Letters to the Editor
-
Hitlery Killed Vince Foster
HRC?
who has this much "smear" to run away from
Clinton?
--Anonymous
Come on. We all know she killed Vince Foster with her cloven hooves and copulated with his dead body.
And thanks to William Timmerman, Joel Grant, and others who get it.
That's Timberman to you.
-
Arne is chewing back yard garden mint-gum again? No chew holly twigs.
The October dishes are washed. The house is chilly.
The readers of 'The Economist' may be interested in the November 3rd issue. It has a article on- Religion and Public Life.
Global Christianity - sociologist Peter Berger thoughts...
The Battles with demons of religion/politics at its worst.~
People who are "too sure of themselves" are ready to shoot---
and keep on shooting. A group will swing at sneers with a return sneer and sneers will always continue.
I know William Timberman reads (and I was touched by the country western music background- a personal testimony and a chance to know you better) 'The Economist' and the 'cut-and-paste' people may Google it?
How does Arne chew gum and hymn a tune "To The Halls of Montezuma"...and read blogs at the same time?
Okay- it's time to GO Off to the garbage dump before it gets too late. I Hope to find something in the tipsy dumpster for Arne? Often there is a swig left in the bottom of the beer or wine
bottle.
Cheers.
-
It was not here at Glenn's UT but another of Salon's sections
My feeling were hurt real bad. A anonymously called me a dingbat nut.
I'm still sad.
-
SS is a financial threat
SS is fine if you only look at the balance sheets. But it's the the underlying asset that makes up the balance sheet that is troubling. The SS Trust has US T-Bills.
US T-Bills are back solely by a promise to tax the American people. US T-Bills have no other value outside of that promise. The crisis is not whether the balance sheet looks good. The crisis is whether the US government can follow up on its promise to tax the American people.
It's the just like current credit crisis. There doesn't look like there is anything wrong with the balance sheets that list mortgage-backed CDOs at face value. The crisis is whether the underlying homeowners will pay back their mortgage.
-
Protecting the environment is more than clean water
Simply indirectly protecting the environment by protecting private property rights is NOT protecting the environment. Or, more specifically, there is a LOT more to it than simply making sure people don't pollute your "private" air or "private" water (no such thing). Where is Paul on endangered species? Biodiversity? Global Warming?
The MAIN polluter happens to be corporations and the military. Paul doesn't do regulations so the corporations are to run rampant. Haven't seen jack squat about how he will stop the military from polluting and destroying the environment, however, seeing how opposed Paul is to destroying ANY ICBM silos here, I daresay that he doesn't want any regulation slapped on the military either. Go ahead Navy, blow out whale and dolphin ears with your super mega sonar! If they can't handle the sound, then they deserve to be beached.
If an eagle or owl or fish wants to survive, then it should buy a gun and protect itself. That would fit into Paul's idea or conservation and endangered species protection.
There is a lot more to environmental protection than simply making sure individual people don't pollute the air or water. A LOT more to it.
-
@ tempus, Casia Bella...again
Not sure what the chances you'll both realize how wrong you are about Paul, but what the heck:
Ron Paul on the Environment, taken directly from an excellently sourced Wikipedia article:
Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. In a radio interview with Dennis Miller, Paul claimed that environmental protection has failed under collectivistic countries he feels have not respected private property, and spoke of the effects of private ownership as envisaged by the libertarian:
"The environment is better protected under private property rights .... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property .... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us .... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."[147]
He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[148]
In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China.[149] He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[11] Rather than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[11] He also sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[150] Paul believes that nuclear energy is an alternative that should be considered, because it is a clean and efficient fuel and could help with powering efficient electric cars.[11]
Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp production and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue. Hemp can be used in producing sustainable biofuels.[151] This would help North Dakota in particular; the state has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[151]
Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in New England. A Saudi-owned lobbying group spent more than $1.5 million lobbying Congress since 1998 to limit their liability for the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), for which cleanup costs in New England would be billions. The bill included $1.8 billion for federally-funded cleanup of New England municipalities and another $2 billion to give to companies to help them phase out the additive. The provision was inserted into President Bush's energy bill of January 2004 by Majority Leader Tom DeLay; the bill also included federal subsidies for oil, coal and gas. The Saudi company said that they should not be liable because they had been required to use an additive and it was more expensive to use the other possible additive, ethanol, in New England. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the measure was a "gift horse" for the Saudi-owned company and would subsidize foreign oil regimes in a bill meant to reduce dependence on foreign oil.[152][153][154]
Here's the link so you can fact-check yourself before posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul