Lead us to energy security

Ron, anyone who disagrees with today's libs are evil and hateful, how can they be treated with respect?

who edits this paper carl rove or michell bachmann?

Well, Ron Feole, do YOU have enough experience in foreign affairs to challenge him?

Dave,
I wrote a tainted last year on this very same subject. I signaled to make a left hand turn up in Lino Lakes, and as I was attempting to excecute my turn, a white car passed me on the the left, thus endangering my life. I want so very much to ride my motorcycle this year, but I am afraid to take it out in fear of getting into an accident. There are just way too many idiots out on the road who won't take responsibility for their own actions, and never will. I called the police about 4 months ago on a motorist that almost ran me over walking in the parking lot. She was on the cell phone. The cop said that is the majority of their complaints. I then told him if I ever am involved in an accident because of some idiot on a cell phone, the first thing I would do is grab the cell phone and smash it on the ground. Do you know what the cop said to me. He said he didn't blame me (interesting). Dave, I am not worried about you as you are probably a very safe motorcyclist, but I am worried about all the other idiots on the road. Be safe!

Re: "DEBATING PROGRESSIVISM"

The letter-writer suggests that since few people understand this debate, that valuable editorial space has been wasted.

Since this is a large part of the ongoing political debate currently raging, the more educating of the uninformed public the better! There are many who rail endlessly about Progressives, but have no idea what actual Progressives stand for -- they make up patchwork bogeymen and argue against their own creations. It is easy to invent your own bandits to fit your existing ammunition! No creative thought required.

Besides, should Ignorance be the template that designs newspaper content? Why report on medical advances, nuclear power issues, the Middle East, or stem-cell research since these subjects are not widely understood? The editors could just deal with the weather, road destruction updates, and sports.

Oh, wait. Does EVERYONE know a halfback from a fullback? A setter from a spiker? A driver from a chipper? Better leave sports out -- too complicated!

Would a hamburger or cup of coffee constitute a "hand held device"?

How many times had GWB left the country before getting elected? Are the standards changing now?

Gndydncr wrote:

Would a hamburger or cup of coffee constitute a "hand held device"?

You do have a good point.

Mark Hanlon makes claims about oil reserves that are mind-bogglingly wrong. Even the U.S. Geological Survey says at least 96 years with others claiming to 150 years. Why does the paper even print garbage like this that they know is completely bogus?

Ken Peterson probably doesn't realize that 'progressive/Democrat' thought hasn't been exposed for what it really is...regressive. Progressive, by it's 'new' definition, really is socialism when you analyze the processes applied and the outcomes. The idea of supporting the needs of others through government 're-distribution of personal property' violates the Constitution and our root moral values. Progressives are moral-relativists who justify their behaviors by rationalizing their beliefs for the situation they are dealing with. This allows anyone to justify any behavior that 'want' to believe is acceptable by their own standards. Progressives are then, by definition, amoral and self-righteous.

me in st paul wrote:

How many times had GWB left the country before getting elected? Are the standards changing now?

The standards are indeed changing. Once President Obama is sworn in next January, this country will actually HAVE standards again.

Let the healing of America begin!

JayDee wrote:

<quoted text>
The standards are indeed changing. Once President Obama is sworn in next January, this country will actually HAVE standards again.
Let the healing of America begin!

The only change we'll see is a change in the occupants of the the white house -- no matter who's elected, it will still be "business as usual".

John - St Paul wrote:

Ken Peterson probably doesn't realize that 'progressive/Democrat' thought hasn't been exposed for what it really is...regressive. Progressive, by it's 'new' definition, really is socialism when you analyze the processes applied and the outcomes. The idea of supporting the needs of others through government 're-distribution of personal property' violates the Constitution and our root moral values. Progressives are moral-relativists who justify their behaviors by rationalizing their beliefs for the situation they are dealing with. This allows anyone to justify any behavior that 'want' to believe is acceptable by their own standards. Progressives are then, by definition, amoral and self-righteous.

Why is it amoral to support the needs of other individuals, but perfectly OK to support the needs of Halliburton, British Petroleum, United Health ....

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it amoral to support the needs of other individuals, but perfectly OK to support the needs of Halliburton, British Petroleum, United Health ....

I didn't know anybody was doing that.

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't know anybody was doing that.

None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it amoral to support the needs of other individuals, but perfectly OK to support the needs of Halliburton, British Petroleum, United Health ....

Are you suggesting that the government is simply handing money over to Halliburton, British Petroleum, United Health...(anybody else on your hate list?)... and not getting anything at all in return. In other words, all they have to do is exist and the government throws money at them. Come on!

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that the government is simply handing money over to Halliburton, British Petroleum, United Health...(anybody else on your hate list?)... and not getting anything at all in return. In other words, all they have to do is exist and the government throws money at them. Come on!

Yes, we are! Billions to Halliburton in no=bid contracts that no one oversees --millions of tax dollars wasted by the few reports I've seen. Tax loopholes for Big Oil that Congress can't seem to plug -- you get the idea.

Why is corporate welfare perfectly acceptable to conservatives, but give some single parent a few hundred dollars a month to raise a child and we get a firestorm of ire? You cry "but they didn't earn it like I do," but what do you get for your money when Halliburton charges double or more the going rate for a truck convoy in Iraq -- double what other local haulers are charging? That is, local -- in Iraq, now -- haulers that have the same security issues that Halliburton cites as the reason for the cost issue?

Your vision is highly selective!

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, we are! Billions to Halliburton in no=bid contracts that no one oversees --millions of tax dollars wasted by the few reports I've seen. Tax loopholes for Big Oil that Congress can't seem to plug -- you get the idea.
Why is corporate welfare perfectly acceptable to conservatives, but give some single parent a few hundred dollars a month to raise a child and we get a firestorm of ire? You cry "but they didn't earn it like I do," but what do you get for your money when Halliburton charges double or more the going rate for a truck convoy in Iraq -- double what other local haulers are charging? That is, local -- in Iraq, now -- haulers that have the same security issues that Halliburton cites as the reason for the cost issue?
Your vision is highly selective!

I don't believe you.

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe you.

None are so deaf that will NOT hear.

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
None are so deaf that will NOT hear.

What did you say?