SOLON wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:46 AM:== The workings of Ron’s mind boggle rational minds with its convoluted justification of the health industry’s outrageous profiteering. Ron stated that profit margins of 30% are justified, although a government universal single payer system could provide more and better health care to more people, and for a operating cost of 6% or less. Ron began this dialogue with his blog Jul 12, 8:31 AM by quoting “having private insurance 20-30% goes for profit and overhead” and that this drives Leftists “nutty”. Nutty is the wrong word. It drives us to anger.

Friends, which is more efficient: a bloated privatized bureaucracy that rakes off a profit margin of 30%, or a government bureaucracy that operates non-profit for a cost of only 6%???? But Ron cannot understand this. What if the government took a cut of 30%, and said such a high rate is justified because it creates more government jobs? That would make Liberals angry, also. But it would drive rightwing nuts even nuttier, because if the government takes a cut of 30%, it is regarded as a TAX, but if a private health care corporations profits 30% it is regarded as simple profit. To me and my pocketbook it matters not which thief robs me.

It does not matter whether the profiteering bureaucracy is private enterprise or government, it is robbery. What matter is which can provide the best and most health care for the lowest cost to the most people.

In the matter of retirement plans, Ron seems to prefer crooked (caveat emptor) brokerage bankers handling his money with huge expenses and overhead and profits, compared to the universal Social Security Insurance program which operates at approximately 2% overhead.

Ron, my dear man, there are some things that government does much more efficiently and inexpensively than for profit private enterprise that are unregulated. Ron, why do you trust the En-rons and Bear Stearns with your investment money?

Vet for Peace wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:48 AM:--- Nine U.S. soldiers were killed in heavy fighting Sunday at a military base in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. The attack was the deadliest against U.S. forces in the country since 2005. I find it distressing and infuriating that Chuck find this a reason for celebration ( Jul 13, 10:52 AM). This is a sick mind at work.

SOLON wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:49 AM:== Perhaps the best comment yesterday was the following:

QUOTE “the Republican idea of "freedom" is that corporations have complete, unregulated power over the terms of employment, over product and worker safety, and can run roughshod over private people, while the government dictates your private relationship choices and mandates use of public facilities for religious observances.
What is even more strange is the idea that giving workers and consumers equal access to the decision-making about their own lives would be seen as "government control over every aspect of their lives" instead of what it really is, protecting them from corporate bullies.” END of QUOTE

Admiration and gratitude to Apollo, July 13, 3:51 PM.

GAY MAN wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:51 AM:Strange isn’t it …

… that the Republicans/regressive idea of freedom is to let the government control every aspect of your life. The Marriage Control Act (Proposition 8) is the effort of this bunch to put its tentacles into the most private personal affairs of people. If they control marriage, they control the dispersal of tax favors and benefits. (SEE blog July 13, 3:33 PM)

SOLON wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:53 AM:== Twice yesterday Chuck made excuses for his sloppy writing. He writes much with many spellings and grammatical errors. He does not care because, as he said, he is not writing a book. We forgive you, and accept you as you are. You are what you are, a sloppy writer who cannot communicate ideas of any value, who writes incessant insults and personal attacks. This is your cardinal sin, not your split infinitives and misspellings.

Murels Emetic wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:06 AM:A good dose of Murel’s verbiage is guaranteed to produce a “Stimulating regurgitation”. He dispenses an overdose of it in his letter today. I think he needs a medical license to dispense such pungent witch doctor’s potion.

He poses a bizarre question about Rep. Issa, but I am compelled to rephrase the question: What will Issa do when the Chinese start selling the Chinese Viper for one quarter of Issa’s price?

jvc wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:54 AM:The fascism of public unions is against our public interest! Unions were once
necessary in profitable private enterprises to force these enterprises
to share in their wealth. But, what role does public unions have now in public employment where the employer is a non-profit? Again, the question: what is the true purpose of public unions in the relationship to public service and in the relationship to the tax supported employer? We can now witness
that these unions are doing nothing but being a force of self-interest that
places their self-interest above the
public interest!Public unions are now seen as the entity who the tax-paying
public is serving! The tax-paying public now exists to serve the unions rather than the other way around!Public employees MUST be forced to serve only one master...the tax-paying public and not the unions! To achieve
this, public ubions must be outlawed !
Let us take back our country from the fascism of public unions that are now
dictating our public policies!

To Norma Kaliher from a Pastor wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:09 AM:I understand your outrage, and disappointment over the recent Supreme Court decision to spare child rapists the death penalty.

However, your logic seems to have been voided out by your emotion when it comes to your interpretation of Holy Scripture.

You're not alone, however, in your error. I heard one of those talk radio guys use also use the same passage out of context as you did.

In St. Matthew's quote of Christ in Matthew 18:6, Christ was not giving license to judges, the state, or you and I to do harm to even a dispicable child rapist.

Christ was commenting that at the time of Judgement, anyone doing harm to a child, would be dealt with severely.

Christ was not talking about the ending of the culprits life on earth, but ending his promise of entry into His Kingdom, and the promise of the pervert spending eternity in Hell.

So Norma, keep reading your Bible, but perhaps you should invest into a good concordance and find a church that has a strong theological foundation so the Word of God is kept in the proper perspective.

Amen.

Perhaps wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:55 AM:Norma Kaliher might learn that we are a republic, not a theocracy. Our Supreme Court Justices do not judge cases based on the Bible, they judge cases based on the Law and the Constitution, as they are supposed to, as their "job description" says.

To jvc wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:17 AM:Just one question...What?

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:28 AM:Always having to clean up after the liberal mess, I need, once again, to readdress what "Apollo" {Jul 13}@6:50 PM & "Wizzer" {Jul 13}@7:16 PM said.
Fellas, you believe in "trickle down" too, it's just that your prefered method is to take money out of some "Rich" guy's pocket and trickle that down by your own hand to the lower income guys, that's the only difference here. In other words, you like taking credit for the good deed. Plus, it does have an aspect of "gett'n even" to it, come on, you can admit it. It goes back to what I said awhile back about "Mascot politics." It is meant to say far more about the person who votes for Obama, than it is ever meant to say about about Obama, himself. Kind of like: "Hey everybody, lookie me! I voted for the black guy, so that makes me, not a racist!" In this case, "Hey evrybody lookie me! I just got even with this rich dude, and gave his money to the poor!. I'm so righteous!"
You guy's actually think because you take money outta one guy's pocket and redistribute it, that's makes you one wonderful person. I doesn't, in my opinion. It makes you a parasite. A Gladys Kravitz, an inter-loper. Nothing more.

Most liberals do not see the value in tax cuts as economic stimulus. In very typical liberal fashion, they will provide very temporary or targeted economic stimulus from a "pre-approved" Menu, they will allow. This is the "I'm smarter than you, even though you run your own business" approach. Obama, who has never run anything, never met a payroll, never met a corporate tax liability, never had to deal with miles of regulations, yet... he has ALL the answers, and he has ALL the knowledge.
More than I, who have been at this for many, many years. No, I don't count, only he.. the Messiah.

As to the Obama plan, sure...
who wouldn't want more of my hard earned money back? The key point being MY MONEY. You see.. unlike many greedy people, I don't want my neighbors money, I want MY money back from this wasteful government. I don't want to sc**w my neighbor just to get some coin in my pocket. It's called honor, and it's important. And I happen to think where it comes from, is just as important, as how much.

And If the government would stay out of my business, I'll treat my own employees far more fair, than a measley $1,000 bucks under Obama. If I gave my employee a .50 cent raise {which is cheap} At 160 hours a month times 12 months = $1,040 before the government comes and get's it's take, just like the mob would.
You lib's, think you got this whole thing ALL figuired out, and the reality is, you really don't know squat.

Bill comes through wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:58 AM:As has been pointed out here many times, when military-loving conservatives are faced with military men who don't accept their ideology, they throw their "brothers in arms" under the bus. Bill's post yesterday followed this pattern to a tee. Wesley Clark, his military career having been proven to be stellar, is found by Bill to be despicable. It cannot be, says Bill, that a man with that kind of military record believe that Democrats have better ideas than Republicans. Bill is stumped until he hits on the solution: Clark must've turned for money! Only money could turn a good Republican veteran into a liberal, after all. So there you have it: despicable Wesley Clark sold out for sheckles. Um, Bill, is it possible that Clark could make money as a Republican? Is it possible that Republican veterans also do pretty well financially? Is it possible that Wesley Clark simply believes what he says? Is it possible that a veteran with a stellar record could believe that liberal ideas are better than conservative ones or that Obama would make a better leader than McCain?

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:05 AM:You know.. I'm beginning to notice a trend in the thinking here. I guess I should have surmised this eariler, but. lib's being what they are, sometimes it's just a little confusing, you know?
Anyways.. my buddy "SOLON" @12:46 AM
is at it again. Yesterday I had to correct him about lumping profits & overhead cost into the same catagory, I see we still have made no progress:
QUOTE: "Ron stated that profit margins of 30% are justified..." End quote

I stated no such thing, I said he should not lump both profit & overhead into the same bucket, because overhead usually involves people. You know.. wages, benefits, perks? And not just buildings, the electric & water bill.

Today, he has yet again changed his mind, and today.. it's ALL profits.
Only a lib, folk. Only a lib.

Later in his "piece" he gets down to what really bothers him:
QUOTE: "...government universal single payer system could provide more and better health care to more people, and for a operating cost of 6% or less." End Quote

So again, what we are faced here is this. I know better how to run your business, although I've nevr run an insurance business, in fact, I've never run any kind of business.
After I just got through telling the guy that most "overhead" including advertising dollars were employing people. You know? Like.. regular Americans with homes, & cars, and kid's going to soccer practise?

Don't matter. His way is better. Did I mention they have health insurance, through the health insurance company they work for?

GAY MAN BIG DEAL wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:17 AM:GAY MAN
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:51 AM:"Strange isn’t it …" Dude, you are only 12+/- % of the population, Your not as important to the Government, or anyone else as you might think!!

Chuuck wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:22 AM:>>>Twice yesterday Chuck made excuses for his sloppy writing. He writes much with many spellings and grammatical errors. >>>> Eye did??. I dinnt not mayke any ixcusis. Butt ewe may bee rite. Eye shud at leyst look at meye posts beefor eye post

Same Thing wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:23 AM:SOLON
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:53 AM: And What do you call this garbage? It's the same thing to this reader.

Straight Man Big Deal wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:37 AM:GAY MAN BIG DEAL at 7:17 AM seems to feel that the government and its laws and our Constitution do not apply to or care about everyone. How wrong he is. Either the laws and our Constitution apply to everyone or they apply to no one, it really is that simple. It is hard for someone who incorrectly thinks that this is a democracy to understand, but the USA is a republic, as in "and to the Republic, for which it stands". This Republic is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Protect Unite wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:29 AM:from jul 14 08 7:37 am:

"This Republic is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

"United we stand, Divided we fall"

Remember these quotes daily. Our great nation is not as great as it should be.

Yokozuna wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:38 AM:BIG ANNOUNCEMENT: Unlike others I will not be removing this identity from the blog. That is the advantage of being benign, expressing no opinion on supposedly hot topics, basically flying under the radar, and being free from others posting under my name. Let's see, that's right, boring middle of the road type stuff. Not being able to be strictly defined as liberal or conservative has left little chance of my receiving overt criticism , ridicule, personal attacks, etc.

In order to vent my frustrations, to expel pent up emotions, and to exact ridicule and criticism of others I have created an additional two identities - one conservative and one liberal. Those will give the darker side of my psyche a chance to experience increased development.

I am sorry for anyone who reads this and believes it has been offered with any sincerity.

Chuck wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:41 AM:I see Bush has lifted the ban on oil driling but Hussein & Pelosi have lifted their middle finger to America. Apparently they think gas prices and inflation aren't high enough yet and that the stock market and people's 401-K's and pensions aren't low enough yet. Yetthey are expecting you to go in the voting booth and annoint Hussein. Another 50 cents on the price of gas and those voting for Hussin will think his name is Dukakis

A Point of Clarity wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:46 AM:In Ron's World, what he says makes sense. Just put yourself in Ron's ME, ME, ME, MINE, MINE, MINE position and you will understand why he has such a problem with understanding how the rest of us think. A little compassion for our mis-guided brother, please.

Stimulus tax cuts wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:51 AM:The theory that tax cuts would stimulate the economy makes perfect logical sense. So why does it not happen? As the wealthy and corporations paid less taxes, they had more to invest. What did they invest in? Jobs in India? Stocks? As the middle class got their small tax cuts, what did they do with the money? Buy more stuff, thereby "stimulating the economy"? Seems not. After all, the theory assumes that you spend what you have and if you have more, you'd spend more. But thanks to easy credit, Americans in the middle class have not been contrained in their spending by how much money they have. They buy on credit, like our government. So the stimulus of a few hundred bucks might have been used to pay some small part of that personal debt, but was otherwise undetectable. When a theory, even if it makes perfect sense, predicts things that don't happen, you scrap the theory and investigate reality. You don't just insist that because the theory is logical it must be right, no matter what the facts say.

Overpopulation wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:53 AM:Yesterday I made a remark about Personal Responsibility but unfortunately those who need the lesson most missed the entire point of my post.

If, as people, each of us take the personal responsibility to consider how each one of our choices affects those around us, and if, as people, we then choose to make choices that will not harm others, and if, as people, we also choose to admit to our mistakes and then work to correct them, then we, as people, will be exhibiting PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If then, everyone was personally responsible for the choices they make in an ethical manner that will not harm anyone else and moreover, will benefit the greater good, then we would not need government to make laws to force people to do the right thing.

The more we refuse to take personal responsibility for our actions, and the more we refuse to accept that our actions affect those around us, the more we will need a "nanny" government to tell us what to do.

More Personal Responsibility, Less Government Needed.

I am not a Liberal or a Conservative, I am a Human Being.

Is that a little easier to understand, Ron?

To A point of clarity wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:56 AM:thanks for the reminder. The bizarre size of Ron's ego has been a topic here before. I always find that the most amazing thing about him is his absolute refusal to suppose that anything his critics say might have some truth to it. Among the criticisms has been about his enormous opinion of himself, that it's, um, excessive. Ron somehow depends on being an infinite admirer of himself, and if anyone points this out, he supposes they are just jealous of his success, brains, wonderfulness. He's like that kid in the schoolyard who brags all day and night and thinks that his "audience" truly admires him, even when he notices them rolling their eyes. LOL

Personal Responsibility wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:02 AM:What if people, acting from a sense of personal responsibility, decide that governmental programs are a good idea? What if my personal idea of the good life includes eliminating destitution and preventable illness in my countrymates? I can't do much about these things on my own, but I can encourage other like-minded people to consider using tax money for purposes like this, as we do for military, police, and other services. How is this an evasion of personal responsibility? Is having a military defending our country a "nanny state" problem, caused by Americans' lack of personal responsibility? I know that when we "privatize" military functions, the cost multiplies. You guys make no sense.

Get Help wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:02 AM:Yokozuna
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:38 AM:

Chuck wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:06 AM:>>>The theory that tax cuts would stimulate the economy makes perfect logical sense. So why does it not happen?>>> It did happen. After the 9/11 recession, Bush rolled back about half of Clintons 40% raise in the tax rate, and the treasury collected record revenues. It's too bad he wasted in on a phoney prescription drug plan, a phoney education plan and sending $30 billion to Africa for AIDS. The problem is not revenue, it is spending. And Arnuld is trying to play the same trick in CA. His out of control spending is criminal and he blames low taxes for the deficit. No wonder he wants to quit and be on Husseins cabinet if the the people are stupid enough to elect hiom

CaroCogitatus wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:08 AM:Ron (6:28 AM) just loves his Straw Man opponents. So easy to knock down, because no liberal actually believes his mad caricatures. Here's Trickle Down economics in a nutshell: give more money to the investor class, they'll create more factories, which creates more jobs, which helps both the investors and the workers. Sounds wonderful in theory, but if none of the workers has any money, the factories can't sell and shut down. It's been tried twice, with disastrous results both times. Now, here's Bubble Up economics in a nutshell: give more money to the worker class, who will spend it, causing more demand for factory goods, allowing the investors to profit by building more factories. This was tried by FDR in the midst of the Great Depression (which started after 8 years of Republican rule), and was instrumental in keeping our economy afloat until WWII.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:12 AM:Bill comes through[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:58 AM: Also, are all the young men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan conservatives? Think that there just might be a few liberals in the ranks. I know that when I was a young Marine, I was not a conservative.

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:20 AM:Couldn't have said it better, John Gilley.
Talking about personal responsibility, I like it!
"1. Clean your own closet emotionally, physically, financially and spiritually. 2. Never vote for an incumbent; it's not a vocation. 3. Never vote for a tax increase. If you want the government to provide for you at every stage of your life, or you want to take charge of your own personal responsibilities, that, my friends, is up to you!"

Well said my friend, well said.

He Said wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:20 AM:San Francisco is taking another step to protect their citizens from not being able to make good decisions for themselves. The city is putting forth an ordinance (for popular vote) which would ban tobacco products from being sold in pharmacies and "drug stores" - not supermarkets or any other type of business is included in this ordinance. They are thinking that drug stores are considered entities that promote health and consequently tobacco products should not be included in their product mix. The big drug chains are having a fit.

Also, however, there is a petition with nearly 12,000 signatures circulating to name some type of waste facility in honor of GWB.

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:32 AM:You know? I wondered those exact things myself, Murel Fisk.

Why do Liberals what to be so generous with other people's earnings? Unless your the wrong Rev. Wright, I think a hamdsome sum of $27K could have done some very wonderous things for the homeless, the poor, the less fortunate. Instead, they bought him {Wright} a house.

And why do lib's constantly want to protect socialist style government's in Central America?

And just where would be be in our "War on Terror" had Clinton had the courage to take bin Laden when he was offered? Or allowed the Hellfire missile be fired while OBL was traveling with a Saudi prince?
I Guess we'll never know?

SOLONE Is Anti Hussein wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:37 AM:SOLON
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:53 AM:== "Twice yesterday Chuck..." No SOLONE, I am not Chuck, just a bad speller who has no interest in writing a book. But you are not right very often anyway! You have such a thing going for Chuck that you see him everywhere don't you? Sounds a little like stocking to me. Maybe you see him as the "handsome man" you daily talk about.

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:44 AM:I see I'm needing to educate another lib. "A Point of Clarity" @8:46 AM fails to understand my position, so let's make it perfectly clear, K?

In Ron's World, we take care of our own, we do not suckle at the government, which was ripped from some other poor, dumb slob who can barely take care of his own Mother, let alone yours. We take out seconds, or third mortgages if we have to, to make sure Granny gets her hi replacement. I don't go walking down the street with a hat in my hand asking for someone else to support my family. That's my job.
In my world, if we need a road so we can safely, and quickly get to work so we can then pay the taxes for the TRULY needy, we do so efficiently, and effectively. No waste, no over-runs, on tim and within cost, as estimated. So that the budget can be properly balanced to have the money available to the TRULY needy, and not just some hammock hanger.
We don't provide health insurance to 25 year old's living in their Mother's basement, trying to "make it" in a band someplace.
Yes, in Ron's world.. we do not allow hammock types, who go through life thinking that just because I drive a nice car, I owe him something.
Those types, we make Mommy & Daddy responsible for, because they created the mess, I mean.. er.. child.
Clearer now?

Apollo wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:46 AM:Re: Ron (6:28 a.m.)
Yet again Ron avoids the real issue that he brought up, and responds to a reply to his by changing the subject in an evasive maneuver that he might think quite clever, but actually is more transparent than he would like to admit.
He cites replies by me and by DDWIZ yesterday to his claims of "personal responsibility" and "self reliance" and about using tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy, and now changes the subject.
The points Wiz and I made were quite simple. I described the many ways in which Ron is NOT self reliant but, like all of us, lives in a complex, interdependent community. Without others, and without public administration, he would have NOTHING (which is especially true for Ron since he claims to be a defense contractor, meaning he feeds at the public trough, oink, oink). He did not respond to one single example I gave.
Then Wiz noted that, contrary to what Ron had said yesterday, and just blithely repeats this morning, liberals DO recognize the importance of economic stimulus, including tax cuts.
We just recognize that it has to go to the 95% of the population that engages in most of the consumption, not to the whiny elites like Ron who, instead of being grateful for their opportunities, just whine and whine and whine that they want more (oink, oink).
At least now I understand what "Doctor Phil" Gramm meant by calling us a "nation of whiners." All the people in his social stratus are like Ron. He doesn't know any of the real Americans who suffer from the policies of Bush and McCain, but who still persevere and try to make the best of things.

Who let the cogs out wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:50 AM:Now that it is actually possible that we might have a black president and first lady, now that Americans have to picture the possibility that Barack and Michelle will be living, sleeping, eating, and ruling from the White House, I'm sure we can expect every form of racism to come out, directly and indirectly, explicitly or in code. As a 60-something, it's hard for me to believe that America is up to having a black President. Much as it kills me, I just can't believe we've given up our racist ideas. But we're seeing it every day. Obama's a Muslim. Obama's the wrong kind of Christian. He's too black. He's not black enough. He's an oreo. His wife is a militant. They both are affirmative action "achievers". Anything and everything will be pouring out of our talking heads and our neighbors now, every innuendo and rumor, every form of gossip (while POW hero McCain sits quietly in the background, as low profile as possible, undisturbed by the so-called liberal media). And Americans will also attack anyone who suspects racism, as if this could never be a motive. To our shame, I am feeling that Obama is doomed. American just can't handle the idea.

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:55 AM:I want you to listen to the logic here in this post, and you tell me, is this not just another version of "I don't like what they do with their tax cut's, cause they are not helping me, so I don't see the need for tax cuts" thinking. From "Stimulus tax cuts"
@8:51 AM: Quote:" The theory that tax cuts would stimulate the economy makes perfect logical sense. So why does it not happen? As the wealthy and corporations paid less taxes, they had more to invest. What did they invest in? Jobs in India? Stocks? As the middle class got their small tax cuts, what did they do with the money? Buy more stuff, thereby "stimulating the economy"? Seems not."

First of all, please note that his real disagreement is "How" they spent their tax cuts, and not that the cuts actually produced real stimulus benefit.
This is a problem with lib's. If I can not take personal credit, or get something out of the deal, then.. they don't need it.

and Two..
What's wrong with people buying stuff?
It's their money, they earned it, again.. who are YOU to think you have a nad's chance of even having an opinion about how anyone else would dare spend their own money?

But.. that's a lib for ya.

To the post at wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:00 AM:7:37AM, So why can every minority in this country do and say just about what they want, have there minority based clubs, TV shows, and/or whatever, But if your a middle age white straight male, and you open your mouth, your a basher or a raciest, that doesn't sound like equal protection to me. It's not like I want to cut anyone's nu#'@ off like the Rev.(what a joke)Jackson said.

Surfer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:10 AM:Gone Surfing: Brahs. Headed on down to Tamarindo for about two maybe three months if the 9 footers are consistent. Solve the world problems while I am gone. See Ya.

Personal Responsibility wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:36 AM:"What if people, acting from a sense of personal responsibility, decide that governmental programs are a good idea?"

Very good question. As far as governmental programs to assist the less fortunate, that does not negate the issue of personal responsibility. We are meant to help each other because we are all connected to each other.

As far as overpopulation, each of us can make the choice to not contribute to a problem that creates a lack of resources. That is also personal responsibility.

I am not saying we do not need a governing body to keep things on the right track. I am saying, for instance, if each of us chose to switch to alternative power, to embrace the 21st century and all the change that it will entail, we will not need to be forced by the government to do so for the good of all.

I am saying, that if we choose to have one child instead of two, or four, or eight, we won't need the government to limit our available resources.

We do not have to be victims. We can intelligently decide to make positive changes in the world instead of selfishly looking out for ourselves and our own well-being at the cost of everyone else.

This concept can be applied to the Global Community, which we are now a part of whether we like it or not. Shall we get on board or shall we be left behind?

Astreroid wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:24 AM:I heard the Messiah (B.O.) do the “bring them out of the shadows” (illegal aliens) bit yesterday. Huum?? Liberals love to screech that they’re here picking our produce. Lettuce would be $11.00 a head if not for their cheap labor. I’m no authority on farming or horticulture, but I doubt many varieties of produce grow very well in the shade. Secondly; if I were to ever allege that the only thing Mexicans were capable of doing is picking produce and should do so at sub-standard wages I would be soundly assailed as a racist. Why can liberals do it with impunity?

Apollo wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:32 AM:Re: CaroCogitatus (9:8 a.m.)
Excellent, excellent explanation of the difference between getting trickled on by Republicans, and bubbling up Democrat style.
One factual correction: FDR got us out of the Great Depression which was the result of 12 previous years of Republican rule, not just 8.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:41 AM:The post from Greenenergy yesterday at 9:53 PM complicates an already complicated situation.

If I understand him correctly, Greenenergy separates Al Gore the man, from Al Gore the “journalist” who can expend vast amounts of carbon, freely and without shame because he takes the “message.”.

I am a journalist with 2,500 newspaper columns printed in the San Diego Business Journal, the SD Union/Tribune and various North County newspapers including this one. Do I get twice Gore’s guilt-free carbon offsets? Half?

Or, does it depend upon the message? Do liberals get more than conservatives? How about libertarians?

If Gore gets to use Gulfstream jets, guilt-free, can I use my 300 HP convertible, guilt-free?

What about SDRaoul? He is a journalist – how much in guilt-free carbon offsets does he get?

Apparently your matrix will have several dimensions once it is perfected! Please post it when you have it completed.

Meanwhile. I am unquestionably Greener than Arnold, who is not a journalist!

(Second Submission)

Bill One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:55 AM:To Ron. I like your posts and agree with you. There are many of us that feel just as you do. It's interesting how you can present facts and the libs will attack you as a person. Hang in there.

To Norma Kaliher from a Pastor wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:56 AM:Thank you Pastor for clearing up Norma's mis-interpretation of Scripture. Would be interested in knowing where you minister, what church. Truth and clarity is desperately needed for the body.

One other note, perhaps Norma, like so many of us were molested as children - this fuels our passion for protecting the innocent. We both know that as long as man continues in his fallen nature, there will always be child molesters, among other crimes.

Chris wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:56 AM:Ever notice how Bill's blogs and Chuck's blogs look almost the same. Just a lot of smoke but no substance just some make up stories.

Chris wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:02 PM:It just amazes me that we have tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and we have all these expensive weapons and yet a much smaller group without all these multimillion dollar war toys are able to keep on going.

Liberals wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:04 PM:Astreroid[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:24 AM: Maybe because we have picked it as well.

To Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:06 PM:Hello Reardon.

Chuck wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:14 PM:>>>Gone Surfing: Brahs. Headed on down to Tamarindo for about two maybe three months if the 9 footers are consistent>>> Isnt it 3 months early for Tamarindo. I thought the south swell from the tropical south cancelled out the northerlies until about October, but nonetheless, have a good time. PS do you have a website to monitor the swell & can you share it with us?

esteban wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:24 PM:Chris at 12:02, that's because the wacky libs prevent us from using those weapons during battle. We might hurt someone's feelings you know. Your insane rants sound just like speeches from 1932 Germany.

OH PLEASE wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:25 PM:Bill One
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:55 AM:
What a joke. Ron attacks individuals by name every day in his blogs.

To Astreroid wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:30 PM:May we please have the exact quote from Obama where he said: "The only thing Mexicans are capable of doing is picking lettuce and should do so at substandard wages." Can't find it? No? More made up stuff from Mike America. But please, do go on.

Oh Selfish Me wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:33 PM:You go, Ron! I too agree with every word you say! Keep on educating these librals with your brilliant observations and thoughtful treatises on how to take care of Ron! You rock.

To Bill One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:34 PM:Could you please do us a favor and point us to a place besides Rush Limbaugh that we can verify Ron's "facts"?

sdraoul wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:35 PM:This grizzled old Marine happened upon a lecture by General Rose (Ret) of the British Army on CSPAN. He commanded U.N. troops in the Balkans when General W. Clark was the NATO commander. (Quick, Clark and Obama supporters, find the Balkans on a map)

He said:

1. Clark was a failure who accomplished nothing in the Balkans.

2. Clark had no troops on the ground, the UN did and Clark had nothing to do with what happened over a period of months before all ground fighting stopped.

3. Clark ordered bombings of civilian targets that the UN had cleared of any Serbian irregulars and Clark knew it from reports from General Rose himself.

4. Serbian voters threw Milosovich out of office before Clark claimed that his bombing drove the man from office.

5. UN officers like Rose had negotiated the departure of any organized Serbian troops in Bosnia and Kosovo before Clark ordered bombings.

6. Clark and NATO had nothing to do with Kosovo until Hillary Clinton visited (and was shot at by snipers, Ha! ha!) the area and was told that Serbians had been ethnically cleansing Kosovo, despite that having stopped weeks before Hillary arrived.

7. Clark approved bombing's in Belgrade that hit the Chinese Embassy because Clark's decision was based on city maps that were years old.

8. Clark was relieved of his command by the Pentagon for all of the above reasons plus his fraternization with Serbian war criminals. The normal tour for NATO Commanders has been 4 years with some extended to five. Clark was relieved in his third year.

This man has little room from which to suggest that John McCain’s military service doesn’t qualify him to be President.

This man publicly idolized John Kerry’s military experience when he ran for President, all four months of it in Vietnam.

Obama advisor Rand Beers suggests that McCain was not really in Vietnam as he never landed on a beach or crushed gravel with combat boots because he was in the Hanoi Hilton as guests of the North Vietnamese.

Obama is supported by these people…They actually rank street organizing in Chicago among “poor blacks” as superior to M<cCain’s military service and his years of torture and broken bones to be Commander-in-Chief.

To Bill One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:36 PM:Not only does Ron attack individuals by name every day in this blog, he uses phoney diminutives in the style of a dittohead such as "Wizzer". What about Ron's posts do you admire, exactly?

Chris to Bill One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:38 PM:What facts does Ron present. Why is it that Ron ignores what the conservatives have done and accuses the Liberals for doing those things. Are you so indoctinated with all this right wing bull that you can't see it. If Ron is attacked as a person it is because he is so disingenuous. I would suggest that you start looking at Ron's bloggs with a more critical eye. Don't just be another sheep following these hypoctitical shepards.

To esteban wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:38 PM:"that's because the wacky libs prevent us from using those weapons during battle."

I KNOW! It's amazing how well the surge has worked with our troops using their bare hands and all... those wacky libs! They should have their own TV show!

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:41 PM:Reardon has many names.

Only The Shadow Knows!

Chris to esteban wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:47 PM:Your post for 12:24 is just more rubbish. Our military uses what they have and in fact they use weapons forbiden by the Geneva conventions. But I know you don't care about those conventions but to say that our military doesn't use certain weapons because will hurt somebody's feelings is just an excuse to try to justify the incompetence of our bloated expensive military. What would you know about 1932 Germany? Nothing apparently because I see no connection between that and what we are doing.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:48 PM:Reardon, aka "A.Rose" and now posting as "Greener than Gore" at 11:41 a.m., is getting even sloppier than usual.
Hey Reardon, you should at least read posts before trying to respond.
Don't get to be like Ron! At least you have some respect from those who spar with you.
You obviously missed completely the point of my post you claim to be replying to.
It is a "net cost" concept, or is that over your head?
Traveling by jet creates carbon emissions, which is bad.
But if the result of that trip is that a thousand people reduce their carbon footprint for the rest of their lives, far offsetting the initial carbon expenditure, then the result is a net reduction in carbon.
C'mon, Reardon, you're smart enough to grasp this.
And yes, Reardon, if your driving your 300 HP convertible causes others to reduce their emissions more than what you used, then you will be a "green" driver.
And the point was not that Gore is a journalist, but that he uses that vocation to reduce greenhouse emissions. I haven't seen any of SDRaoul's columns on reducing greenhouse emissions, and I'd be mighty surprised if any of yours were. Yourse were more likely encouraging people to pollute even more.

Mark wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:51 PM:Reading Ron and Chuck's reponses have hopefully taught those of us with common sense one thing. The more Republicans expose their beliefs to us, the more we realize that Republican philosophy is regressive and a joke. Chuck, one last time, THERE WAS NO 40% INCREASE IN TAXES DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. And considering Clinton LEft us with one of the strongest economies in history, I would cut the rhetoric. You may not like Clinton, but the state of the country was stronger when he left, than when he entered the office. The same cannot be said for any of the last three Republican Presidents. Ron, you can follow along with the free market philosophy of corporations can profit as they see fit, and under America's idiotic philosophy, you are correct, but it comes down to one thing, does taking care of our fellow Americans make us stronger or weaker? Under you and most Republican lackeys, you believe it makes us weaker. Funny, do you think our forefathers would be proud that, in modern America, we real "Americans" will leave other Americans to starve, suffer with no health insurance, freeze during winter because heating oil is too expensive, or live on the streets because America has yet to learn how deal with the mentally ill, which make up upwards of 80% of all homeless. Do you think they would be proud that the only argument that Republicans usually give is that they don't want to pay anymore taxes than we do now. Modern Republican Ideology would probably work in a simple world, but it is out of place and archaic in modern times. Republican ideology and many Republicans, just lack any empathy or a soul. It is ironic that a healthy dose of Republicans are made up of "Christians" who don't really act like Christians. Gandhi once stated that " I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ." Republicans are not bad people, they just have bad ideas. Republican ideology is regressive and willhold America back. Taxes are meant to strenghthen our nation, economically and socially. America is so divided today. Maybe if we start caring for one another, we can close that divide.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:54 PM:esteban[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:24 PM:
Chris has a good point. Your reply is ridiculous. In nam, the NVA could out maneuver the American forces and execute very well coordinated hit and run tactics and then combine to fight a few set piece battles. IMHO, our guys, me included, were all loaded down with excess gear. Just for the record, we usually deep sixed heavy gear and anything that made a noise. Recon lads did not wear helmets when they went a wallkin at night in the bush.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:55 PM:Hey Surfer, We'll miss you. Dude, check out Witch's Rock for rightous shacks! Say Hi to Robert and the boys, and don't take off in front of them. Aloha, C-1.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:04 PM:A modest proposal: Why don't we make everyone who wants to vote in this country take a test? No pass, no vote. The test would be simple civics, think 8th Grade without the Constitution Test. Qualifying people to vote would give us a population of voters who really want to vote. They would study the issues, instead of TV ads, and hopefully make informed decisions. Think about it. There could be a cottage industry of schools and materials. Subsidize poor citizens so they are not alienated. The only people this would actually hurt would be the dumb and the lazy. Ooops, that's probably why the powers that be will never let it happen. They need the dumb and the lazy. Vote third party! Regards, C-1.

Surfer This wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:04 PM:Surfer
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:10 AM:Gone Surfing: Brahs. Headed on down to Tamarindo for about two maybe three months... No suprise, You get called out the other day by a real surfer and you exit. Or, maybe just good timing on your part. Wait a minute surferboy, What's that I hear, SOLON, FP and other regulars coming to your rescue. I gotta hear this, It will be like going to a wake(no pun). Waterdude, I'm sounding like a regular myself, Smash'em, Bash'em, Sock'em, Bop'em, Trash'em, Next! After all, It's only Me that's right. Right? Right! Whatever, Take away your milk, cookies and your Obama superhero PJ's and You guys are all alike anyway. Have a good trip.

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:10 PM:Ok, I'll agree and admit that I live in an complex, interdependent community.. "Apollo" @9:46 AM.
But please tell me how that is even related? When I pay for everything I use, and probably more than most.
The point is, you want to convey that I don't pay enough to support the surrounding community? Is that it? That somehow, in your little brain, you have this wild idea that I must be held responsible for my neighbor's gramma's hip replacement? Is that what you are arguing?
You seem to be implying that I don't pay "my fair share?" Is that your point?
That I must be beholden to Big Mamma Gummint and allow them to kick me down a piece, once in awhile?
It is truly a wonder any of you have made it as far as you have. Always needing some big influx of money from some unknown donor...
You know, most of us work. And we pay taxes which pays for all the little goodies you guy's want to bestow on people, so then you can say: "Hey, everbody! Lookie me! I'm a swell person! Don't you like me, as much as I like myself!?"

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:16 PM:No one said there was anything wrong with buying stuff. You cut and pasted the previous post to make it sound this way. The post said that the intent of the stimulus was so that people would buy stuff...but they didn't buy stuff. Second, the claim was that the Bush tax cut would stimulate and be good for the American economy. What we see instead is that it is used to (a) stimulate the Indian economy and (b) create more profits for the corporations that hire the Indians. Nothing wrong with that, if you're an Indian or a CEO. But Bush's claim was that it would provide a boon to OUR economy. You, Ron, simply made the poster's point. In practice, the tax cuts and stimulus checks did not trickle down.

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:18 PM:How convenient that there is always some 25 year old living at home, someone else in a hammock, providing you will all the excuse you need to attack any government programs that we (the majority) desire to help all poor people. Let the 90+% who need a hand drop dead as long as there's one guy in a hammock. You should send charitable checks to the hammock guys for giving you such wonderful excuses to oppose taxation and a social conscience.

SOLON wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:22 PM:== Hussein, the noble name ==

Ron battles ever onward with his crusade to educate the reader of the Semitic based name of BARACK HUSSEIN Obama. Thank you Ron, for your posts of 8:41 AM and 9:37 AM. So powerful is the hatred of things Semitic in our land today, we are pleased you are not anti-Semitic.

For the benefit of the reader, "Barack" translates as BLESSING, and "Hussein" translates as GOOD or as HANDSOME. The Hebrew words are very similar in spelling. Ron propagates the belief that BARACK HUSSEIN will be the GOOD BLESSING president. Thank you, Ron, for you tireless campaign against anti-Semitic prejudice.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:28 PM:Obama: I was a strong supporter of Obama.
Still am. But, I have to question his pledges to every group in which he states that he will address their particular concern during the first year of his administration. Don't think it can be done. If I realize it, so should he. I do not like the idea of promising everything to everybody.

Asteroid wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:29 PM:To Astreroid [sic]
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:30 PM: Sure, but first show me where I said Obama said "The only thing Mexicans are capable of doing is picking lettuce and should do so at substandard wages." This is why I don't waste too much time here anymore. It's impossible to communicate intelligantly with liberals, but I do enjoy pointing out their hypocracy from time to time.

to Mario Minervini wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:44 PM:Thanks for the reminder of the attack on the USS Liberty. What do we and Israel say about this? Probably that it was an accident. We are, if you haven't noticed, well practiced in dismissing killings because they were "accidents". We also call them "collateral damage". Or, when we really want to paint the enemy as horrible, we blame them for hiding behind civilians that we kill. When you've declared yourself a Good Guy, then you are in the enviable position of having none of your unintended murders count, morally. I'm sure we put Israel in this same category, and that therefore Johnson and his successors felt justified in covering it up. After all, accidents happen, right?

to Bill One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:45 PM:Not only does Ron attack people and insult them, but his posts are jam packed with straw opponents, deflections to other issues, refusals to admit error, and lots of plain old lies. You're free to admire this if you like, but I'll pass.

friendly fire wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:57 PM:hey mario, bombings happen,collateral damage,miscommunication, long live israel

Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:21 PM:President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

Now the only thing standing between consumers at the pump and the increased American energy they are demanding is the Democrat leadership in Congress.

Interesting quote wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:22 PM:From Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma". QUOTE A tension has always existed between the capitalist imperative to maximize efficiency at any cost and the moral imperatives of culture, which historically have served as a counterweight to the moral blindness of the market. This is another example of the cultural contradictions of capitalism -- the tendency over time for the economic impulse to erode the moral underpinnings of society. ENDQUOTE Pollan is talking about the brutal "factories" in which our meat and eggs are produced, but his point is much wider than that. When the government is controlled by, and serves, capitalist interests over public interests, the society loses its moral and ethical bearings. Every case where some institution (government, the church) backed off the forces of the marketplace resulted in morally horrific consequences. Would you like examples? Our history is jam packed with them!

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:24 PM:"I've asked Senator Obama to join me in town halls across the nation," McCain said here the other morning. His notion was that the two of them would even share a plane and travel state to state taking questions from screened audiences of uncommitted voters.

hardtack wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:13 PM:John Gilley seems to have a clear concept of “social contract:” – a “deal” that you don’t want, so your neighbors sign it for you. .

Alf wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:55 PM:Anyone interested in warrantless wiretapping and this new FISA law should google "ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law". I'm sure the usual crowd will deplore the suit. I'm also certain that Libertarians and anyone who believes that the Constitution should not be shredded by GWB and an equally complicit Congress will be interested. Regards and a proud Libertarian, Alf.

My My My wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:04 PM:No comments posted between 12:30 pm and 4:04 pm. Ain't that amazin'.

to my my my wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:26 PM:I swore i posted about 1:15 pm, someone
at NCT is sleeping at the wheel

Concerned One wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:33 PM:I posted one for Surfer, but it got wiped out. Here's one from about one o'clock:

A modest proposal: Why don't we make everyone who wants to vote in this country take a test? No pass, no vote. The test would be simple civics, think 8th Grade without the Constitution Test. Qualifying people to vote would give us a population of voters who really want to vote. They would study the issues, instead of TV ads, and hopefully make informed decisions. Think about it. There could be a cottage industry of schools and materials. Subsidize poor citizens so they are not alienated. The only people this would actually hurt would be the dumb and the lazy. Ooops, that's probably why the powers that be will never let it happen. They need the dumb and the lazy. Vote third party! Regards, C-1.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:37 PM:The post from "Asteroid" (11:24am) demonstrates typical conservative failure to understand the most basic fundamentals of economic principles, you know, how PRICING is set at the intersect of the SUPPLY and DEMAND curves.
"Asteroid" thinks price depends on the cost of labor. Baloney. Price of lettuce or anything else depends on demand and supply. Cost may be one contributing component for influencing supply, but price itself is not directly based on cost, despite the widespread misconceptions to the contrary.
Compare to the housing market: let's say someone buys a vacant lot, builds a quality home on spec, which takes about a year or so, and then sells the house. Let's say the lot cost $200,000 and it cost another $150,000 to build the house over the year and, at the start, the spec builder was hoping to sell it for $500,000. But, during that year, property values change. Let's say they go up and he can sell the house for $800,000. Does he say, "No, my costs were contracted when I thought it would be $500,000 so that's what I'll sell it for."? Heck no! He sells it for the $800k! Does he go back and give bonuses to all his suppliers and workers? Heck no! He just keeps it! Now let's look at the flip side, at something more like the current market. At the end of the year housing prices have tanked. He thought he would be able to sell it for $500,000 but now it is only worth $320,000 -- less than what he put into it. Does he say, "Hey, I spent $350,000 and I'm going to get my money out of it!" He may want to, but in reality, if he looks toward the future and sees prices going even further south, he will sell for whatever he can -- EVEN AT A LOSS -- to avoid even bigger losses. But the price he sells it at has NOTHING DIRECTLY TO DO WITH COST. It only has to do with supply and demand.
In like manner, if the cost of farm labor goes up, the farm owner will still sell at the highest price he can get based on demand, and any increase in what is paid to labor will reduce his profits, thus reducing the gap between rich and poor through natural market forces.
As usual, the wizards of supply-side (forgetting about demand) "voodoo economics" prove they understand nothing of economic fundamentals.
And the post from "To Asteroid" (12:30pm) asks "Asteroid" to back up where Obama said anything remotely similar to what "Asteroid" claims. Another typical conservative just makes up his own "facts" because he can't deal with the real ones.

Posted 3:13pm; Re-posted 4:37pm

Focal Point wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:39 PM:POSTING: There is not a full time editor assigned to this blog as it is cost prohibitive and unprofitable. NCT sends one of its guys to check on us every three or four hours and to post the blogs.

Chris to esteban wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:42 PM:First of all what happened to my blogs. Do they just disappear or what. Anyway as far as esteban is concerned his blog on the military holding back so they don't hurt anyones feelings is more excusses for the incompetence of our miitary. They are good at killing innocent people and ignoring the geneva conventions but they have no stratagy other that excessive use of firepower and it's just too bad who gets the brunt of it. So as I said the enemy is few in number compaired to our miliary and don't have all these multimillion dollar weapons and yet are able to keep functioning.

Ms M wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:43 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:21 PM:President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well. Now the only thing standing between consumers at the pump and the increased American energy they are demanding is the Democrat leadership in Congress.

Ron - why is Bush just NOW doing this. He had his rubber stamp congress for 6 plus yrs. - could this not be political posturing?

Chris to esteban wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:46 PM:I still don't see what 1932 Germany has anything to do with what we are talking about.

Ms M wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:46 PM:Hey Editor,
Last week I suggested putting up a flag or something when you are going to be away for a while. I see you are able to leave notes in other cases. Why not do something for your writers who participate on a regular and ongoing basis.

KTB wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:56 PM:Personal Responsibility: Is there any limit to your connectivity requiring that we help each other? Most people who are not successful are also undereducated – but K-12 education is absolutely free and further education can be pretty cheap. Do the undereducated and the overmedicated(sic) bear any responsibility for their plight?

Jesus says to help the unfortunate – but that is voluntary unless you are a by-the-book Christian. Government is not voluntary.

Well Ms M wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:57 PM:Political posturing? No, no. Can't be. Um-possible. Not Bush, he's MISTER Honesty and MISTER Integrity. Tongue firmly in cheek.

to MsM and Ron wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:14 PM:I find it fascinating that offshore and ANWR drilling cites are suddenly a rallying cry from Bush and the public. We know perfectly well that (1) the oil companies have billions of barrels of oil under land they are already leasing; (2) offshore/ANWR oil will not help us for years; and (3) what the country really needs during those years is incentives to find alternate means of producing energy. Once again, the government and its big oil employers have used a crisis as an opportunity (as Dick Cheney called 911) to dupe the American people via dumb slogans. And who can blame them? We seem to bite every time. They will get their offshore sites, time will pass, that oil will have no impact on prices but lots of impact on the economic success of big oil (subsidized by the taxpayer). Life goes on. By then they will be demanding something else for us to give them. We deserve exactly what we get. We are clearly too stupid to deserve democratic processes in our government. (But who could imagine a King that would not be in the employ of the same backers? What are we? Venezuela?)

Greenergy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:14 PM:Submit 12:48 p.m. - Resubmit 5:14 p.m.

Reardon, aka "A.Rose" and now posting as "Greener than Gore" at 11:41 a.m., is getting even sloppier than usual.
Hey Reardon, you should at least read posts before trying to respond.
Don't get to be like Ron! At least you have some respect from those who spar with you.
You obviously missed completely the point of my post you claim to be replying to.
It is a "net cost" concept, or is that over your head?
Traveling by jet creates carbon emissions, which is bad.
But if the result of that trip is that a thousand people reduce their carbon footprint for the rest of their lives, far offsetting the initial carbon expenditure, then the result is a net reduction in carbon.
C'mon, Reardon, you're smart enough to grasp this.
And yes, Reardon, if your driving your 300 HP convertible causes others to reduce their emissions more than what you used, then you will be a "green" driver.
And the point was not that Gore is a journalist, but that he uses that vocation to reduce greenhouse emissions. I haven't seen any of SDRaoul's columns on reducing greenhouse emissions, and I'd be mighty surprised if any of yours were. You were more likely encouraging people to pollute even more.

Karl wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:30 PM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:43 PM:

President Bush isn't the only slackard in this deal.

Nancy Pelosi stated on April 24, 2006 "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

The nationwide average price at the pump at the time of this promise was $2.32 per gallon.

Is it any wonder her group has an approval rating of less than ten?

Time to vote in a third party, they can't be any worse. At the very least vote out all incumbants, please.

To Reg George wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:43 PM:I have followed Flores since has moved to Escondido three years ago and come to the conclusion that he wants to turn Escondido into a sanctuary city. It would be worth for us in Escondido to really know his agenda. Some day it will come out. Trust me!

To Mike America wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:49 PM:Asteroid
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:29 PM:To Astreroid [sic]
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:30 PM: Sure, but first show me where I said Obama said "The only thing Mexicans are capable of doing is picking lettuce and should do so at substandard wages." This is why I don't waste too much time here anymore. It's impossible to communicate intelligantly with liberals, but I do enjoy pointing out their hypocracy from time to time.

Reposting your own post complete with misspelling your own name:

Astreroid
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:24 AM:I heard the Messiah (B.O.) do the “bring them out of the shadows” (illegal aliens) bit yesterday. Huum?? Liberals love to screech that they’re here picking our produce. Lettuce would be $11.00 a head if not for their cheap labor. I’m no authority on farming or horticulture, but I doubt many varieties of produce grow very well in the shade. Secondly; if I were to ever allege that the only thing Mexicans were capable of doing is picking produce and should do so at sub-standard wages I would be soundly assailed as a racist. Why can liberals do it with impunity?

Oh I see, Mike, you didn't actually say that OBAMA said this, you just made up a statement and threw it out there and pretended that SOMEBODY said it. You are embarrassing yourself, but it is no more than we have come to expect.

Please do go on.

To Karl wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:53 PM:Instead of trying to convince people to vote for a third party, why don't you find out who that third party candidate is and bring to the table something good about that person, something we could feel is right to vote for. Your just asking me to vote for a 3rd party because you don't like either candidate leaves me cold.

Alf is honest wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:04 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:55 PM:

"Anyone interested in warrantless wiretapping and this new FISA law should google "ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law."

The ACLU is a bright light keeping our freedoms intact. That means the ACLU is going to fight for ALL of us, including far right, far left, any religion, etc.

KTB wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:06 PM:Ms. M: Yes, Bush should have done this years ago, but we are glad that you are onboard with it now.

Most people are a bit late to the fair, but they are welcome to what is now an overwhelming majority.

Democracy is marketing wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:24 PM:Democracy was such a fine idea once. Before the industries of psychology and marketing existed. The Founders assumed a rational, informed, and educated group of citizens making decisions on the basis of best interest, including their hopes for a good society. What a far cry from where we are now. Uninformed, uninterested, tv-hooked, zero attention span people jerked around by any marketing campaign that is flashy enough and has figured out how to push their buttons. The President no longer a leader, just a front man for his backers, selected by corporate interests for "how he comes across". We blew it, folks, and will continue to do so until we turn off all the shouters and really study the issues, and then hold our so-called representatives accountable...if the corporate sponsors of "leaders" allows us to do so. America has become nothing but a big "focus group", to be toyed with by hustlers at their leisure. Look at Chuck, who has been convinced that powerless liberals are still to blame for everything wrong (just like Hitler convinced Germany it was all the fault of the Jews). Look at Ron, who is grateful for the pesos he gets from his best customer, the government, and still is persuaded to rant against the government, because he has been permitted to identify with the big rollers, the "winners", his ego inflated and soothed. What clowns the American voters are, isn't it obvious. So easily persuaded to vote and even fight and even send their kids to die for causes in direct opposition to their own best interests. A tragic denoument to the story of a great and noble idea. And we were willing and even enthusiastic participants in the demise of this great nation's ideals. Amazing!

Michael Moore wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:25 PM:I noticed on the BACK PAGE of today’s NC Times the story of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt going to Nice, France to give birth to their twins, a boy and a girl. I rejoice with them!

Now Ron, why do you suppose the world’s most celebrated couple, with great wealth, would go to a third world country, have to wait in line, and suffer the risk of inferior medical staff and procedures to give birth to their most cherished possession? Are they just freeloading on France’s socialized medical care?

Could it really be that France has the world’s premier medical care? Maybe all these rumors Ron puts out are lies???

Apollo wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:30 PM:Re: Focal Point (4:39 p.m.)
I understand there is not a full-time editor.
What I do not understand is why, after a long absence, they come back, process a few recent posts, skip posts that have been waiting much longer, stop again for awile, and then eventually get to the earlier posts.

Re: Karl (5:30 p.m.)
You sound like a broken record.
We have covered this several times.
1. Democrats do not have a majority in both houses of Congress - 49 Senators (+ 2 independents that caucus with them), and certainly not enough to override either filibusters or presidential vetoes.
2. You only get the lower approval number for Congress if it is the whole congress, including Republicans. Separate out the Democrats and it is higher than Bush.

Gotta consolidate my posts.
Never know when the editor is going to go on another long break.

Karl wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:38 PM:To Karl
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:53 PM:

Will do in the future. I must correct you on one thing however, I don't "don't like either candidate", I don't like the whole kit and kaboodle. I feel that the entire republican and democratic parties are taking all of us for granted. It's time to slap that smirk off their faces and put the fear of job security in the back of their pea brains.

If you're too cold you either have your air conditioning on way too high or you have caught a bug. I hope you are feeling better soon.

Ms M wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:20 PM:Karl
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:30 PM:...President Bush isn't the only slackard in this deal...But Karl, Bush is and has been the "comander in chief", the one in charge with lots and lots of power.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:26 PM:Greenergy: Thank you for the clarification – but it just leads to more questions. You see, I asked in my last if it was Al as a journalist, or it was his message.

Now I understand – it is the message. Obviously, if Personal Responsibility wanted to jet about the country preaching responsibility he could not do so guilt free because his message is not Global Whatever.

Guilt-free is limited just to those who support Global Whatever.

That is a pretty small group of people who can jet in private Gulfstreams – and it certainly does not include the Governator, or virtually any Hollywood liberals possibly EXCEPT when they are traveling on Global Warming business.

And I really do not know how you measure the “net” effect. Is there a survey done before the speech, and afterward – with semi-annual follow-ups? Are you just guessing?

Actually, I am afraid I have given you far too much credit.

Ms M wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:29 PM:to MsM and Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:14 PM:.. To Whoever You Are could you not not do the MsM and Ron thing together - ...um someone may think that he and I are of the ILK - LMAO!

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:33 PM:I would imagine that Brad and Angelina might go to France for the birth of their twins so that the babies will have dual citizenship!! Have you ever spent time in France, not sight seeing, just living? It is a wonderful place to live. And dual citizenship can have advantages.

BTW, Ron sounds to me like a very unhappy person. Since he claims to have mucho money, perhpas it's his lovelife or his health that troubles him. Think happy, Ron!

Focal Point wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:56 PM:Apollo[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:30 PM:
Dear Apollo: Perhaps, it is worse than I first imagine. Perhaps, we only rate an untrained intern?

Surfer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:02 PM:Surfer This[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:04 PM: Not leaving for two more days. Rea; Surfer is on his own trip soon. I'll hook up with the brah when I get back. We might hook up for the winter and shove off for the OZ together. Got to go and pack.

Surfer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:15 PM:Surfer This[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:04 PM: Reread your blog. How old are you, Dude? Are you local monitor for Bush? Heard the American people were subject to surveillance? Your glee over my persona reveals you to be pretty juvenile. I do not need any body to defend me. Punks are really good are cheap shots.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:28 PM:Since Mother Gaya does not distinguish between "Good" Gulfstream trips, and "Bad" Gulfstream trips, I remain Greener than Gore.

But then, so are you. Congratulations!

Karl wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:31 PM:Apollo
[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:30 PM:

I sound like a broken record? Please tell me what the heck you are talking about. Which of my posts today iterates a point that I have tried to make in the past. thought so, you can't. You are the broken record here. You blog a heck of a lot more than most here with the same general message. Rep/cons bad, dem/lib good.

Peace

KTB wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:46 PM:Yes, the coverup of the attack on the USS Liberty is a stain that needs to be removed by sunlight and a thorough investigation.

Both countries are mature enough to face the facts, and today we do not know the facts. I have met most of the officers of the Liberty and their case demands a public airing.

KTB wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:55 PM:From M3, a report on Mexican newspapers as collected by Retired Border Patrol"

La Jornada (Mexico City) 7/14/08

(Note: the first two paragraphs of a long article detailing events about a violent and deadly weekend in Mexico follow) :

The violence which dominates the country left 124 dead in 11 states this week. The majority of the murders took place in Sinaloa (43) apparently in events related to organized crime. 63 police officers and supervisors have been executed in that entity where this Sunday eight persons, three of them minors, were riddled by gunfire as they left a party in Guamuchil.

The second place for the highest number of victims was Chihuahua, where 40 persons were murdered. The count included the states of Sonora, Baja Calif., Guerrero, Chiapas, Michoacan, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, Durango & the state of Mexico. (Unquote)

And the beat goes on...

Surfer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:00 PM:Real Surfer: You have few days before your trip. Good luck. I shove off tomarow in the AM. I am taking my Channel Island Biscuit to use for the waves 6 ft or under. They say 9 footers are not uncommon in Costa Rica. So, I might have to try some of the local sticks as well. See Ya Bra.

Bill Responds wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:02 PM:When did I say any of that?

I said that to give an enemy such propoganda when boots are on the ground is despicable. Maybe he can, and has the right to say something but that doesnt make it apporopriate.

His flip flpps on this issue and his appetite for attention at the expense of the troops safety is pathetic.

You do that stuff behind the scenes but not in front a microphone when the enmemy is using your words and broadcasting them on Al Jazeera.

A man with his "credentials" should know better than that.

This is obviously the kind of judgment that kept him from his ultimate goal.

The ideology of a serviceman is of no relevance in any way so why was that brought up?

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:03 PM:SDRAUL: Gotta really wonder. The whole pitch from General Rose was about the Revoultionary War. Regarding Clark, if he was not in command, then he could not order any forces. And, the operation in the balkans was not the UN, it was NATO.
But, you know what we get from this guy every time that he shows up. His ignorance really smells. Flush it.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:11 PM:SDRAOUL: "Even allowing for the toughness of the job, General Rose damaged the U.N.'s credibility. His efforts to avoid confrontation and protect his troops went beyond the narrow dictates of neutrality. He began well enough last January, cooperating with NATO efforts to get the Serbs to pull back artillery from the hills surrounding Sarajevo. But when the Serbs shifted their attention to Gorazde, General Rose impeded effective NATO air strikes. Later, he seemed to encourage Serbian military operations around Sarajevo's airport. Most recently, at Bihac, he seemed to ignore the Security Council's instructions to protect civilians.

Surfer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:18 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:14 PM:
Dude," April to October is muy bueno. Need to go this time. See Ya.

Chris to Bill wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:47 PM:This idea that when we send troops somewhere we are suppoed to shutup and not be critical of what is going on is rubbish. If the enemy puts it on al-Jazeera so what. It is never wrong to do the right thing and it is only fools that keep doing the wrong thing and using the excuse that since troops are deplyed doing the wrong thing we should shut up is just more bull from you neo-cons.

Chris wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:49 PM:The reason Asteroid doesn't blog much anymore is because he doesn't have anythhing to say. Only sarcastic remarks about what someone else said.

Apollo wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:00 PM:Re: Karl (8:31 p.m.)
You're right, I'm wrong.
I used the wrong metaphor.
You don't sound like a broken record.
You sound like someone who hasn't kept up with the conversation, does not know that a point has been made numerous times, and also does not have the slightest clue that the underlying assumption in one's question is so far off the mark (such as that the Democrats actually have the Congressional numbers to act on a legislative agenda when they don't even have a majority in the Senate, much less enough to override a filibuster or presidential veto.

Re: Greener Than Gore (7:26 and 8:28 p.m.)
Do you actually have a point?
Do you think you are being funny or something?
You're not. You don't show the slightest bit of creativity.
Or wit. ....
Greenergy actually made a solid point, not that it really matters what a non-peer reviewed journalist does.
All you offer is negativity.
OK, we know what you're against.
You hate Al Gore and anyone who is trying to clean up the environment.
What do you stand for? Anything?
Do you think the world will be a better place if everyone pollutes more?

Real letters wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:40 PM:The entire commentary makes sense.

Do away with these blogs, and write real letters to our government officials.

6:24 pm writes: " ... The Founders assumed a rational, informed, and educated group of citizens making decisions on the basis of best interest, including their hopes for a good society. What a far cry from where we are now. Uninformed, uninterested, tv-hooked, zero attention span people jerked around by any marketing campaign that is flashy enough and has figured out how to push their buttons. The President no longer a leader, just a front man for his backers, selected by corporate interests for "how he comes across". We blew it, folks, and will continue to do so until we turn off all the shouters and really study the issues, and then hold our so-called representatives accountable...if the corporate sponsors of "leaders" allows us to do so. America has become nothing but a big "focus group", to be toyed with by hustlers at their leisure. Look at Chuck, who has been convinced that powerless liberals are still to blame for everything wrong (just like Hitler convinced Germany it was all the fault of the Jews)..."

sdraoul wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:44 AM:Gotta Wonder is a fool if he thinks the entire presentation by General Rose on C-Span was about the revolutionary War. That was the first part of hsi presentation.

The Q and A was quite revealing because equated Iraq to the Revolutionary War, then answered questions about his stint as Commander of UN forces in the Balkans that preceded and occured during the undeclared Clinton Balkan "WAR" that really wasn't a war.

Every one ofi Clark's alleged objectives were -- according to General Rose -- accomplished before Clark and his American (NATO) airplanes bombed the Chinese Embassy.

I know what I heard and saw on Saturday (July 12). The actual presentation was dated April 22, 2008.

Gotta Wonder is just another low level challenger who can never win a debate with me....

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:16 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:44 AM:
Buddy, it was an observation. It was not a challenge or a debate. Where did you get that idea? Is that why you blog here? You are just looking for somebody to with whom
to argue. judging from past retorts to you on this blog, it is easily concluded that you ...

WHAT wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:10 AM:To "Alf is honest @6:04Pm you wrote:
The ACLU is a bright light keeping our freedoms intact. That means the ACLU is going to fight for ALL of us, including far right, far left, any religion, etc."

Are you freakin' kidding me??? The ACLU ONLY fights for the extreme liberal views!

ACLU ALL FOR YOU wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:15 AM:WHAT[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:10 AM: Not true. That is your myopic perception. ACLU has defended the rights of some various associations, organizations and individuals from the far left to the far right.

Alf wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:55 AM:Well, "WHAT" at 9:10AM on the 15th, unless you call the sdmm extreme liberals, you are full of it. The ACLU has supported the rights of everyone from the sdmm to sex offenders and everyone in between. The ACLU defends the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for everyone, not just the wealthy, not just the poor, not just the left, not just the right. This very paper had an article about the ACLU backing the sdmm about that freeway cleanup sign. Get off of your high horse, pull you head out of right-wing propaganda and learn the FACTS. The FACTS disprove their LIES. Regards, Alf.

ACLU for ALL wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:16 PM:from WHAT July 15 9:10 am--

"Are you freakin' kidding me??? The ACLU ONLY fights for the extreme liberal views!"

Wrong. You are very wrong. You have not bothered to get correct accurate rational information. You are uneducated.

ACLU is protecting ALL views.

What is dead wrong wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:10 PM:I'll add my voice to correct WHAT's view of the ACLU. I would encourage WHAT to google the ACLU and read about the cases they take up. WHAT will find liberals, conservatives, commies, nazis, you name it. So we all know, now, that WHAT can and will be educated. I am curious: will WHAT have the courage to do some research and then post again to tell us what s/he has found? That would be something to celebrate on this space: someone actually changing his/her mind based on good research of the facts. This is a great opportunity, WHAT. Go for it!

To Real Letters wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:48 PM:Forget it. Does any of this sound like it comes from someone who really cares or could really write a letter? This is simply immediate gratification for their inane thoughts, instead of meaningful results from hard work. We are actually lucky this is all they do.

Dubious wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:50 PM:Okay this country is in a cantakerous crunch with the bush administrations stretching the limits of the liabilities and fortitudes of our economic perveance. With mass under dealings and an over wrought manifestations it's time to tackle our aerodynamic windfalls that have fled this nation and began the sand run to the hills of our enemy. With sand in our socks and rocks in our heads we nead to exfoliate the vermon from our places of temperment. Violence from squanderous ill givers and gourging of our green life blood has crippled our instincts to sever the very evil that has intangled our most precious resources. We need the one to call on and have here to place our outward entaglements right and place the power back in check. If you understand any of this then please explain to me what Bush has done for us in his 8 year term? Becuase that's what I hear come out of his mouth when he tries to talk