost to the American people. The abusive fat cat oil companies will just sell it to thier own countrymen at the world market price or sell it abroad for the same world market price. Everyone knows that Chuck has conservitis. Heck, our good friend is just mouthing the daily "RUSH" report. See Ya!

Ms M wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:43 AM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:28 AM:..Help me out on this wasn't it the libs who pushed through the increase for minimum wage and the cons who fought tooth and nail against it? Thanks in advance for your response.

Ms M wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:49 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:48 AM:...no Chuck the American people are learning about the cons. Why open more land for drilling when not all leased land is now being used. And Americans don't want that old excuse about the restrictions. We know now know that game. Americans are aware that the cons were in charge for 7 plus years and if they wanted to expand the drilling areas they could have. Americans know that this is political posturing. That's why we will have a lib president and a lib congress with a huge majority - Chuck your cons are going to loose big time in Nov. You see America is tired of being conned by the cons.

Roger wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:54 AM:While Chuck Mol has no problems with the smoking ban at the beach, he takes issue with James King's modest proposals. Most pecululiar.

Wiretapping wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:02 AM:The compromise revisions of the wiretapping laws is not awful. The Democrats did let the communications companies off the hook if they had been assured by Bush that they were immune. Interesting, isn't it? If someone, let's say the cop on the beat, tells someone that if they hit that liquor store, they'd not get busted, would the cop's assurance help the thief out? But on the other hand, I can see how the communications companies would say: hey, this was the President of the United States assuring us we were immune. The President of the United States told us not to fear that we'd be busted for breaking a law. All this sounds familiar, the President deciding which laws to follow and which not, and then getting in a huff when all the world doesn't agree with him. The good news is that surveillance will require a court order again, so there is some restoration of people's Constitutional rights...a small victory under this President.

Nick wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:05 AM:I loved the letter by Chuck Mol, especially the last sentence.

"I think Mr. King just needs to keep his nose in his own business and not worry so much about how other people choose to live their lives."

Well said, now if you and the rest of the anti-smoking hypocrites could just live your last paragraph, the world will be a better place.
I have said it many times before, if you are one of the anti-smoking nuts and still drive your car, you are a hypocrite.
Sitting in traffic every day, pouring exhaust fumes out of your tailpipe is FAR WORSE than any whiff of second hand smoke.
Sit outside at a cafe along Hwy 101 in the summertime in Del Mar, Encinitas, Leucadia, Carslbad or Oceanside and what do you get to enjoy with your meal?
That's right, 1000's of pounds of vehicle exhaust fumes that are extremely bad for your health. The anti-smoking crowd doesn't care though, because it is THEIR right to drive that car or truck, but Please don't let them catch a whiff of your scary and dangerous second hand smoke.......LMAO.
Can you say hypocrite?
Cheers, Nick.

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:06 AM:You know, yesterday my good buddy the Wizzer {Jun 19} @4:55 PM: Went off on another liberal rant about my posts, and I must correct the record.
As you may recall, we were discussing hiring practises, in which I said:
"...each adult has the individual ability to determine for themselves whether the wage I'm willing to pay will meet their own specific needs."
I stand by that statement, each adult makes choices, choices for their own lives. Whether to stay in school, whether to attend college, whether they want to work a minimum wage job for the rest of their lives. Either by action, or inaction, we have all made choices which affect us.
Now, typically radical, and typically Wizzer he then makes the absurd claim that because I'm the boss, and I'm offering a particular wage, that somehow I'm a bank robber? Huh?
He says: "...which makes as much sense as a robber pulling a gun on someone and taking their money and calling it a gift."
I'll let you decide whether he's a radical. I say: He is.

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:09 AM:Yes, as a matter of fact.. "Ms M"
@7:43 AM:
It was the "libs who pushed through the increase for minimum wage..."
And since that time, gas has surged another $1.76 a gallon. I don't think it's working, do you?

To Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:16 AM:Have you considered paying your workers a living wage instead of minimum wage?

Ms M wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:22 AM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:09 AM:Yes, as a matter of fact.. "Ms M"
@7:43 AM:
It was the "libs who pushed through the increase for minimum wage..."
And since that time, gas has surged another $1.76 a gallon. I don't think it's working, do you..so Ron you are saying that because we voted to try and give folks a better hourly pay that was the reason that gas prices surged. Ron you know better. Please tell me where that statistic can be found.

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:23 AM:The Liberal War on the Poor continues as the liberals stand, as Mike Nichols says about Hyde Park (Barack’s neighborhood)” “Black and White, arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder, against the poor!”

In this case, the subject is drilling wherever there is oil to be drilled. High fuel prices may satisfy liberals in their quest to social engineer poor and middle-class people into “mass transit” – and I suppose I should applaud because it opens the freeway for me, but in truth I dislike liberal social engineering.

Much of this liberal social engineering was done sub rosa, you may remember liberal proposals to increase the tax $0.50 a gallon, but OPEC and speculators beat them to it. Of course the government gets a lot of the pump price as well – much more than anyone else except perhaps the Saudis!

Liberals like the high fuel prices, because it pushes the population toward their Minerva – a society with full solar power in homes and cars, all riding cooperatively to work in mass transit. It also supports the Global Warming scare.

Of course the poor suffer most with high gas prices, and they will be the first to suffer mass transit. The poor must suffer even more, because they are the last to afford new electric cars powered by solar electric homes, so they must suffer with high gas AND high electric bills!

The latest polls indicate the cat is out of the bag. In Florida, when informed that Obama opposes drilling offshore and McCain supports it, McCain’s lead over Obama jumps from 8% to 11% when voters are told that McCain supports drilling and Obama opposes it.

The tide is running. Watch for Obama to flip-flop on this issue.

Observation wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:26 AM:US officials: Israeli military exercise was preparation for attack on Iran's nuke plant

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:27 AM:Alf: Beautiful platitudinous speech yesterday, old friend, but not an answer in the paragraph.

I asked specific questions regarding specific situations. Would you care to address those specific questions – the devil is in the details, so I went to the details.

But you wrote a nice speech, anyway.

The chains of capital wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:33 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:06 AM: Ron's attitude is pretty close to the attitude of the owners of coal mines. It amounted to slave labor. Take what I pay or shove off. There is always some one even more disparate than you to take your place. This has always been the attitude of capitalists. Labor is just red ink to them on their balance sheet. The condition of the worker or the worker as a human being is meaningless to their $$$$$$$$$$$$ bottom line.

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:35 AM:And then my dear old friend the Wizzer
{Jun 19} @4:55 PM: Said that since part of my business is "government", then He, as a part of the public, has a right to determine for me how I will "treat" my employees.
Yes, Wiz... Yes, you can. Through your elected representatives, Yes you can "determine" how I will "treat" my employees.
But, that's a funny thing, ya know?
I don't have to do this work, I do have opportunities to do "other" things, and pass on this work. You see, this is the miracle of America. I get to make choices too! And right now, while I do get tired of filling out all of the Government paperwork that is not remotely related to any project I do, but instead tends to focus on age, sex, and which ethnic group, amid other stuff. It is not yet such a burden to make the work unprofitable. Should in time, these policies change, and I have to devote more time to them, or if I feel they are being overly intrusive into my business, I do have to the ability to "No bid" the work. Yes, I can refuse to do it. See, for me... this is also a "quality of life" issue.
If the government bothers me too much, I just don't do their work anymore.
I'll find something else, I always do.
So, to attempt to threaten me, or hold something over my head ain't gonna work with me, partner. Besides, I think you are a bit misinformed about how profitable these jobs really are. In fact, they are highly competitive, and difficult to get. It is a long, hard slog.. as the President has said.
I'll tell you one thing it does do for me, which was my initial goal when I first set out to gain this work. Once you are "qualified" by the government, your basically "qualified" everywhere.
The thinking on this goes as follows: "Oh, you do work for the government? Your more than qualified to do my product also."
Like I said, choices. Ain't America grand!

Nick wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:35 AM:"Alf" good buddy, and all the rest who care about our Constitution, The House is debating GWB's new surveillance bill which will strip even more rights to our privacy give immunity those who help our Government thwart our Constitutional rights.
When is enough actually enough? It's all in our best interest,dontcha know?

Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:37 AM:I am thoroughly liberal, and let me say for the record, loud and clear: I do not like high gas prices. So that pretty much shoots that theory of yours down. As far as your questions yesterday, facetious as they were, I do not believe the court ruled that everyone detained was identical to a criminal busted in the US, do you? Only that those being held in a prison by the US have due process rights. Bush could've avoided all this by letting them be POWs and following Geneva conventions, but he went for broke, and lost (5 times). If those in the prisons were terrorists, let them be charged as such and put away for life...legally and properly. If they aren't, let 'em go. Just like Tim McVeigh (who, as a citizen, DID have his Miranda rights read to him, and has been executed). BTW: My reference to phrases like "57 states" was intended at your questions about Obama's "martyr" remark. I thought that was obvious, but I see that you need things spelled out in the most concrete fashion. Will do.

Gotta go with Nick on this wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:41 AM:I usually disagree with Nick, but I must say his opinion about second hand smoke is on the button. I would not approve of allowing smoking in enclosed places, but only because the employees of those places would, I believe, be exposed to dangerous levels. But outdoors, at Petco, on the beach, etc...puh-lease. I would have to be directed to research that says that this amount of second hand smoke under these conditions can be dangerous. I am not a smoker, so I have no stake in this: if there is such research, I'd change my mind in a flash, but it would have to be good research. Until then, it's a law to protect certain people from being offended, and that's not a basis for a ban.

Nick wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:42 AM:On another note,
Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.
As I seem to recall, this is not the first candidate in history to constantly talk about playing by the rules until they figure out the rules are going to hurt them, and then they go and change their tune or try and change the rules.
And yet, all the Dems can do around here is talk trash about the Repubs and how sleazy and underhanded their tactics are....LOL.

Not new wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:47 AM:I just saw that the on-line NY Times has a photo from 1961: a greyhound bus carrying black and white "Freedom Riders" has been firebombed. See? Terrorist acts are not new. Targeting civilians is not new. Blowing up children for terroristic political purposes is not new. It was treated as a crime then. We should treat it as a crime now.

GFN wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:52 AM:Re: The case of Deana Del Rio suing the City of Oceanside for the death of her criminal husband. I like the idea of charging legal fees to her if this case is deemed to be a frivolous lawsuit, however, I'm sure she has few financial assets, as is the case in many of these situations. She therefore has nothing to lose. Jeff's idea to have the attorney who filed the lawsuit pay for the legal fees, if his client cannot, is brilliant. A knowledgeable attorney should be able to discern a frivolous legal situation before he files a lawsuit, and if he doesn't, he should be held responsible to pay the legal fees, not the taxpayers. It's called accountability!

Watch em at work wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:53 AM:So lemme get this straight. The oil companies have millions of acres of leased land to drill that they are not drilling. Gas prices are high. The Republicans in charge of the country since at least 2000 have done nothing about this. Now, at election time, Bush pops out with "let's drill more!", which means: let's give the oil companies MORE sites to drill (or not). And the perfectly stupid people of America, suckered again, say "Yes! Give them more land to drill (or not)!! Elect McCain!! McCain wants to give the oil companies more sites to drill (or not) and this will save us (or not)" Unbelievable. Never EVER bet on the intelligence of the American voter. EVER! So McCain will become President. The oil companies will be given ANWR and off shore sites, which they will not drill. Gas prices will stay high. McCain will blame liberals and Iran. And the children of the poor will be sent off to die in another desert. Bush will have another gin and tonic brought to him on his spread in Paraguay. (He will have no reason to maintain his sobriety.) At least Reardon will be happy.

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:08 AM:But finally, my good buddy the Wizzer {Jun 19} @4:55pm said I need to apologise to "Surfer" about the
unrealistic state of hydrogen fuel cells. Now, I don't know what comic book my dear friend was reading, but he says: "Honda announced delivery of the first hydrogen fuel cell cars for sale to the general public." Yeah, sure.. why no specifics, Wiz? I'll tell ya why! Cause's it's more pap, more baloney, and total fantasy. That's why!
Here's the real deal on Honda and their hydrogen cars. They have released "two-dozen", that's 24 cars for road testing by the public. The cost on the lease for one of these cars is $600 a month.
Mostly celebrities, and other Rich people will get thse cars. Honda says they will release another 200 cars over the next 3 years. They hope... HOPE to have 1,000 cars by 2012, maybe by 2015.
Now, at the same time, GM has a few hydrogen cars too, all appear to be following the same process, releasing a few for road testing, with the hope... HOPE they will duplicate what Honda has done and release 1,000 GM cars by 2015.
Now, my good friend always says these technologies are here, and ready to use right now. Apparently not.
Now, I ask you... in a country with 247,421,120 registered passenger vehicles in the United States, how much of a dent will these prototypes really make now? And how many people can afford a $600 a month lease payment, plus insurance? Not many.
Now, I will grant you... 7-10 years down the line these cars will be a small part of the total mix, but they will still be very expensive, and not accessable to most Americans.
No body I know is saying we shouldn't go down this path, all we are saying is it is not reality to say: They are here now, and available now, because they are not. These are very small pilot programs, and will not affect the gas price anyone pays.
But lastly, let me say this...
The Leftists & the Enviro's want everyone to buy a solar panel and a plug-in car. That's what they want. And again, I'll grant you, it's a good idea as a part of the energy mix. But, you guy's have to be real about this. Most Americans can not afford these things.
Between the Panels & the Car, that's another $50,0000 investment. Right now, only those who can afford the technology buy these things, and as the price of fuel rises, more will do so.
What you guy's are attempting to do, is force a square peg into a round hole.
So, again.. I'm gonna ask. What American can afford these technologies?
Because the bottom line here is this:
If it's economically out of reach, it's not a viable solution now, then is it?

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:19 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 8:27AM, I'll try again, this is MY OPINION, nothing more -
In my mind this whole "enemy combatant" thing is a sham, a way to violate our Constitution by making "enemy combatants" have no rights at all, to be treated as less than human. The Supreme Court saw fit to declare that "enemy combatants" are human and, as such, have some minimal rights, rights that GWB is doing his best to destroy, both for "enemy combatants" and the People of the U.S.A. (albeit more slowly).
Turning OBL into a martyr will happen no matter what, but if he is caught and tried IN AN INTERNATIONAL COURT, he will be less of one than if he is killed for bounty.
I would hope that Obama would "pay" ONLY for a live OBL to try in AN INTERNATIONAL COURT.
Miranda applies in the U.S.A. and I do not believe it applies INTERNATIONALLY.
Release, with U.S. dollars paying for his return, is not an option unless tried and found innocent.
"Lawyer up", that's a joke, right?
Are P.O.W.s and murderers in prison eligible for such things as kidney transplants? I know, answering a question with a question is "poor form".
I trust that this is sufficiently specific. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:24 AM:It seems, "Nick" at 8:35AM, that the "lame duck" is still trying to destroy our Constitution! It is long past time to IMPEACH and REMOVE GWB, The Cheney Branch and Pelosi for "high crimes and misdemeanors", a long list for each one of them. Hang 'em high and out to dry! Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:45 AM:Re: Ron (8:06 a.m.)
Ron says everything comes down to choices we make about our own lives.
How naive.
As I've said several times over the last few days, it is not all about having opportunity provided for you (socialism) or all about complete, individualistic self-reliance (conservatism), but a balance of both (liberalism).
As much as Ron wants to pretend otherwise, the old examples still stand. Bill Gates did not choose to live in this time and place, including a nurturing middle-class family, of such rich opportunity that provided the setting in which he could use his individual brains and energy for personal achievement. Again, no matter what he were to choose, if he had been born 3,000 years ago in a jungle, he wouldn't have invented Microsoft.
A baby does nothing to "choose" the environment it is born into. The baby born to street life in a ghetto or barrio, with no nurturing family support, does not have the same choices in life as one born to a nurturing, stable family unit with opportunities to go to good schools and network with people who can help them advance later in life.
Ron simply wants to take credit for all the others who made his opportunities possible, and whose labor and tax dollars he wants to siphon into his own greedy pockets.

To Hussein Apollo and Surfer wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:52 AM:From yesterday at 4:29 PM, Well Gentleman, You were the first to wrongly attack me yesterday, At least Surfer did not hesitate to "Man Up" and apologize, My hat is off to you Surfer dude, It takes a real man to do that. Well Hussein, Apollo, What are you?

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:56 AM:You know? It is just mind boggling to sit and read baloney. But the post from "The chains of capital" @
8:33 AM reads to me, like someone who perhaps had a bad experience with an employer, and is still bitter. Plenty of great jobs out there, friend, with many great employers. Or I'm thinking he/she is limited in life due to level of education, and/or skill sets. I could see where that would be very depressing. Limited, feeling stuck, no real future. Yeah, I'd be depressed too. You know, you can change that? It will take an individual effort on your part, hard work, staying with it. But with those new skill set's, or education you too can participate, and make more of your own life. But, I'm sensing a kind of laying back, and waiting. Maybe waiting for somene else to change it for you? Can't wait, my friend, not in this economy, and certainly, not in America. Always move forward. And if your waiting on someone else, you will always be greatly disappointed. Take my word for it.
But to make a ridiculous charge like "Slave Labor", is just so far fetched, and is a total departure of present America, it's gotta be rhetorical. It's certainly not the America I live in.
I've had a few boss's I didn't like, mistreated me too. I changed jobs. That's the miracle of this great country, I can change my circumstances.
Simply because you live in West Virginia does not mandate that you automatically work in a coal mine. People choose. They can choose to stay and work in the mines, or they change choose to leave and do something else.
But to live under this liberal cloud of "The World's against me", "Woe is me", is totally self-defeating.
The world is against everyone, equally.
No one in my circle is a silver spooner, we all started out with little, worked hard, did some smart things, a little luck didn't hurt either, and we got ahead. Struggle is not a bad thing. In fact, struggle refines you, it defines you. All of us struggle, in our own lives, family, economics, etc. The main thing I see in many people who are not successful is that they have sabotaged their own lives. They made bad choices, and some.. because of those bad choices have it tough. Whether they droped out of school, or they got pregnant, whatever. These are things totally beyond my cotrol, done long before I laid eyes on them. When they show up, I have to consider what they will add to the business, and whether they have potential of increasing their value to the company. Now, if you think is not kind and uncaring, I suppose on one level you can assume that. On the other hand, I'm offering them an opportunity to better themselves, while at the same time supporting themselves & their family. The old blue-collar gripe is the boss is cheap, he's an ... ....,
People in this situation never look at their side of the street, they are, afterall.. 50% of this equation.
But in closing, let me leave you with this thought. If your hungry and go to a grocery store with a nickel, yet the food you want is a quarter. Is the store mean & cruel because they won't sell you the food for what you can afford? Or should you have been better prepared before going to the store?

Nick wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:18 AM:Well "Alf", breaking news, the House just passed the surveillance bill. That just goes to prove that we have way to many ignorant individuals in office who DO NOT care about US or The Constitution.
That goes for both Democrats and Republicans.
I am more thouroughly disgusted by the day amigo.
Cheers, Nick.

Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:18 AM:Re: To Hussein Apollo and Surfer (9:52 a.m.)
I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about when you demand an apology, but you do not identify which screen name you used, what time you posted, or which post of mine (date/time) you are referring to.
I am glad you have such high expectations that you think I can read minds but, sadly, no can do.
The 4:29 p.m. post you refer to references a 3:15 post, and there is no post at 3:15.
Further, I didn't even have any posts after 3:15 so I couldn't have posted something offensive.
I am not going to go back and re-read 162 posts trying to figure out what you are referring to.
I try to make clear exactly which post or letter I am responding to; I understand that everyone has their own style, but if you want us to go back and look at prior posts, at least be kind enough to tell us which one.
If you think think this kind of nonsense makes me want to apologize, I think it is much more indicative of the level of thinking (not!) you are bringing to this dialogue.

TO To Hussein Apollo and Surfer wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:25 AM:Your original comment was inane and I see no reason for an apology from anyone. What is your trip, anyway?

Ok so I get it now wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:35 AM:1. Ron pays his workers minimum wage because that is what the government says he has to pay at the very least.

2. Ron blames the liberals for not allowing offshore drilling, which, as he knows would not drop the price of gas but rather increase his own profits.

3. Ron points to the liberals so he can tell his workers it is not his fault that they cannot make ends meet on minimum wage.

4. Ron uses the plight of his minimum wage workers to attack the liberals because he says the liberals do it.

That about sum it up?

Ms M wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:48 AM:Nick
[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:42 AM:...thank goodness he realized that he had made a mistake and will be able to raise millions more than McCain to win over a majority of Americans. It is hysterical how the cons jump on anything Barak has done but has continuously excused the mistakes this administration has made. The good thing is that when Barak is president he can always say "Bush did it". Barak will have no barriers - he will be able to do anything he wants with the support of the cons who have set the bar on what is okay - can't wait!

Global Warming Hysteria wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:51 AM:Where can one go for one-stop, scientifically-supported, rapid response to climate change nutballs?

The answer? The good folks at Grist have compiled all of Coby Beck's "How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic" series, "containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming" onto one handy and indexed webpage. The listing is neatly divided into four sections: Stages of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, and Levels of Sophistication. The last is my favorite because it is subdivided into four sections titled Silly, Naive, Specious, and the charitable Scientific. Throughout, you will find the most common arguments against climate change in the index, and, at the click of the link, all of the necessary research for reasserting the reality-based facts.

To Elinor wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:56 AM:Yes, I've seen the pterodactyls too. I witnessed them flying around Washington D.C. many times just before Cherry Blossom season. Sometimes they hang out at Catalina too. Usually they are peace loving avians, but once man tames them they become machines of war. I think we should put angry, hate and war filled men and women onto spaceships to live on Mars. There are no big buildings to crash into there.

What is the kerfluffle wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:02 AM:Try to get it straight the first time. Chuck uses Obama's middle name because he thinks it will frighten people. It was pointed out that the name Hussein means "good" and Obama means "blessing" which effectively neuters Chuck's point that Obama's middle name has anything to do with anything.

Then someone posts their clever idea that Saddam Hussein is not "good" or "blessed" to point out that these words to do not apply to everyone who bears the name Hussein.

Well, duh.

When this clever person doesn't get a big round of applause he demands an apology.

What ego.

Hussein wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:18 AM:To Hussein Apollo and Surfer: I agree with Surfer. My comment was for Chuck. If you are not Chuck, I render forth a sincere apology. If you are Chuck, too bad and so sad. I can not "man up." After all, I am just a name.

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:23 AM:But finally, let me say this to my dear friend, the Wizzer {Jun 19} @4:55 PM:
He says: "...the truth is coming out about collusion in Big Oil to manipulate oil prices by "sitting on" millions of acres that are ready for drilling."
Again, more liberal nonsense about "collusion" & "manipulation."
All just theories, allegations, and conspiracy talk. How many "investigations" have we now had regarding price gouging? 4? 5? I lose count. The point is simple, and very easy to Understand.
The President said: "Let's Drill."
The Governor said: "No."
That's it, that's the case.. and that's the ball game as they say.
Most people can put two & two together, and aren't into all this global conspiracy talk, like you appear to believe. I believe people are angry, because this is cutting into their personal family budgets, and they ain't gonna want to hear about Delta Smelt, or Polar Bears, if they can't get to work. I think I'm sensing this about right, they are getting fed up, and they don't really care, they want fuel.
And as for my positioning in oil stocks, what could you possibly know about my complete portfolio? Nothing.
Just as I rode the housing market, and made a few bucks, I'll ride the oil up, make my money, and get out.
You see, I too see a future for alternatives. And it really wasn't all that hard to predict either. You see, I know liberals, and whenever liberals get into the mix, they mess stuff up.
I saw this oil thing coming for years.
I knew very well by not drilling, we would set ourselves up for a restricted market, hence I bought the stocks.
So, with electric power being restricted, oil being restricted, believe me... it didn't take a rocket scientist to figuire this one out, friend. In fact, you would be quite surprised by my investments. And that's really the key here, for investing.
You may think global warming is a tub of lard, as I do. But, this movement does have real market consequences.
Those who get in on the front end, like Al Gore, will reap the rewards. Even if it drummed up and phoney. The market reacts.
So, you maybe be right. After awhile, my oil stocks may drop. That's quite alright by me. I'm not partial, I'm not driven by some ideology. I'm not invested in a cause. My cause is to do right by myself, my family, and my community by my own self-interest, as preached by Adam Smith. Because the real key to understanding "the invisible hand" is to know I'm just a very small cog in the whole scheme of things. Be you a worker putting bolts on a car, or the designer, or the investor. We all have a part to play, and we all sweat.

Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:32 AM:Submit 10:18 a.m. - re-submit 11:32 a.m.

Re: To Hussein Apollo and Surfer (9:52 a.m.)
I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about when you demand an apology, but you do not identify which screen name you used, what time you posted, or which post of mine (date/time) you are referring to.
I am glad you have such high expectations that you think I can read minds but, sadly, no can do.
The 4:29 p.m. post you refer to references a 3:15 post, and there is no post at 3:15.
Further, I didn't even have any posts after 3:15 so I couldn't have posted something offensive.
I am not going to go back and re-read 162 posts trying to figure out what you are referring to.
I try to make clear exactly which post or letter I am responding to; I understand that everyone has their own style, but if you want us to go back and look at prior posts, at least be kind enough to tell us which one.
If you think think this kind of nonsense makes me want to apologize, I think it is much more indicative of the level of thinking (not!) you are bringing to this dialogue.

To Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:37 AM:"Obama says he does not want to “martyr” Osama bin Laden. Now I interpret that to mean he does not want him killed in a battle. If that is a wrong interpretation, would someone please clarify."

Here is what Obama said: "Asked by a reporter how he would proceed if bin Laden were caught during his presidency, Obama said "we may not be able to capture him alive."

"It does not make sense for me to speculate in terms of what the best approach would be in trying him and bringing him to justice," Obama said.

"I think what would be important would be for us to deal with him in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr," he added. "And to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism."

Obama, who has sharply criticized the use of the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to hold suspected terrorists, talked of the Nuremberg trials set up after World War II to prosecute Nazi war criminals as an example of how justice could be administered in keeping with a "universal set of principles."

This makes perfect sense to me. What is not clear, Reardon?

"Does this mean that if elected, Obama will remove the price on Osama’s head if he is killed and will only pay if Osama is captured?"

No. I don't see where he said anything like that.

"IF Osama is captured, then I assume that he is then eligible for full federal court protection, so if some Corporal in the Marines who throws down on Osama forgets to read him Miranda rights, must Osama then be released by a federal judge?"

Very doubtful. Anyways, I don't see why following the rule of law is such a problem for some people. We already have enough evidence to throw the book at bin Laden. Even Saddam got a "fair" trial, according to Iraq law.

"If he is released, must he be returned to the tribal areas of Pakistan with US tax dollars?"

He won't be released. See my answer above.

"Since reportedly Special Forces are currently operating in Northern Pakistan with the intent to neutralize Osama, are they accompanied by attorneys in case he “lawyers up?”

I doubt it. Do you know any lawyers that would take that case? Is this a tongue-in-cheek question?

"Is Osama eligible for a kidney transplant in the US – since he is reportedly suffering from kidney failure?"

Personally, I think Osama died several years ago. The second-to-last video they released he was blabbing about the Danish cartoon incident that happened two years ago. Very suspicious. However, I fail to see how allowing Habeus Corpus also covers one for medical expenses. Are you being silly? I really thought you wanted a sincere answer.

To answer your overall question about why liberals are in favor of the SC ruling, I can only answer for myself.

I don't give a peanut what label you put on someone: enemy combatant, pow, criminal, illegal alien, what-the-heck-ever. What makes the US the greatest country in the world is our humanity, our ethics, our adherance to justice and freedom. Every human being deserves a fair trial no matter what, not just the citizens of the United States. Someone mentioned that al Queda didn't sign on the Geneva Conventions. So? Are we competing to be just like al Queda or are we better than them?

It is not my way to behave badly because others do so.

I am not afraid and I will not give up the very laws that are the foundation of our justice system.

Power WITH ethics, my friend. That is what is important.

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:40 AM:Alf: I am certain that you wish OBL to be tried in International Court, but let me quote from Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in the detainee case: ”before today the Court has never held that non-citizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution”

(In fact, in the 1950 decision of the Court (Johnson v. Eisentrager), the Court held that they did not have such jurisdiction.)

They have those rights today.

Get it? OBL, seized in Pakistan by US Forces is an AMERICAN “detainee” and eligible for the full benefits of federal law covering anyone likewise eligible. Got it? That means Miranda! That means “lawyering up.” That means court-appointed, taxpayer-paid attorneys. That means a taxpayer-funded kidney transplant.

Question: Is this an activist decision, ignoring legal precedence, or WHAT?

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:43 AM:Reardon[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:23 AM: Obama might just change his mind in the issue if it is in the national interest.
But, if you want to identify a real flip flopin machine on a daily basis, look to John McBush.

Surfer wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:48 AM:Watch em at work[-] wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:53 AM: Oh yes Dude. GWB will do more. Look for another photo op with him holding hands with some Saudi prince. See ya!

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:51 AM:Good news on the Nation Security front! The House today easily approved a shield to telecommunications companies from lawsuits.
The bill passed on a 293-129 vote.
As usual, the 129 voting against are the "usual suspects", who would rather sue your phone company, so later...
they can investigate why your phone service is so expensive.
Speaking of phone service....
Have you seen your bill lately. Have you seen the loads of taxes inter-laced throughout it? Are we still paying off the Spanish-American War? I thought we had gotten rid of that particular tax?

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:51 AM:Well, "Nick", the theft of our Constitutional rights is least noticed and least objected to when done slowly, incrementally and with the "security of the nation" as an excuse. Benjamin Franklin said it best "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". I will add that those who pass legislation that sacrifices liberties and Constitutional rights for some vague "national security" issue, allowing warrantless wiretaps and places like Guantanimo to even exist in their current form, deserve to be removed from office, NOW! Hang 'em high! Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:52 AM:The news is reporting that Bush Ex-press secretary decries 'secretive' White House. Duh, when a book is published by one of George Soros's companies, which means it was likely written by one of his hacks, what would you expect it to say????

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:52 AM:Nick at 8:42 a.m. seems to be getting his news from biased, limited sources.
Barack Obama was the only one to sign a pledge in advance promising that *IF* his Republican opponent were to also make the same pledge, that he would make a good faith effort to set up ground rules by which a fair election could be conducted using public funds.
CBS and ABC news showed their bias by calling Obama's decision a flip-flop. It was not. Only NBC showed a visual of the actual document showing that big conditional *IF* statement.
McCain did not agree to the same pledge, even though he had secured his nomination long before Obama.
Without that pledge, the conditional was not fulfilled and THERE WAS NO PLEDGE.
Obama can't just sit around waiting forever for McCain, who had a huge head start, to actually make an executive decision for once in his life.
And as I noted yesterday, Obama had good reasons for his decision.
The very flawed McCain campaign finance "reform" allowed generous loopholes for moneyed interests through the 527's. In contrast, Obama has already shown his revolutionary REFORM by raising virtually all his record-setting fundraising from small donations from everyday citizens instead of special interests, so OBAMA WILL OWE HIS LOYALTY TO REGULAR CITIZENS, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS.
In order to combat McCain's special interest loophole, Obama will continue to go over the heads of lobbyists and directly to his real constituency, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Chuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:57 AM:>>>Chuck uses Obama's middle name because he thinks it will frighten people>>>> Hardly, I use it as an indication of his heritage. Afterall, your buddy Ted Kennedy is so familiar with Obama and his accomplishments that he calls him Osama Obama. Where is your criticism of Kennedy?

To to.... wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:00 PM:At 10:25, MY "trip" as you put it is not your destination, unless you are Apollo, then admit it! If not, You don't have a ticket and your not going to "Jack" this bus, So stay off it.

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:02 PM:Minimum wage may have been a reasonable thing when people lived in isolated textile or coal mine communities, unwilling or unable to get out of Dodge.

Today, no one is "captive." Heck, not counting tarmac time, you can be on the East Coast to shop your skills in five hours! If you "owe your soul to the Company Store" -- ain't nobody's fault but yours.

California has this great concept called "Employment at Will" -- you can quit for no reason, and your employer can fire you for no reason.

If you feel you make too little, test the market. You will soon find out what your rational benefit is to employers on the open market.

Chuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:04 PM:As the liberals look at the American people and say "Screw You" when it comes to drilling, nuclear, and this commodity price inflation, and back it up with promises to increase taxes on their employers, the people will look at their job situation, the price of food and gas and how their 401-K's are dropping like a rock because of it all, and will tell Hussein Osama where he can stuff it

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:06 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 11:40AM, I guess that it boils down to one thing - does the U.S. have the right to treat an individual, any individual, as if they are less than human? I say NO. There is a radical difference between those in battle and those who authorize and run places like Guantanamo. Those who authorize, support and run places like Guantanamo are, if anyone can be, the ones who are sub-human, for they do what they know for a fact is wrong and they still do it anyway. Regards, Alf.

Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:07 PM:How you protested when your questions about Obama and Osama were objected to for being phrase-based and facetious. And yet now we see the full statement that Obama made and, behold, you are exposed as being just another person who picks a little out-of-context tidbit for the purpose of sliming by association. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Obama's statement in full makes perfect sense, of course. It's not very different from a statement Bush or McCain might make about Osama. Poor Reardon: all that education at the taxpayers' expense and this is what you come up with? I want my money back! LOL

Ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:08 PM:I'm glad to know you have a heart for all the down-trotten in our society.
And that cause, that concern should really be a clue to you as to what direction in life you need to go, "Apollo" @9:45 AM. Liking what you do, is very important. But, when you Love doing something, I really think that's the key. You need to "channel" that strength that you have, and use that same strength to help those who need it.
Our current system only allows most kids "A" choice. Public School, or nothing. I really think you ought to be down in the trenches helping these good folks, cause that's obviously what you care about. Right?
What better way to help, than to get right in there, roll up your own sleves, and help. Right?
Look, the reality is.. We can't do anything about where, or when, or in what circumstances people are born into.
But, what we can do is help them.
But we can educate them, and quite obviously our public school system ain't pulling it off. Ya know?
What those kids really need are options, Options outside the public schools that will give them the tools they need to help to overcome the situation in which they started.
Maybe you should really be thinking about starting a private school, aimed at helping those in the inner-cities?
Obviously, you have "the heart" for this work. Put your money, and your talents where they will really pay off!
Now, if you then going to tell me that we already have a good school system, and all we need to do is spend more money on it to improve it, I know your just full of hot air.
Because you guy's preach this all the time, and you won't listen to your own hype. Large Monopolies are something you guy's say you hate, say your against.. and yet.. In this case. Your for it? Can you tell me why?
And then tell me why you would not be good at helping those people?

Chuck wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:15 PM:The news is reporting that Senior Iranian cleric warns of 'strong blow' if Israel attacks. Thats perfect. The Iranian military will then be out in the open where they can be totally oliterated instead of hiding behind women and children and schools and orhanages and hospitals

esteban wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:16 PM:Why do you want to kill GWB ("hang em high" is your quote), but want OBL to be tried like he's a human being? I know you hate the Dubya, but don't you value his life more than OBL's? you know OBL would throw your grandkids into a pit of live crocs don't you?

esteban wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:20 PM:My comment at 12:16 was for Alf....

esteban wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:25 PM:Chuck, can't you just hear Chris now..."go Iran, go Iran!!!!"

Dribble wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:30 PM:Can you see Chuck at 12:15 salivating at the thought of more war? More war for others to fight, of course. Chuck has shared with us that he himself did not serve because he was rejected at the academies and, of course, if Chuck couldn't be an officer, no way he's serving his country. But hey! No matter! Chuck really wants YOUR kids to go fight for him, just like his idol, Dick Cheney. Tragically, it does look like Chuck and Dick will get their war against Iran. They seem to want it so badly that nothing will stop them. Most of us hate what the US has become. Chuck and Dick love it.

To Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:32 PM:Apollo, I use no name because no one cares who I am, I am not the point! My origonal post had no referance to Obama, Furthermore, I was addressing the writer, Barack Hussein Obama at 12:08PM on 6/19/08, Not you. Get your arrogant Almighty head out of the clouds long enough to realize you are not a "God" but a mere mortal. Again, I was "only" pointing out that not everyone with the Hussein name was a "Good Blessing". For the last time, Obama was never addressed, Stop being so sensitive Apollo. After all, Surfer and Hussein got it. Good heavens man.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:34 PM:The post from "Ron" (11:23am), in addition to his usual unfounded braggadoccio, does include one interesting phrase: "with electric power being restricted."
Restricted? What restriction? I don't see any restriction.
OH! You mean for all the "can't do" pessimists who insisted solar wasn't feasible!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:37 PM:Well, "esteban" at 12:16, I said "Hang 'em high" at 11:51AM. I also said "Hang 'em high and out to dry!" at 9:24AM. It is interesting that you, the one who practically drools at the thought of torture, advocates complete abandonment of all Constitutional constraints when dealing with an enemy, should be offended. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. Make no mistake, GWB continues to prove that he is an enemy of the Constitution and, therefore, the United States. In my not so humble opinion. Regards, Alf.

To Hussein wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:37 PM:At 11:18AM, No, I am not Chuck, and that was a cool post, It works for me. Thank you!

Apollo wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:43 PM:Re: To Apollo (12:32 p.m.)
What on earth are you even talking about?
I have no idea what post you are referring to and don't care that you don't use a consistent posting name, other than to try to figure out which post you are referring to since I'm not a mind reader.
I still have no idea which post you meant.
I responded to one post that compared Obama to Saddam.
If that was not you, then I was not writing to you, so please deflate your ego and stop imagining that everything revolves around you. I responded to the person who said that. Period.

Shut up wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:50 PM:Looks like the personalities will be comming to blows today, who's setting the odds?

Poor esteban wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:21 PM:Geez,esteban has got to be just about the loneliest, most isolated, frightened person that we have here. He seems to be almost completely unconnected from other human beings and terrified that they might get the best of him. Does anyone else see this? Really saddens me. Does esteban live with or near other people? Does he have family? Can he think about or imagine what another person's life might be like? Wow, sad.

Ron wrote on