Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:03 AM:LOL, now Hussein is concerned with the number of rentals mcCain has. Who care how many homes and rentals McCain has. I care about commodity prices and the price of groceries and the price of gas so I can get to my job and clients. Do you know why Hussein is now behind vs McCain-- because McCain cares about prices and jobs, while Hussein only cares about how many rentals McCain owns. You Husseiniacs should be on your knees praying for people to own rentals so this real estate crisis goes away

Alf wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:58 AM:From yesterday, "OPEN ITEMS" at 6:40PM asks -
"e. A new one: let's say there are estranged brothers who are a good donor match. One needs the other to donate bone marrow to save his life, but the brother does not want to. They are both adults, undeniably human persons. Does one have the right to force another to use his body to keep him alive if the latter doesn't want to? They are both males. Does this requirement only apply to females?".
My answer to "Does one have the right to force another to use his body to keep him alive if the latter doesn't want to?" is an absolute NO.
My answer to "Does this requirement only apply to females?" is an absolute NO, this requirement applies to NO ONE.
The law currently gives us freedom, the freedom to choose.
In Christianity, God gives "man" free will.
No one has the right to, or can legally, force another person, whether male or female, to sacrifice part of their body, that decision is up to ONLY the individual.
That's my opinion and is currently THE LAW!
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:47 AM:Always having to clean up after the lib's, I see my good friend "OPEN ITEMS"
@6:40 PM: still has some questions.
I'll be more than happy to help, again.

>>>
2. Several days ago, Ron kept asking liberals to explain what he "perceived" to be a contradiction between budget and national debt figures. Several liberals all explained this very clearly, >>>

Really, I did not read a concise and clear explanation. I do, however, remember my writing several posts explaining to you, which you must have scrolled past, or (-) them.
Let me try again.

Using Social Security surpluses as income, like the government does, is much like borrowing from the equity in your home.
But, for the non-home owners, that would be renters for you public school graduates, let's make it really, really simple. OK?

I have a home I buy for $600K, and year after year, decade after decade, I borrow more against the value of that home for other things I want. Lets' say I borrow $10K a year to suppliment my income, for the next 50 years.

Does the original $600K stay the same, or go up?

Focal Power wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:51 AM:Who will speak for women? Well, Ruth you did. You are absolutely correct. Women are being raped, brutalized and murdered in the Congo. Rape is being as a war weapon to destroy the woman, the family and the community. Millions have died in the Congo due to the ongoing tribal and internal political wars. It is just like Rwanda but to the tenth power. Nothing is being said or done because of the racist attitude of most of the developed powers. Its is pretty much leave it to themselves.

Randy wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:56 AM:"How many houses do you and your wife own?" "I'll have my staff get back to you on that."

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:01 AM:I could not pass this one up.... LOL

>>>d. Which do you save in a fire, the sleeping 3-year-old or the frozen embryo on the freezer?>>>

First of all, why would I store a frozen embryo "ON" the freezer? Shouldn't it be inside the freezer?

Two.. Why would I store a frozen embryo in my freezer? Are you suggesting it is normal practise to put it next to the Stouffer's Lean Cusine?

Three... If I'm storing a frozen embryo in my home, am I not violating some FDA requirement?

Four... If I had a frozen embryo, I think I would store it at a laboratory, and not my home.

Five... Are you suggesting two fire, in two different places, at the same time?

Six... Your still in school, aren't you my little psychology student, still trying to "deconstruct" me?

Seven.. is this not a version of the "lifeboat" test given by liberal college professors to try and make religious folk question their beliefs?

Eight... I know you did not think this one through.

Nine... It is such an off the wall argument, most people would go.. HUH?

Ten.. Have a Nice Day.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:09 AM:Obama Prison Out Reach so far...

Kwame Kilpatrick, Democrat Mayor of Detriot.

Big Tony Resko, how many homes does he own?

and missing in action...

Democrat Congressman William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson.

Hey, maybe you should ask him about freezer storage? He seems to know quite a lot about it.

Defender wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:16 AM:Ruth, out of billions there was one man who spoke for women, saying, to the religious leaders who sought to execute convicted of adultery, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And to the women “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:25 AM:>>It comes from the polytrack.>>> Sir, if you were winning at the track instead losing your butt, you'd be praising the perfectly good track

Whew wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:48 AM:Finally Bush has come to his senses and is about to sign an agreement with Iraq that goes along with what the government and people of Iraq want, in other words, Obama's plan along. Bush won't get his permanent bases or his immunity from the law, poor guy, as democracy and sovereignty trump his pipsqueak Napoleonic fantasies again. Obama got it right in 2002, and got it right again as Iraq winds down. As for "thank McCain for the surge", this is laughable. You might recall that from day one, all sorts of people, including "liberals" and the generals, were screaming at Bush and Rummy for more troops in Iraq. McCain, in the beginning was not one of these: he agreed with Rummy, but never mind. So for 5+ years, every person who was living in the real world was "for the surge". Finally, Bush implemented it, and now McCain wants us to applaud "his" idea. Incredible, isn't it? Yeah, his idea and Paul Krugman's and Tom Friedman's and all the generals that Bush fired for saying so. LOL

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:55 AM:The published letter from John Carlson showcases yet another half-baked amateur trying to "explain" science and why he knows more than real scientists (the ones not funded by Big Oil) published in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals.
He is correct in one fact, but derives the wrong conclusion from it. There is increased ice formation in the polar regions, where the calving of huge ice sheets is reducing reflective ice surface area and increasing the absortive water surface area. But if he had been getting his "information" from legitimate scientists instead of Limbaugh, Hannity and others on the take from the Big Oil Bullies who profit from increased pollution, he would understand that below certain temperatures it is more difficult for the precipitation which provides snow and ice volume to form. Increased snowfall and ice production is a harbinger of the increased temperatures. He is wrong, though, in saying that the calved sheets do not melt. They do.
The absolute abysmal ignorance of those who nod their heads and robotically repeat "ditto, ditto" to those who are profiting from their self-destruction is beyond incredible.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

QUE PASA wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:00 AM:Kwame Kilpatrick, Democrat Mayor of Detriot. What does he have to do with Obama?

TFB wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:02 AM:The evasive dodge from Ron at 7:01 a.m. is exactly what I expected.
And it wasn't even artful.
Did you not understand the actual point of the question?
Or is it that your head really did explode from trying to equate the worth of a frozen embryo, wherever it is, with a living, breathing three year old child?

And, of course, all the other items you simply avoided.

To John Carlson wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:04 AM:John Carlson's "petition project" is a farce. The only requirement is that a supposed signer must have a bachelors degree of some sort. Take the very first "scientist" on the list: Earl Aagaard, PhD, a creationist, who attended a Seventh Day Adventist Liberal Arts College.

Even disregarding the obviously weak signature criteria, consider the fact that in the USA there are tens of millions of people with bachelor's (or better) degrees in science. If just 10% of the US population has such a degree (according to the US census, 25% of Americans have a bachelor's degree or better), then the 31,000 names on the Oregon Petition make up ~0.1% of the pool of possible signatories. So what exactly is one-tenth of one percent supposed to prove?

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:23 AM:Why is Hussein now so upset about the inferences he acquired his home from, and did other real estate deals with a terrorist?? LOL. Whats that old saying: Owners of glass houses shouldnt cast the first stone? He should have never paid that group to attack McCain on his real estate holdings.

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:26 AM:>>>his pipsqueak Napoleonic fantasies again>>> Are you talking about Bush or his intellectual twin Mike Aguirre?

Radman wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:26 AM:(From August 21st)

Destructioneers of Oceanside by Robert Neal.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:28 AM:>>>Kwame Kilpatrick, Democrat Mayor of Detriot. What does he have to do with Obama?>>> Nothing more than that they were brought up through the ranks by the same people.

Caro Hussein Cogitatus wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:29 AM:Yeah, Chuck, the problem is that McCain DOES NOT REMEMBER HOW MANY HOUSES HE OWNS! You and I may be worried about keeping our (wait, let me count them...one...okay, just the one) houses, but McCain is mostly worried about Exxon's profits and saying whatever is needed to win the Presidency, regardless of whether he believes it or not.
Oh, and by all means keep up the "Hussein" taunting. That's really working for ya.

to TFB and Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:31 AM:No question: Ron spent an entire DAY thinking about the questions and because his manhood and infinite wisdom were at stake, he could not resist "responding". And look at the response! A 100% non-response. "Who keeps an embryo in a freezer?" LOL "This is just a liberal professor's trick" LOL He won't/can't respond but is also incapable of either not responding or changing his mind. I think we have stuck a fork in old Ron. He's done.

McCains houses wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:33 AM:Leave McCain alone. He's too busy leading the Senate to bother with counting his houses. Besides, the houses were bought by his wife Monica, I mean Cindy. And she can do whatever she wants with her hard-earned money, and it's no one's business. End of story.

So what wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:37 AM:From the NY Times today QUOTE BAGHDAD — The Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation. In restive Diyala Province, United States and Iraqi military officials say there were orders to arrest hundreds of members of what is known as the Awakening movement as part of large security operations by the Iraqi military. At least five senior members have been arrested there in recent weeks, leaders of the groups say. ENDQUOTE But for crying out loud, everyone knows it was the surge, the surge, and only the surge that is responsible for any decline in violence in Iraq. Um, folks, have you noticed a trend over in Baghdad? The actual people and government over there have just about had it with Bush and the US troops. They are sick of our presence. They insist on a withdrawal timetable, ASAP. They are arresting the people we pay not to shoot. They are taking their country back from Bush. McCain says "Stay the Course".

QUE PASA wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:42 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:28 AM: Do you mean they are related simply because they are both black men?

Vista Granny wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:47 AM:I haven't been posting lately. No reason to do so -- everything seems to be just a rehash of the same old, same old. Then came Ruth Larkin's letter, and it struck a chord with me. Wars have always included the rape of women and the killing of children. While fighting men may need "relief" from the rigors of war, there was once actually a purpose behnd this horrible custom, and maybe still is. You kill the men in battle, slaughter the children and the get the women pregnant, thereby destroying the culture and replacing it with your own.
The idea that women are nothing more than a vessel for the "deposit" of man's sperm is Biblical - a good reason to question the Godliness of the Old Testament.

And for the second part of her letter, ie: Viagra and Levitra ads --- They are pretty awful, but what about the "natural enhancement" ads? I really doubt that most women spend a lot of time hoping they can "see more and feel more". Sex has its place, but its place is not in the living rooms of average families.

BTW: Does anyone know the significance of the couple in separate bathtubs? Silly.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:51 AM:The post from "Ron" (6:47am) is as evasive a dodge as his clumsy slip on freezer ice at 7:01am.
No, "Ron," you did not answer the issue of the "discrepancy" (that only you allege) between the BUDGET figures from OMB and the NATIONAL DEBT figures from treasury.
Your new "concise and clear explanation" is neither.
In the off-budget portion, where you include Social Security, it has to be handled like every other item, as both an asset as to the revenue received and a liability as to the disbursements owed. If the revenue exceeds the disbursements, that is a surplus for the applicable budget period being considered.
The real point is that you previously tried to avoid the actual explanation, which is right on the official government tables, as to the correctly calculated difference between the BUDGET, which shows debts based on net present (payoff) values, which is correct because it is what you actually owe right now if you had to liquidate, and the NATIONAL DEBT, which calculates debt based on the total of future payments (whether or not they are actually paid; most bonded indebtedness is liquidated prior to maturity), because that is the appropriate maximum expression of total "book value" of indebtedness.
You weaseled and waffled on this before, and you're still at it.
The real point is that you either do not understand these accounting terms, or you are trying to obfuscate the issue to misrepresent a political point.
Either way, you credibility is utterly worthless.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

The Preacher wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:53 AM:I love to hear the conservative propaganda from all of you warmongers and warlovers. We won't change your mind, but it will be fun watching you squirm for the next 8 years, while Pres. Obama goes about cleaning up the Bush/Cheney disaster.

Peace!

TFB wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:56 AM:Exact quote from Realist last night at 10:30 p.m.: "If I had a daughter who had an unintended pregnancy, no matter the circumstances, I would give the child up for adoption."
See the mindset of some Neanderthal males?!
The daughter would be the one who is pregnant, not you.
She is the one who would endure nine months of body-changing issues and the risk of death from childbirth (many times more dangerous than a routine abortion), not you.
She is your daughter, not your livestock or chattel property. This is not Bible times.
That is why it is she, not you, who gets to decide.

Vista Granny wrote on Aug 22, 2008 8:58 AM:Ron's ramble about embryos in home freezers was just too stupid!! Of course he was evading the point of the story -- No one who claims a egg fertilized one minute ago has the same worth as a living, thinking, loved person can justify that belief.

par for the course wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:00 AM:In reading these blogs for the most part the actors and their roles are the same day in and day out. Nothing new, just the same stuff wrapped with different wrapping paper. I find myself daydreaming about what the hyperbole on this blog will look like after the Democrats take full control of the Executive, Representative and possibly the Judicial branches of our Government.

I can foresee the right comparing Obama to Hitler and all the other evil leaders our world has seen. I can also see the left making excuses why their man is not at fault for the state of the union. Basically two years from now this blog will be identical with the parties being reversed.

After the Democrats screw everything up and the chasm between left and right is still being exploited by career polititians what will we have to look forward to?

Barack Obama is right on the money on one thing, we do need change. We need to extract ourselves from the clutches of the Democratic and Republican Parties who exploit the chasm between us for their own personal gain.

In mho the more people that open up to the "Campaign for Liberty" the better off we will all be and the sooner the better.

As a side note I am saving some of the real doozies here to break out a couple of years from now. It should be hilarious.

Karl wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:08 AM:What's the big deal about John not knowing how many homes he owns? Not only don't I know how many I own, sometimes I forget which one I live in. Whenever I leave the house for any reason my wife makes me wear a hat with my Country Club logo on it so I'll be returned to the area.

Peace for Everyone not just some

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:17 AM:I mean.. really?
Who keep's a fresh frozen embryo in their freezer next to the Toaster Strudel?

Danish Style Cream Cheese, Mmmmm!

gracchus wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:17 AM:ron, i have requested a straight answer from you several times. i will ask you again.
what do you want to do about social security? do you want to abolish it? if not, what positive, constructive ideas can you propose to insure that it is still solvent after the next 40 years.
the real budgetary crisis facing the united states is medicare. what ideas do you have about fixing it? or do you want to abolish it, too?
i have observed, ron, that in the past you complained about entitlements. when it was pointed out that the vast majority of the u.s. budget's entitlement spending went to social security and medicare, showing that all u.s. citizens and legal residents receive entitlements if they live long enough, you ceased haranguing about entitlements.
i think, ron, that you pride yourself for your honesty. will you tell us please whether you support the continued existence of social security and medicare? if you think that the people of the united states should continue to enjoy these two entitlement programs, why don't you offer some ideas on how they can?

Que Pasa wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:18 AM:Karl[-] wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:08 AM: Are you running for President? Man, I would be concerned about a man who does not know how many houses that he owns and the monies generated for same. It shows why McCain said that he knows little about economics. But, it affirms the notion of his decling memory. Makes me wonder which button he will push and or the reason for or reason not to push it.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:20 AM:Now, see? I love letters like this, because it really shows what a bunch of puff-n-stuff's these Lib's really are.

Jonathan Rolfsen says:
Gas is getting higher, I can't afford it, yadda-yadda-yadda...
Buy me a train.

Hey ah genius, we haven't paid for the last one, you riding that one?

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:33 AM:Interesting point there by "Alf"
@5:58 AM. About sibling donors...

Have we not had parent's who have deliberately conceived, in order to supply "parts" from one silbing to the other?

But as to the estranged brothers scenario...
I thought I just read, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but..
I thought I just read that the State wanted to change our donor status from an opt-in, to an opt-out.
In other words, you would specifically have to state that you do not want to provide any appertain parts to another human being, once your dead, of course.

Flappin and slappin wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:43 AM:Ron, better take some time off, buddy. Your posts today make you look like a fish that's been caught and that's just flappin around in the bottom of the boat as if you were alive. Start the coals, boys. And thaw that cheesecake...it's right there in the freezer next to the embryos.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:45 AM:And once again, my good friend "Wizzer"
@7:55 AM, makes the Leftist quote of the day:

"...real scientists (the ones not funded by Big Oil)..."

So, in other words, Oil companies employ NO scientists. Well, not any good, legitimate, nor academic one's,
according to the Wiz.

No, sadly.. he seems to think they are all half-baked amateur's.

Which always brings me back to Lenny Bernstein. Earned a PhD in Chemical Engineering, not climatology, at Purdue University. He spent 31 years working on environmental issues for the petroleum industry. 10 of those years were as a manager in Mobil Corporation’s Environmental, Health and Safety Department, responsible for tracking global environmental issues, including climate change and sustainable development. Prior to that, he worked on minimizing the environmental impacts of petroleum fuel use for Exxon Research and Engineering Company.

After leaving Mobil in 1999, Lenny formed L.S. Bernstein & Associates, an environmental consulting company advising industrial clients on technical and political developments on climate change and other environmental issues. He attended every UN negotiating session on climate change from 1995 through 2007; was a LEAD AUTHOR on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Third Assessment Report, published in 2001; a Convening Lead Author on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007; and a member of the CORE WRITING TEAM for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report, also published in 2007.

Now imagine that? A BIG OIL scientist, good enough for the IPCC, but not good enough for Wiz? How does that work?
Answer: Because he had the answer Wiz was looking for. If you disagree with Wiz, then your a BAD scientist. Clearer now?

Karl wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:48 AM:Que Pasa @ 9:18 AM:
Stop being so serious all the time. Stop to smell the roses and laugh once in a while.

He Said wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:55 AM:When are some of you going to get off McCain's wealth? We didn't hear a lot about John Kerry's "married into" wealth. As far as not knowing the houses, that could be in a constant state of change. I know married couples where only one of the spouses does the money handling and the other spouse doesn't even write a checks. In a couple of cases the wife even handles the reconciliation of the business expenses incurred. When a person's wealth becomes an issue for candidates that usually reflects the opponent's stands on other issues aren't selling so well.

To clarify wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:56 AM:You see, Ron, scientists that work for big oil are kinda like McCain. They were once free-thinking, intelligent, gutsy people, doing what they thought was right. Then someone waved some big bills in their faces and they sold their souls. They are, I admit, real scientists. But they are tainted terribly by knowing that only SOME of their research work will get to press, the research that is approved by their bosses. Like McCain, another of your heroes who sold his soul. Comprende?

Richard wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:58 AM:McCain cares about prices and jobs? In your dreams. He cares principally about one thing: staying in Iraq until 'we can leave with our heads high'. That in my humble opinion has led over the years to rapid rises in oil prices, and when these persist for long periods causes higher food prices, etc. Look at the spike in oil price when Ossetia was in turmoil and when a cease fire was signed, the prices stopped rising. Iraq sucked our treasure from us, to be paid for generations to come. Don't give me this song and dance that McCain, and of course not Obama, cares about jobs and prices. The level of 'care' is all relative.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:59 AM:You really need to save that "Wizzer"
@8:51 AM, because within the next 10 years {see? I always look down the road} We will see about 1/3 of the government's revenue, that would be the Social Security surpluses for those who went to public school, will no longer be available. At that point, Congress will be faced, as they have been faced 19 times in the short 70 year history of this "popular" program, to once again consider how to fix it. Now, alone, Social Security, it is said, is an "easy fix", the proof, as they say, shall be in the pudding.
But, leaving all of that aside for the moment...

Now, I know, and perhaps you know...
That within a particular month, or year.. We can have a surplus. That's means I have more money than I have bills to pay. Extra money.
The question is, what to do with it?
For me, and for a lot of people, we pay down debt. Credit cards, house payments, cars, etc.

For example, if my outstanding blance on my truck is say... $7,000. I use the surplus towards my truck. If I had say.. an extra $500 bucks, not counting the regular payment, my loan balance on that truck will be $500 less, or $6,500. Right?
Same to, with a house. Or a credit card. Any debt.

Now, as we look at the Clinton years, according to the Rubin Treasury numbers, in NO year, does the debt ever fall, or go down. Always up, in each year Clinton held office.
And yet, we are told he had surpluses year after year. Social Security aside, using borrowed money with interest for today's expenses aside, for the moment...

How does the National Debt rise every year, when you have a mutli-year surplus.
Can you explain that?

proposal wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:04 AM:I propose a limit to two posts per day on NCT's pages. Then Ron would be forced to go out and find a real job, rather than believing he's a writer for the newspaper.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:05 AM:And the "peer-reviewed" science just keeps on coming.. from my good buddy,
"Wizzer" @7:55 AM.

>>>Increased snowfall and ice production is a harbinger of the increased temperatures.>>>

Does it snow in Hawaii? Should be more snow if an increase in temperatures produces more snow and ice?

Ah! Unless the temperature drops to freeze it. Hmmmmm...

You know what else is good in my freezer?
Home made Fudgesickles, right next to little Johnnie, Katy, and Hussein jr.

One Man Did wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:05 AM:Ruth:

Actually, two men did. Jesus, as stated above and, by your own admissions, Anderson Cooper.

Do any of the men in your family speak for the women?

You imply that men do not participate in raising children until they are 18.

That, in my experience is a fallacious statement.

to He Said wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:09 AM:I completely agree with you about candidates' wealth being a stupid thing for anyone to attend to. But for the record, we were absolutely INUNDATED with remarks, insults, and innuendo about Kerry's wife when he was the candidate. So don't kid yourself into thinking this is new for McCain. The Karl Roves and Rush Limbaughs invented this kind of irrelevent focusing slime.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:18 AM:The posts from "Ron" (9:45 and 9:59am) give huge insight into how the wheels of "Ron's" little mind actually spin. And I do mean spin.
The problem with oil-funded scientists is not that oil companies do not employ legitimate scientists to obtain legitimate scientific conclusions. They need geological experts to help them find oil. The problem is that, just like "Ron" and others, they use legitimate science when it suits their needs, and use scientists in very illegitimate ways when that is most advantageous. The key is to follow the science. When their conclusions are based on real, peer-reviewed science, such as geologists finding oil reserves, it has credibility. But when their conclusions oppose all other scientific conclusions but support policy objectives that will enrich them, then their conclusions become suspect.
And every time someone clearly explains why "Ron's" so-called "explanations" about the budget and debt figures are wrong, he simply fabricates new ones. He is not at all objective or sincere. He decides first what conclusion he wants, and then seeks out and presents evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion. And if no such evidence exists, he simply makes it up. This is exactly like the oil companies who decide what conclusions they want and then pay someone to provide the "evidence." Exactly the same, and for exactly the same reason.

As to "Ron's" question about how the debt rises in a time of surplus, this has been repeatedly explained. The budget and the debt figures are addressing completely different issues, and they are measuring the item completely differently. One is covering actual current assets and liabilities; the other is projecting possible future liabilities, and they clearly state this. Again, it is the difference between the payoff balance on a loan and the future "total of payments" if you pay off over time.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Nick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:21 AM:Thanks "Ron" for your post at 9:45am. I was about to take "The Whizzer" to task for his usual nonsense, but the comment on "Real Scientists" struck a nerve.

As "Ron" pointed out, only "Real" scientists support the hoax known as Global Warming, and all others are NOT "Real scientists".

I seem to recall a few past conversations with "The Whizzer" on the subject of Y2K, and he posed the question [Do you not know that there are real "Peer-Reviewed" scientists in the computer & IT world?].

Well "Whizzer", I have a very strong idea that there are 1000's of "Peer-Reviewed" scientists employed by oil companies on many different levels.
But because they work for the oil companies, they are NOT "Real Scientists". Sorry, "Whizzer", that dog just won't hunt.

The only ones I know for a fact that aren't "Real" scientists are you & Al Gore.

Cheers, Nick.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:26 AM:The post from "Ron" (10:05am) confirms just how bizarre these anti-science conservatives are willing to go in misstating others' comments and then drawing truly weird conclusions out of them.
OK, I guess I'll have to talk down to the level of a pre-schooler.
I did not say that increased warmth makes snow more likely. There is an optimal temperature level for snow formation. Too warm, no snow. Too cold, snow formation is slower and more difficult. The polar temperatures are often below the optimal level. Warming temperatures raise the level closer to the optimal level, thus increasing snow formation. And if it continues too high, like Hawaii, no snow.
Oh, and by the way, "Ron," speaking of cold places, citing Congressman Jefferson for the prison outreach list shows your utter ignorance or dishonesty, I'm not sure which.
Jefferson has not been convicted of anything. Hasn't even been charged.
Keeping cash in a freezer or mattress is not against the law.
So please take his name off the list and replace it with Charles Keating.
"Ron," your utter desperation is making you look even more foolish than usual.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Nate wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:28 AM:I PUT THIS OUT TO EVERYONE WHO POSTS....

Has anyones opinion ever been swayed by someone else on this bored? Or has anyone ever changed their view or vote due to comments posted? just curious

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:28 AM:Still trying to figuire out how my good buddy, "Wizzer" @8:51 AM seems to think, that as long as I have more going out, than I have coming in, somehow, I can "balance" my checkbook.

Still trying to figuire out, how do you have more money than your current needs, and yet your total debt increases ever year?
How is that possible?

If I make an extra payment onto my total home loan, does not the outstanding loan balance show that I have made that particular payment?
Example, I owe $600K, and make an additional payment, not a regular month payment, but a budget surplus payment of $1,000.
Should not my outstanding balance show the outstanding balance as $599,000?
And if I do that over.. say.. a 3 year period, like Clinton says he did,
Would not my balance, if the payments remained the same $1,000, be...
$597,000?
Now why, wouldn't the National Debt figuires, excuse me, correction...
The ah.. RUBIN Treasury figuires show that? Huh?

Nick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:38 AM:Since we are going to bag on Candidates and their wives, here are a few pieces from and MSNBC article entitled

"Obama camp has many ties to wife's employer":

A few years ago, executives at the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center were concerned that an increasing number of patients were arriving at their emergency room with what the executives considered to be non-urgent complaints. The visits were costly to the hospital, and many of the patients, coming from the surrounding South Side neighborhood, were poor and uninsured.

Michelle Obama, an executive at the medical center, launched an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics to deal with their health needs.

That effort, in time, inspired a broader program the hospital now calls its Urban Health Initiative. To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
Axelrod's firm recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign -- appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party "validators." They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications.

One key recommendation from Axelrod's firm: "Respond quickly to opposition activity."

Axelrod's firm warned hospital executives in its May 2007 presentation that, although many people welcomed the initiative, primary-care doctors opposed it as a break with the center's commitment to the community. Opinion research showed that a small but passionate group of people already considered the hospital to be elitist, arrogant and lacking in "cultural empathy" for the surrounding economically depressed South Side neighborhood, according to a draft report obtained by The Washington Post.

Shortly after Barack Obama joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, the medical center promoted Michelle Obama to vice president of community and external relations, and more than doubled her salary. She is now on leave from the $317,000-a-year post.

The vast majority of political contributions from university employees have gone to Democrats, and over the last nine years they have donated at least $373,000 to Barack Obama's campaigns, records show. The university's executive suites are home to a number of the couple's closest friends and financial backers.

The medical center's chairwoman, Valerie Jarrett, is a close friend and top adviser who travels frequently with Barack Obama. One of Barack's best friends, Eric Whitaker, is executive vice president at the center and is now in charge of the Urban Health Initiative. Hospital board member Kelly R. Welsh is executive vice president at Northern Trust Co., which extended the couple a $1.3 million home mortgage shortly after Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. Dan Shomon, Barack Obama's former campaign manager, is a university lobbyist. Jarrett, Whitaker, Welsh and Shomon all declined to be interviewed or did not respond to requests.

Center executives said the initiative, on which they spent $2 million last year, could be a national model. Critics, however, describe the program as an attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance.

"If you put enough money into it, you could save a whole bunch of community health centers," Young said. "But to date, they haven't."

Edward Novak, president of Chicago's Sacred Heart Hospital, declined to discuss the center's initiative in particular but dismissed as "bull" attempts to justify such programs as good for patients. "What they're really saying is, 'Don't use our emergency room because it will cost us money, and we don't want the public-aid population,' " Novak said.

As you can see, the elitist attitude of both Obama and his wife permeate every inch of their day to day lives.
Yeppers, they are soooooo in touch with middle class America....lol.

Cheers, Nick.

to nate wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:40 AM:I, for one, certainly have been swayed by posts here. Sadly, the posts that are informative and well-reasoned are about one in a thousand or less. But I have strong opinions about many things and have gone toe to toe here at times, and just read at other times, and my opinions have changed at times because people here presented facts and logic. I wish that more posters did this kind of thing, but most are only interested in insisting their view is right and that others are dopes. The Rons and raouls, for example, seem like reasonable people who can write in complete sentences and paragraphs, but I long ago stopped reading them because, frankly, they lie so much for the sake of their ideology. Their minds are wasted here, because they are willing to sacrifice them for the sake of winning an argument, which is juvenile at best...and on top of it, they always lose the arguments becuase they get called on their lies by people who know. But there are many here on the left and right and in-between who are civil, who seem to do research and present real information in a logical way. When challenged, they answer like adults. I've learned from these few.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:42 AM:"TFB" @8:56 AM...

If a woman chooses to abort a female child, does that make her: Anti-Woman?

Abortion is often presented as an issue of "women's rights". But only certain women need apply?

No trial.
9 months.
No appeals.

Most common reason:
Economic stress on the Mother.

to Nick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:43 AM:Your "real scientist" post is, sadly, so typical. I am sick to death of seeing this "gotcha" approach to "debate" in the media and here. It's like you people are out to get someone, and sit back and wait for any remark, no matter how small or out of context, that you can jump on to "use" against the person, ignoring the entire argument, its main points, and everything else. It's infantile. I know, I know, Obama said "57 states", DD said "real scientists", blah blah blah. Do you guys really think "gotcha" is debate? Please, give it a rest. You make fools of yourselves repeatedly with this level of "discussion". Save it for the schoolyard. good grief

Three D wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:45 AM:Kudos to "One Man Did" at 10:05 a.m. who rightly noted that Jesus was one of the earliest and most outspoken advocates for the advancement of women, way ahead of his time. He elevated women such as Mary Magdalene, and sisters Mary and Martha to unprecedented inclusion in relgious dialogue.
Sadly, though, his work was undone and reversed by the renegade "apostle" Paul, who completely opposed Jesus on so many key issues of religion and doctrine. Paul demanded that women keep silent in the churches (1 Cor 14:34-45, that they stay home and take care of the kids (1 Tim 5:14) and they be submissive to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24 and Col 3:18-19). Of course, as Jesus elevated the servants and the "least of these," Paul also endorsed slavery (Eph 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10). During the abolition movement of the 19th century, as black Christians quoted Jesus, white slave owners quoted Paul.
And of course the Catholic Church, founded on Paul's teachings when he was able to con Peter to his side, has continued to oppress women and deny them equality in leadership opportunities and even the right to make personal medical choices.
Blessings,
3D

Nick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:45 AM:Well "Nate", to answer your question, yes & no.
I can definitely say that others comments here have had me look at issues a different way and do a little more research on issues I might otherwise not have.
I don't think that others blogs have made me change my views on issues immediately, but that they made dig deeper to form my own opinions and my views may have changed. So I would say that others blogs were the catalyst to a change in views.
I like to think that maybe I have done the same for other bloggers on here to help open their eyes to a different point of view. I know that there have been 5 converts to The Campaign for Liberty after listening to me talk about it, and it makes me feel good.
I know that others here have inspired me to be more diligent in my research before posting and others, like my good buddy "Alf", have inspired me to be a more kinder, gentler, and compassionate blogger (which is a stretch for me...lol).
My hats of to you "Nate" for the great question!
I would like to hear some of the others chime in on this one.
Cheers, Nick.

Rick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:46 AM:Nate,

It's all for laughs. I hope.

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:46 AM:>>>the problem is that McCain DOES NOT REMEMBER HOW MANY HOUSES HE OWNS>>>> No, the real problem is Hussein doesnt remember the details of how he acquired his home from a terrorist named Resco. So, why don't we have a one question presidential forum. McCain can answer why he owns real estate, and Hussein can answer how he acquied his from Resco. That would be fair and balanced, wouldnt it?

Richard wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:48 AM:According to Amy Goodman's column today Suskind's charges have been confirmed. Cheney ordered a CIA official to write a phony letter claiming the World Trade Center attackers were trained in Iraq. Cheney thought it was necessary because an informant established there were no WMD's in Iraq of concern and that Ambassador Wilson was correct. That informant was paid 5 million in hush money and sent to Jordan to stay out of the press. No wonder the media didn't get it right on Iraq back then. And no wonder the military barged so willfully into Iraq; they thought they were killing people who had attacked New York City. It was Bush also who turned his hatred for Hussein into hatred against our own countryman John Kerry, an actual veteran who correctly de4nounced the Iraq invasion because he knew the truth. Bush claimed Kerry supported terrorists and 'could run but can't hide'. We now know it's Bush, not someone else, who is destroying this country from within. Wreckless 'these colors don't run', non flip-flop thinking, from he and McCain, waste our strength. Kerry was and still is right. Sorry for hampering on this, but too many people still defend Bush's lying and even openly brag about them and still denounce Kerry and Obama for the very things they are correct on. What do you expect me to do, just give up?

Apollo wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:50 AM:Re: Ron (10:28 a.m.)
Ron, are you really that dense or do you need to brush up your literacy skills?
This budget thing has been explained over and over to you.
During the surplus years, there was not "more going out than coming in."
The reason that the debt increased was to reflect the book value of future obligations if matured. It had nothing to do with cash flow in or out.
DDWIZ is right and you are completely out in left field, no, beyond the bleachers.

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:52 AM:>>Has anyones opinion ever been swayed by someone else on this bored>>>> Yes, I've change my opinion to Chris belongs on the Russian, terrorist or Cuban food chain, not Americas, because we all know that if a democrat were president, doing the exact same thing as Bush, he'd be dancing in the streets supporting them

Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:56 AM:>>>As "Ron" pointed out, only "Real" scientists support the hoax known as Global Warming>>> The scientists who support global warming are the ones who get their grants from the eco-wackos. ie, they are out in the street if they ever write anything that does not acknowledge the global warming religion

Check wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:01 AM:Just my daily survey folks: (check one)

[ ] I have checked my tire pressure
today, and am Hussein compliant

[ ] I have not checked my tire pressure today, and my kids haven't brought their SB777 gender selection form home from school yet

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:01 AM:Hey! It's my buddy "gracchus" @9:17 AM!

And I have answered your question.
This generation needs to take the hit on Social Security & MediCare, so that future generations will not be born into debt, aka economic slavery.

We have entirely too many able bodied people, NGO's, Corporations, and other's out there sucking on the government teat. Then we have the bad planners, or the non-planners. 40-50 years to prepare, plan, and save.
I'm sorry if you can not run your own life, but it's really not my job to make sure you get your bingo trip.
Obviously, they say... THEY SAY they care about preserving these programs for the next generation, BY TAXING THE NEXT GENERATION FOR THIS GENERATION!

Now, How is that loving? I ask you?

People need to ask themselves, is this money I'm taking, enslaving my own children, or grandchildren?

nate wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:01 AM:I apologize for the misspelling of "bored". I mean board. And to the first response to my post thank you. that was very informative and honest.

to DD Wiz wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:13 AM:Ron and Nick give ample examples of the anti-science views of the un or poorly educated. They "feel" they are right ergo they are right. I appreciate your efforts to help them to understand how science and economics work, but I fear you are doomed by their lack of basic education. My guess is they were in the service while the rest of us were in college. And when they got out they didn't take advantage of the GI Bill.

To Nick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:17 AM:Obama

Educated
Articulate
Pro Choice
Anti War
Pro Women
Even tempered
Organized Campaign
Serious

McCain

Bottom of His Class
Forgetful
Anti Choice
Pro War
Anti Women
Temper
Disorganized Campaign
Flippantly funny

Personally, all that other stuff is just noise to me. My choice is clear. But thanks for the trivia.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:19 AM:Ok, ok... I got another scenario for my god buddy.

Now, "Wizzer" @10:18 AM.

If I go to Jerome's furniture today, and buy a couch for $500 bucks.
If I skip the Starbuck's at my usual Prius meetings there, and save the $1.45 per week. {of course, I could save even more by not driving over there, and taking a bus}
And post that $1.45 x 4 coffee's...
carry the one.. comes to: $5.80.
I take the $5.80 and give that to Jerome, he applys it to my outstanding balance on the couch, should bring my loan balance to $494.20, less my regular payments, of course.

Clearer now?

escondidoguy wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:21 AM:I know it's common practice here to ignore him completely but has it already been two weeks since Eric (the mouth) Parish posted his last chapter of nonsensical diatribes ? I think the NTC may have the math wrong - time passes so quickly when his rantings aren't in the paper. But I enjoy his writings like I enjoy reading the Sunday page "News of the Weird". Oddities are compelling don't you agree?

TFB wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:40 AM:Time for another biology lesson for Ronnie at 10:42 a.m.
A woman does not choose to abort a female child.
A woman chooses to deal with a blastocyst, zygote, embryo or fetus (depending on stage of pregnancy) by any one of the following options (this is what "choice" is all about - options):
Carrying it to term and raising it.
Carrying it to term and letting someone else raise it.
Not carrying it to term (abortion).
It is not a child. It has the POTENTIAL to develop into a child if a number of contingency events successfully occur, same as an ovum or sperm, except they are just one notch further away.

The child is the one sleeping. The embryo is the thing that gets frozen.
By the way, not child can be frozen and revived.
Embryos can. Same for eggs and sperms.

Richard wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:41 AM:Chris' rants are of no worry, particularly when some of the stuff is correct. What is far more serious to worry about are the rants of the man allowed to be in charge, who has been confirmed to be 90% wrong since he demanded the 101st airborne to leave Afghanistan and invade Iraq.

Bill wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:42 AM:So now McCain is adopting Obamas plan in Iraq?

Everything except surrendering right?

Obama wanted to pull out long before we restored order.

How would surrendering have made us better off?

That spin is a new low for liberals as they try to rationalize why their predictionas about the war were all wrong.

We defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq without surrendering.

That wasnt Obamas plan at all.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:47 AM:[X] I have checked my tire pressure
today, and am Hussein compliant

[ ] I have not checked my tire pressure today, and my kids haven't brought their SB777 gender selection form home from school yet

CAN WE DRILL NOW?

Apollo wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:50 AM:Resubmission with addition:

Re: Ron (10:28 a.m.)
Ron, this budget thing has been explained over and over to you.
During the surplus years, there was not "more going out than coming in."
The reason that the debt increased was to reflect the book value of future obligations if matured. It had nothing to do with cash flow in or out.
DDWIZ is right and you are completely out in left field, no, beyond the bleachers.

Re: Ron (11:19 a.m.)
Your little example has no resemblance whatsoever for either how the budget works or how debt is calculated by the Treasury Department.
You buy the couch from Jerome's.
Since you are applying payments, looks to be a financed deal.
You owe $500 for the couch.
If you finance it for 18 months at 18% interest, you would have monthly payments of $31.90.
The amount you owe (budget) is still $500 if you pay it off today.
The amount of debt recorded is the total of payments which is 18 x $31.90 = $574.00
The budget shows the amount now owed $500.
The national debt shows the total of payments $574.
Whether you have a surplus or deficit in the budget would depend on your total income and expenses, which your very silly little example did not even touch!

Hey Chuck wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:51 AM:Bush has closer ties to the Bin Laden family, than Obama does with Ayers. They've been doing business together for a long time. Which is the bigger terrorist? Yet you voted for Bush twice.

Ron wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:08 PM:Ok, ok.. "Wizzer" @10:26 AM...

I will back off the federal grand jury indictments of Jefferson on 16 charges of public corruption.
But, considering he was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton. And alleged $400,000 in bribes were paid through iGate, Inc. to persuade the U.S. Army to use iGate broadband two-way technology and other iGate products.

Could he not sit in the Duke Cunningham wing? In the cheap seats, of course.
Cunningham's sellout was for $2.4 million, but who's really counting, right?

Nick wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:09 PM:To "To Nick": Well amigo, "The Whizzer" and I have debated the farce known as Global Waming many times in the past and have vrey good debates, b