Why does Rebecca Powell have a column on NewWest? Not at all insightful, or even interesting.

Sassy? I call it out of touch with real Americans. Obama promises TAX CUTS for 95% of Americans but she stands their and LIES that McCain will cut taxes. This is NOT TRUE, unless your one of McCain and Geogre W's millionaire buddies.

Don't take a 10% chance on change with McCain. I'll take the 90% chance with Obama thank you very much.

I think she was sassy, funny, and showed her support for the RNC hot topic issues. She did manage to rouse the crowd and certainly ruffled some feathers on the other side. To me that is the most interesting part. If she were truly viewed as an inexperienced non-threat, why are the democrats in such an uproar?

I'm still unsure where my vote will land, but last nights speech didn't turn me off. It was mostly what I expected, but I was surprised to feel as much of a connection to her as I do. I disagree on her abortion views and am concerned about the so called "trooper-gate". I'm waiting to see what if anything will happen with that story.

Sarah Palin is a wonderfully positive woman who will inspire many to reach for all that they can achieve. It is sad to see the media try to destroy this woman by pointing out every flaw they can find, flaws that we all have in our own personal histories. It was so uplifting to hear her defend herself and her family in such a forceful way. As for Trooper-gate, Biden's propensity to plagiarize the works of others speaks to his lack of character and is very worrisome. Also, if the media would investigate Biden's sons and the advantage they have had in their lobbying efforts, because of their dad's position in the Senate, or Biden's and Obama's connection or Rezko in Chicago, we would all be informed.

McCain’s choice to choose Sarah Palin was inspired. At long last McCain has my vote and the votes possibly millions of conservatives like me that had many fundamental problems with McCain’s centrist legislative style, I hope Governor Palin can pound some sense into him. I was afraid I was going to have to write in Newt Gingrich as I did in the Idaho Primary.

A powerful and articulate woman with guts and conviction, now wonder Democrats hate her so much; she is their worst nightmare. It is going to be entertaining to watch the incompetent liberal media try to articulate how their empty suit candidate, Obama, is more experienced and ready to lead.

As I saw it, the two biggest energy moments of the night for GOP faithful were:

1) The complete, childish mocking of "community organizer." Funny thing, no matter how you vote, "community organizers" do a lot of great work in this country and everyone knows it and appreciates it. Heck, isn't being on the PTA (where Palin got her start) really part of the "community organizer" family? How about delivering meals to the elderly? How about taking part in a big brothers/big sisters program? How about looking to clean up your neighborhood from crime, drugs, pollution? How about working as a tutor in your local school? Will the GOP faithful mock these examples of "community organizing?"

Last time I checked, "community organizers" (no matter how they vote) work day and night for little, if any, pay to make their communities better. So because Obama finished collage (it's my understanding that he earned scholarships) and instead of going to work for a big DC law firm he came back home to Chicago and helped working people who were down on their luck recover from steel plant closings and economic turmoil we should be mocking him and all "community organizers?" Seems pretty childish to me. I wonder how this played outside the walls of the GOP convention, especially with all those TV viewers who actually know the great and meaningful things that community organizers do for our communities and country.

2) The very general energy policy talk, by both Rudy and Gov Palin, (including mentioning how we can't drill our way out of the problem) was followed by the male-dominated chant, "Drill Baby Drill...Drill Baby Drill...." Enough said.

While these might have been the biggest energy moments of the night for those who attended the convention, I seriously doubt that these moments played nearly as well across the country.

Matthew brings up a good point. Does anyone know a community organizer? Is that a term that has personal resonance in the West?

Well, few of us know what kind of community organizer Obama was, could you tell us? Was it the PTA? Was he part of meals on Wheels? Know one seems to know, yet that is his claim to organizing experience. I really do want to know what it is he did in the community, who or what he organized.

Here Schrems . . . I would bet there is more out there . . .

"After college, he worked for Christian churches in Chicago, helping communities devastated when steel plants closed. Obama turned down lucrative job offers after law school to return to Chicago, leading a successful voter registration drive."

From the Obama Campaign Website

Schrems: A simple google search and you could have found the answer for yourself. When you read the information below, keep in mind the mocking, childish behavior from the GOP faithful last night over "community organizer." I mean, being the director of a successful, faith-based program that provides south-side Chicago residents job training and college prep tutoring, while helping to ensure tenants' rights just smacks of elitism, doesn't it?

This is from Wikipedia:

Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.

During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.

Matt, Rebecca, you are free to follow a community organizer/legislator that has only authored one bill, the <a >Global Poverty Act</a>, (a terribly reckless and expensive bill) if that is accomplishment enough for you, that is your choice. I will follow A proven Senate leader with a lengthly track record and a proven administrator of a state that has been administered in such a way that Governor Sarah Palin has earned the approval of 80% of the people of Alaska.

When I follow I want to know what I am following

Matthew,
If you do a google search for Annenberg project and read the final report, you will see that the program directed by Obama was a failure, it was not successful, etc. So, it appears his only claim to fame, did not succeed. Why would this experience recommend him to be president of the United States?

Oh Daryl, please don't misunderstand. I am still very much weighing the two candidates. My vote is not yet cast. I appreciate your comments here.

Schrems: You say, "It is sad to see the media try to destroy this woman by pointing out every flaw they can find, flaws that we all have in our own personal histories."

Is it not equally sad that Barack Obama and his family are facing the same destroying effects of the conservative media outlets? I hear so much about the liberal news media, and it's crap. For every liberal, there's a conservative. Give me a non-biased media, please!

Rebecca:
Seeing her speak hammered home your point about "knowing" this type. I think she could be someone I'd admire. My vote is not cast either, but I am leaning a little more heavily back to my D roots. Despite her rhetorical prowess, I still can't get behind her logos. The pathos and ethos swayed me as a mother and a patriot, but when she blundered in her list of "look at all the countries I've practiced in my discussion of energy," she lost me. I did appreciate her "difference between a pit bull and hockey mom" joke, and I think she means well, but she didn't hook me because I've read enough of the background to know that she's fudging it a bit when she talks of fiscal reform that she's implemented.

I have revised my "is McCain insane" stance. This woman is an inspired choice. If I weren't so well trained to spot the b.s. in rhetoric, I might have fallen under her spell last night.

Oh and Kim:

Don't click on her link if you're not interested. There's no need to be an asshat.

Y Choate:

When the media start picking apart Michelle and Barack's personal life, whether their children are actually their children, demand DNA etc., then we'll talk about media coverage.

I'm a 62 year old women who taught college history for many years. I have published two books about women, one about women in politics. In researching all that women have accomplished from equal right to suffrage, very few women have inspired other women as successfully as Sarah Palin. She demonstrates all that women can accomplished. I thought it was terrible what the Democrats did to Hillary, she should be the nominee of the Democratic party, not Obama. But, Hillary is your "typical" politician, doing everything the good ol boy way. That is what seems to be so exciting about Sarah, she truly is showing every women what is possible in our country. I'm not naive enough to think that Sarah doesn't know how to play the political game, she must if it is true how she reform government in Alaska. At the end of the day, I hope she has the strength to fight back against those who will try to destroy her. It may be that the Obama/Biden ticket will win in November, if it does, I hope it is because the American people see those two as more experienced and better able to lead this country. How disillusioning it will be if they win because of the dirt that is thrown at them, they know that if you throw enough dirt, it will eventually stick, meaning the American people believed the lies.

It is going to be a tough road for Sarah Palin, we have already seen the attacks on her for silly reasons. She is class all of the way, and sure a breath of fresh air from the usual run of politicians....on top of which she has actually done something.
As for Obama, it is hard to find anything he has actually done, his stint as a community organizer tells us nothing, there are absolutely no specifics, including how much money he made. Yet he was able to pay well over a million dollars for a house in a very brief amount of time. Do we know exactly how long he did that? What exactly did he accomplish during that time....himself? We need to remember she is running for the number 2 spot, the same as Biden, not the number 1, the same as Obama.

Marion: "...his stint as a community organizer tells us nothing, there are absolutely no specifics...."

Ah, Marion, did you actually read what's out there about his time as a community organizer?

Let's see. Director of the Developing Communities Project. As director Obama grew the staff from 1 to 13 and increased its annual budget nearly 6 fold. (oh my...careful now...that almost sounds like "executive" experience).

Let's see, accomplishments include: a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens (You know, Altgeld Gardens...one of those public housing projects...in fact, the first one in the nation...where all those rich, east coast elitists live).

Marion, if you have information that counters any of this, I'd love to see it...otherwise...

Kim,
It seems you are the one who lacks insight, as you have nothing to bring to the table but your negative banter. Maybe you should step outside of your self-centered universe long enough to realize that maybe YOU are the uninteresting one! Better yet, maybe this is the only pathetic way you are able to get attention by downgrading the efforts of someone else.

Marion has also wondered how much money made as a community organizer...you know, because community organizers are typically paid millions and millions of dollars to do nothing...This August 2007 US News & World Report article (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070826/3obama.htm) includes this info:

"Jerry Kellman, a social activist who recruited Obama, recalls, "He was very bright, very articulate, very personable, and very idealistic," inspired by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.'s philosophy of nonviolence. Kellman offered Obama a job at the annual salary of $10,000, and he threw in $2,000 so Obama could buy a ramshackle car to get around."

Yeah, those liberals not only don't care about poor folk and improving communities, but on top of it they sooooooo clearly make a killing doing it. I mean, $10,000 annual salary plus a few grand for a car...who does this Obama think he is? Thurston Howell III?

Matthew,

could you please elaborate more the "Developing Communities Project?" What does that mean? Like I said in another post, the final reports from these projects are not encouraging, it appears, that the projects were not successful. I would also like to know where the money came from for these projects? They sound quite "loafty," when in reality they read like boondoggles.

Y - I love your rhetorical argument. Rhetorical training makes it hard to watch any political speech, but also a ton of fun.

Rebecca Powell, I enjoy reading your column on New West. You are insightful and very interesting . Kim doesn't know what she is talking about.Keep up the good work!

Matthew, the fact remains he was able to spend a million dollars plus for a home a few years later. Where did that money come from? His salary as an Illinois legislator? 150,000 his wife earned would not be enough to qualify.

Ok, Marion, the Obama family appears to have spent a little over a million dollars to purchase their family home...and your point is? Far as I can tell, both of the Obama's have worked during their adult years. At first, you seem to infer that Obama made a killing as a community organizer, which is just laughable and you've been proven wrong about that. Now you seem to be inferring foul play because a family - after 20 plus years of working - is able to afford a house that's currently worth about a million dollars. Big deal Marion. Have you actually looked into real estate prices in places like Chicago, NY, DC, SF? It's not like it's 1950 when a million dollar home was indeed a lot of money for a house. Heck, my 970 square foot house is currently worth nearly a 1/3 of a million dollars. Again, what's your point? And how does this help us deal with our significant economic and global problems?

BTW: U.S. unemployment rate hits a five-year high...
Jobless rate rose to 6.1 percent in August...employers cut 84,000 jobs @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26558445/. Shouldn't we be worrying more about this?

He had to have either cash or income adequate to qualify for a loan....or at least that is generally the rule.
I worked as a professional for a good many years, but I could never qualify for a million dollar loan, and the houe was over a million when he bought it.

Again, Marion...your point is?????? How dare the Obamas' work and purchase a home for their family?? Since you worked as an undefined "professional" for an undefined "good many years" and couldn't get a loan for a million dollar home nobody else should or possibly could? Heck, my brother makes nearly 10 times more money than I make annually yet his home in Milwaukee is worth over 50% less than my home in Missoula...and that proves what exactly? Seriously, it's not 1950 anymore Marion, except maybe in your mind...you simply can't purchase a home for $8,500, especially not in markets such as Chi, NY, DC, SF, etc. Get over it and try and move onto issues that are actually affecting people, such as lost jobs, no health care for tens of millions, what to do about our $10 billion monthly bill for Bush's invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation (on top of the nearly $1 trillion spent), etc, etc.

My point is that one has to earn a certain level of income to qualify for a loan of a given amount. No one with a 10 or even 12,000 income can get a loan for a million dollars. What is a US congressmen's salary now $200,000? Her's was $150,000, I don't believe even that combination equals a loan of more than a million dollars. Where is the income coming from to qulaify for that kind of loan?
I will grant you that I am suspicious of Chicago politicians.

Marion, What does Obama making $10,000 as a community organizer in 19-F'in-85 have to do with his ability to purchase a home 20 plus years later? Seriously, Marion...??? When my wife and I went to get our home loan 6 years ago they seemed more concerned about what we were making currently and not what I made as a paper delivery boy in 1985 or what I made my first year out of college.

And I'll make the big assumption that your numbers are correct in the second part of your comment...ie that the Obamas' recent combined annual income is about $350,000. Given the fact that over the past few years mortgage companies were giving out home loans for hundreds of thousands of dollars to people with little income, I fail to see how a possible loan for a million dollar home to a family with an annual income of $350,000 is some big impropriety.

But again, Marion, why don't you put "country first" and try and help solve pressing issues that are actually affecting people, such as lost jobs, no health care for tens of millions, what to do about our $10 billion monthly bill for Bush's invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation (on top of the nearly $1 trillion spent), etc, etc.

Matthew ~
You say - solve problems like lost jobs, no health care for tens of millions, what to do about our $10 billion monthly bill for Bush's invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation.

Pelosi, Obama and all the other "don't drill here" idiots are going to cause the economy to crash because they are inhibiting the oil supply (less oil = higher price), because of them the economy is getting worse. If you don’t have a job, kick out an alien. Want higher oil prices – don’t drill and elect a democrat.

Health care is unaffordable because we sue the crap out of the medical industry, and illegal aliens don't pay their annual 65 billion dollar bill. If you want to fix Health Care stop the lawsuits and kick out the aliens, don't give us that crappy socialized medicine, I have a chronic disease and I can't afford the free health care that will bankrupt the pharmaceutical companies until after they find my cure.

Thanks to the troop surge we are winning in Iraq, Obama copped to that last night on O’Reilly. Al Qaeda has one less base of operation - only forty more to go.

I was going to switch my 401k and the children's 529 College Savings Plan from stocks to CD's when the dems took over congress in 2006, I sure wish I had done so.

No one under forty has experienced a bad economy (we don't have one yet) and everyone is so fat dumb and happy that their minds dwell in idealistic hope instead of reality. The coming depression/recession will bring these kids back to earth and show them that an economy is nothing to mess with in a careless way and the coming crash will actually be good for America’s soul. Hard times hone wisdom.

For the foreseeable future oil will fuel this country not the hot wind out of Washington!

Daryl_
Gas prices will not go down whether we drill offshore or not. Get used to it. The economy is crashing not only due to high energy costs, but also to the lack of no free market in this country.
Aliens aren't charged annual bills.
Iran is a secular country and that is why Bin Laden and Saddam were mortal enemies. Al Quada was not in Iraq, oil was in Iraq.
And I didn't listen to enough Rush in 06 to even be familiar with that "talking point" What eva, did they deny a tax break or windfall tax credit to an oil company or something.
BTW you do realize that McCain considers a middle class person to make umm about 3 million dollars a year....Good on ya.

oats ~
So you intend to lower price by producing less oil?

Illegal aliens get 65 billion in free health care because they don't pay their bill one bill at a time the annual total averages $65 Billion. Then the medical industry has to get out of us.

The age-old philosophy of "My enemy is your enemy so I am your friend" binds Sunni and shih alike, if Bin Laden asked to borrow a 55-gallon drum of anthrax, saddam would have been thrilled to provide it.

Oats, you are full of it. Environmental groups are intent on bringing down our country, and breaking it in the process. google Earthjsutice. They have 139 lawsuits now pending against the federal government (which is us). In 2007 they received 2.7 million in awards for their expenses from the government (us) complements of their select jduges. That's right environmental groups have certain judges that rule for them 100% of the time, and those courts are where they file all of their cases. They are intent on either having control of the entire earth or destroy it, and believe me they own a good protion of it already. I believe TNC is the largest land owner in the world. Their assets are in the billions and we pay higher taxes becasue they pay none.
Environmental groups prevent drilling and they prevent the building of refineries, they prevent growing wheat by insisting that a mouse be protected in wheat fields, but who needs food right? They have prevented the building of 39 coal fired electrical plants and brag that they will keep filing and keep them from being built. This costs the indiviudal businesses millions to develop and bring the plans to the tabel. I am sure that the environmental judges awarded "expenses" to the enviro groups who had nothing invested and stopped them. So where are we going to get the electricity for the electric cars to make up for the fossil fuel we are not going to allow to be brought to the consumer?
It is really hard for me to believe that there are people who truly believe that we have not been attacked again just because the terrorists decided not to. We owe George Bush a huge debt and I am sure he will go back to Texas thankful that he did his best to protect an ungrateful country...and succeeded. History will marvel that anyone could have been so self centered and blind as to think it was all an accident that we were not attacked again....if we get past Monday unscathed.

Marion, As the executive director of a small non-profit group that holds the federal government accountable concerning public lands and wildlife management (sometimes through the judicial branch of our government...ie filing a lawsuit), I was wondering if you could provide me with the names of "judges that rule for us 100% of the time." One might assume I have some knowledge in this area, yet for the life of me I can't come up with any judge or court that rules for us 100% of the time.

Also, to put some context around your notion that "environmental judges" award money to environmental groups, everyone should know of a law called the Equal Access to Justice Act. When EAJA was enacted in the late 1970s it was done so at the request of business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and pushed through by Republican members of Congress. They felt that businesses were subjected to arbitrary regulations by the federal government and that certain businesses don't have the resources to fully litigate issues against the mighty federal government. However, Congress also extended the benefits of the EAJA to nearly all citizens or entities contesting unreasonable - and illegal - exercises of the federal government. The basic premise is that small businesses and citizens or citizen-groups should not have to pay legal fees when they successfully sue the federal government...or said another way, when they successfully hold the federal government accountable by preventing illegal activities. The more the federal government breaks or bends the law (as we've seen a fair amount of on many issues under the Bush Administration) the more the federal government pays in EAJA fees. If the federal government follows the laws of this nation, there are no lawsuits and no EAJA fees. Not sure if you'll be interested in those facts or history of EAJA, but there they are. And remember, I look forward to reading your list the "judges that rule for environmental groups 100% of the time."

Yeah, Matt, but don't forget that EAJA was never intended, nor were all the laws such as NEPA, CWA, NFMA, FLPMA, APA, et cetera ad nauseam, to be a gravy train for briefcase terrorists.
I've talked to a good number of white-haired upper Forest Service people who directly worked on the NFMA. They wanted to do the right thing, as public servants, but to a man (hey this was before Title Nine) when I ask them, did you ever imagine the situation would be as it is now, every single one pauses, says "no," pauses again and then gives a version of "never in my wildest dreams."
I doubt any judge could be said to rule for "your" side one hundred percent of the time. But when eighty bazillion allegations are thrown up in the air and one, just ONE sticks to the ceiling, EAJA kicks in and the lawyers get paid for the entire lawsuit. So if Judge Molloy has ten counts before him and just throws you a bone on one minor count, JACKPOT! The project is halted until it is "modified," putting a whole lot of good and necessary things aside. What a DEAL.
Finally, I think your collective opposition to the Middle East Fork project was shameful. I hope you have the guts to face the public when it burns.

Matthew, 2 of the judges I have googled are Judge Malloy and Judge Winmill of the 9th District court in Missoula. I cannot find any ruling against any environmental group that has filed suit in their court.
I beleive that environmental groups filed all of the lawsuits trying to ban snowmobilers from Yellowstone Washington DC, rather than locally. Bet that increased their take for "expenses".
Now turn about is fair play, perhaps you could tell us what lawsuits your group has filed and what courts your have filed in, and how much money you got as a result. What group do you represent, or are you willing to tell us?
I started looking into this seriously when Judge Malloy reinstated protection of the wolves. We were supposed to have to raise 300 in the 3 states, we now have some 2000 or more, but there si no DNA to prove the wolves are breeding bak and forth adequately. More tax dollars please!!!!!

Dave: People who make sure the federal government follows the law and best science when managing public lands (something the Bush Administration has had a difficult time doing) are "briefcase terrorists?" That's a good one and says a lot about your perspective.

You're correct that there was "collective opposition" to the Middle East Fork project, the first "Healthy Forest" project in Montana. That opposition came from some local people who live up the East Fork, local fishing guide, hunters, former Forest Service rangers and biologists and a fair number of PhD faculty from the U of Montana's much respected School of Forestry and Conservation. This was in addition to opposition from our organization, WildWest Institute, and Friends of the Bitterroot.

Our concern with this project primarily centered around the fact that the FS was cutting large trees in designated old growth (much of it surrounded by clearcuts from the 1970s/80s) and much of the area was far below the standard concerning soil disturbance, compaction, etc. Also, much of the most egregious logging, in our view, was taking place far from homes, up to 4 miles away.

However, as I've pointed out to your many time in the NW comments section, the "collective opposition" favored a local plan to conduct fuel reduction on 1,600 acres through logging and burning. This plan would have employed about 50 local people and put nearly $1 million into the local economy.

Our lawsuit did not stop the project as you are incorrectly inferring in your comment. The logging has been on-going for nearly two years; however, because of the housing market collapse and low lumber prices the contractors have been delaying much of the work hoping for better economic conditions (that may never come, in my opinion).

If the East Fork of the Bitterroot burns, as it has for thousands of years, it will have nothing to do with me. However, you can bet I'll continue to hunt elk in the recently burned forests of the East Fork. And you lecturing me about guts? That's a good one Dave.

Marion: I'm going to enjoy the rest of my Saturday evening, but you're once again stating things as fact when you don't know what you're talking about. I'd estimate that Molloy has ruled against us 80-90% of the time over the last five years. He is routinely over-ruled; however. I'm not sure what the estimate would be for all environmental litigation, but it's certainly not 100% ruling in enviros favor as you state. Seriously, Marion, where do you get this stuff? I've posted in other NW comments sections a listing of WIldWest's current lawsuits. Search the achieves, I'm sure it's there and I'm going to eat dinner. As for EAJA, it only allows for recovery of fees (such as attorney fees, filing fees, copying fees). The notion that our organization makes money on lawsuits is incorrect, but that doesn't stop people from saying it.

Daryl - Gas prices will not go down, whether we drill off shore or not. Period. It's a control issue, the fact that both you and Marion jump to the conclusion that one must be an environmentalist to be able to figure this out about the past eight years shows that you have not been paying attention. Turn off the radio, walk away from the large bald pain killer addict and take a good look around at what is really going on. Don't assume that I am not a conservative, or that I am an environmentalist, that would be like taking everything Bill O'reilly says for granted.

Oats ~

Please explain how having less oil will help us.

We are in security trouble because we depend on people that hate us for our energy, we need to develop all the oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, etc. so that we quit enriching.

T. Boon Pickins seems to be on the right track. Wall street has backed out of oil speculation since bush rescinded the executive order of Clintons barring off shore oil drilling and reluctantly Pelosi has said she will allow a vote (that will pass) to do the same in congress consequently the price of oil dropped because speculators anticipate that soon there will be more of it. OPEC, afraid they may loose their strangle hold on us if we develop our own resources is increasing production. OPEC crude oil production is expected to rise to 32.9 million barrels during the third quarter of 2008, up from 32.3 million barrels in the second quarter. The forecast assumes that Saudi Arabia will maintain its July 9.7 million bbl/d production level through the third quarter, representing a 400,000-barrel rise from second quarter levels.

Hey – there is more of it, and much to the chagrin of you Al Gore sycophants, we are threatening to develop more of our own resources so the price IS DROPPING, and can continue to do so as long as organizations like Mathew’s realize that our economy is more important than a tree.

Because of growing ethanol production, crude oil net imports are expected to fall by 240,000 barrels and petroleum product net imports by 400,000 barrels in 2008. Total net imports of crude oil and petroleum products, which peaked at 60.3 percent of total petroleum consumption in 2005, are expected to fall to 56.4 percent and 54.5 percent, respectively, of total consumption in 2008 and 2009.

Oats – speculators aren’t expecting for their to be less oil so it is no longer the speculation vehicle it was since the democrats took over congress, that is only because Americans are getting really pissed off every time they fill up.

Oats and Mathew – you see the corporate” double bottom line” is a business term used in socially responsible enterprise and investment. While all businesses have a conventional bottom line to measure their fiscal performance—financial profit or loss—enterprises which seek a second bottom line look to measure their performance in terms of positive social impact, a Social Return on Investment if you will, Todd Wilkins wrote an article and published here a couple of years ago about this. Well folks when we remove their profit by raising their expenses the first adjustment in the new operating procedure will be elimination of the luxury of the second bottom line.

Supply and Demand – you must start to understand! Oh I forgot I am addressing folks that probably have need less bumper stickers on their Prius.

Along with supply and demand is another business sense, passing the cost of development onto the consumer so that that the entity can make money. What will the cost of developing off shore cost? Do you really think the oil companies are going to shoulder this cost? ummm, I doubt they will be that generous given the windfall profits they have gained in recent years. Heck, they've even gone so far as to take tax breaks on these profits ( what a wonderful social return on investment )Don't expect the price of gas to drop just because they drill a couple holes in Alaska. Sorry it isn't miraculously going to drop overnight. You yourself conceded to the fact that Osama really wasn't in Iraq, but we attacked because as you feel, Saddam would give him him antrax if he asked.(?) To this fear we have spent trillions of dollars both our money and borrowed from China lost multiple lives to wind up where. OH Drill baby drill. That's right there is one common denominator here, it doesn't require fancy rhetoric or speculation to figure that out.
BTW you should research the current administrations legislation regarding corporations and positive social impact. I think you just went to bat for the other team.

Oats, I don't know where you studied economics, but common sense should tell you that supply and demand are key elements of anything. The fact is once we got congress full of Dems that have to do the bidding of enviros gas prices nearly doubled.
The price has dropped since President Bush announced his removal of the Executive order banning off shore drilling. The Dems are now on the horns of a dilemma, the enviros are steadfastly against any drilling to provide fuel for everyday Americans. However the American people are demanding drilling stronger and stronger every day. If they give in and drill, the environmentalists will retaliate big time, it is easier to watch the common people suffer rather than buck the enviros who keep them in power.
I think we saw how knowledgeable Pelosi is when she said we cannot have more fossil fuel, we have to switch to natural gas. Obviously she is not aware that natural gas comes out of the ground via drilling rigs too. Search for the Pinedale anti-cline and see.
I can tell you one thing that is not in dispute insisting on keeping more oil from being produced in this country will definitely NOT bring prices down.
Gee Matthew, did we lose you, I thought you'd be real anxious to post your 11 lawsuits in the 9th District Court and the 9 others and tell us the results including monetary awards.

Once again my point has nothing to do with supply and demand it relates to the infrastructure required for offshore drilling and the expense of providing that infrastructure. The cost of the infrastructure will maintain the current levels irregardless of the supply produced for an estimated 15 years until paid off gallon by gallon that you pump. Yes you! You are foolish to believe that you too will not bear the cost of this, what company does not bear the cost of overhead on the end user? In addition, if this has so much to do with supply and demand in and of itself how would the announcement of offshore drilling bring the price down immediately? Additional supply has not been produced. Deductive reasoning would attribute this to a shell game, where those whom listen to elliptical arguments and are pursuaded by them live in fear. Fears such as if we don't stop the environmentalists we will suffer. Or the illegal aliens or whatever. If this is truly about supply and demand not unscrupulos powers controlling the supply, why are you all not happy that the enviros are riding bikes, driving Prius', taking the bus or carpooling. Together those action are decreasing demand. And if there are so many of them out there why isn't there any affect to them decreasing this demand. Obviously they aren't that big of a threat to you if gas prices haven't been impacted by the hordes of them making your life miserable. Or maybe the recent drop in prices are attributed to their decrease in demand not the simple announcement of an act that has no current tangible affect on supply. And need I ask, if supply and demand are the only issues affectint gasoline prices, what steps are you personally taking to decrease your demand and lower prices for the common people?

Marion, I also forgot to ask, what exactly did the democrats do that increased the price of gas? Be specific here. And please don't smatter the answer with offshore drilling, gas prices were on the increase prior to them being a majority, there was no off-shore drilling to begin with, what happened that they did that affected our current supplies? I mean seriously. Also, do you know how many of our current refineries are working? How many are not currently in use? Could they potentially be in use? And why they are not currently being utilized?

There are certain expenses that go with obtaining oil irregardless of where that oil is located. It will always be cheaper to obtain our own oil that to purchase it from other countries and pay the shipping....and safer too.
The reason prices came down was the speculators were not going to anticipate ever climbing prices if there is a chance of increasing our supplies, so they quit bidding higher and higher. They anticipate increased supply which will force prices down. The democrats support the no drill policy of the enviros. I have no problems with those who ride bikes, drive cars getting high mileage etc, but as we all know, not all do that. And of course Mr. Gore is the poster child for conspicuous consumption, and I am well aware that you guys hate for me to mention that.

Marion #1 if it is so much cheaper to obtain oil where it is located, than why aren't we currently tapping into the available 40.92 billon barrels currently available with no ban for leasing and development in the gulf of Mexico? USGS, claims that it would be at least 10 years before a test well could even be dug offshore anywhere, and in Alaska, highly doubtful that a pipeline to transport it would be constructed and available that soon. How can something that is a minimum 10 years off, help us today, why aren't we utilizing our current reserves?
The reason speculators stopped anticipating prices is because the commodity market regulators are conducting an investigation into whether there has been false information injected into the market and what precisely is the number of leased oil tankers currently off shore harboring oil ( a known practice since the 70's ) to make it look like there is less oil available on the ground. Speculation became more conservative shortly after the congressional hearing questioning such practices was aired on CSPAN. More than likely the investigation is NOT being led by a non-environmental conservative Marion.
Oil consumption in the US is down approximately 800,000 barrels a day in the US in the past year alone. Less demand may also be bringing prices down.
Or I can play your way, the republicans announced to lift a ban on offshore drilling. Whew! Prices dropped, umm, this only goes to show that if prices can fall based on speculation of a simple announcement without additional drilling , we ARE being fooled by the oil companies. Kind of like it dropped right before the election in 2004 and oh, again in 2006. You don't say.

Then why the resistance to drilling offshore, if it will not affect anything for years? Because the enviros say they won't stand for it and the dems are up mud crick if they antagonize the enviros.

Marion, You are obviously more intent on degrading environmentalists and making elliptical arguments tying the Democrats to them than addressing any pertinent facts. Thank you for playing.

the oil is not "ours" it was never "ours" and it will never be "ours". it is owned and controlled by bush's buddies both here and in the middle east. they set prices as they see fit. they own the oil marion. so mccain is lying to you when he tells you that drilling will solve the oil crisis. he is lying to you to get your vote so his buddy bush's friends can continue to gouge you for whatever they want. and you are playing right into their hands. they are only interested in getting you to pay as much as you will bear for "their" oil. it's an old game learned centuries ago in europe- tell the peasants what they want to hear and keep them fighting amongst themselves so that the aristocracy can steal everything that is not nailed down. that is the free market in america under bush and mccain. whatever the traffic will bear.

Environmentalists ~ the law of supply and demand is like the law of gravity - an unchangeable constant.

You environmentalists may understand this a little better. In November Marijuana is cheaper than it is in August. You see November is right after harvest and there is much more of it hence marijuana is cheaper. By August (one toke over the line) Al Gore, the earth firsters, George Norry listeners and the flat earth society have smoked up most of it hence there is less of it on the market therefore there are more smokers want the smaller amount of marijuana available so the price goes up. If there is a crop failure or like when the feds introduced helicopters into the interdiction process it also creates a shortage followed immediately by a price hike driven by supply and demand.

Environmentalists – do you now better understand the law of supply and demand?

Oats ~ I will gladly absorb the capitol expenditure of the price of offshore oil derricks, that is the way the free markets work. Somebody produces something then they mark it up a certain percentage then it goes on the market, then the consumers buys it or choose not to.

I guess that this is a tough concept for those that think socialized medicine is a good idea.

problembear, that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. I seriously doubt he even owns the oil that might be beneath the ground where he lives.
Now if he owns mutual funds that include oil companies I suppose you can make the case in a rather far stretched manner, but you can make the same case for millions of us that own mutual funds.
On the other hand Pelosi and her husband have invested in T. Boone Pickens natural gas companies. That is why she is in favor of natural gas....even though she isn't bright enough to realize that it is obtained by drilling rigs too.

Jeez darryl thanks for your great analogy ROFLMAO. Just to let you know, I am a farmer (oats, get it ), not an environmentalist. I probably know twice as much as you do about supply and demand. Pretty simple concept really. Unfotunately Daryl there is more to the issue than supply and demand, but obviously you are stuck on page one of the document. Press further. BTW OPEC publishes a brief version of their minutes on the internet, perhaps you could learn a little something about oil and supply and demand from there.
Speaking of Marijuana did you know Palin smoked pot?

Daryl here is a link you may be interested in reading:
http://www.opec.org/opecna/commentaries/2008/Comm022008.htm

Oats ~
OPEC says: “The clear message from the 147th meeting of OPEC was that the world should not be concerned about the supply of oil. There is plenty available and OPEC Member Countries are also accelerating plans to bring on-stream new projects, so as to respond to future demand.”

Oats – I guess in February when the article was written oil was $103.00 per barrel, that was the perfect amount of oil on the market for them to make $103.00 per barrel, a good thing for OPEC. I don’t think that I like OPEC deciding how much oil the world should have. You see Oats OPEC was founded on the principle of controlling the price of oil by coordinating production between members to avoid flooding the market which could and has dropped the price.

In 1973, OPEC countries were able to completely wrest pricing controls away from Western companies, after an Arab oil embargo disrupted distribution and triggered panic buying. The resulting "Oil Shock" sent prices soaring, with the cost of a barrel quadrupling to $11.50 by 1974.

The second "Oil Shock" came during the 1979 revolution in Iran, which was then the number two oil seller after Saudi Arabia. Responding to fears that supplies may run out, Japanese buyers stocked up, sending the average price of a barrel to near $36. When Iraq invaded Iraq the next year, the price of a barrel hit $40 – a high mark that was not topped until the 1991 Gulf War.

Climbing prices in the early 1980s caused the West to produce more oil on its own, mainly in the North Sea. Fuel-saving concerns and a global recession sent demand way down and an oil glut resulted. By the mid-1980s oversupply grew to the breaking point and prices collapsed to less than $9 a barrel.

Since the unstable 1980s, OPEC has experimented with a variety of pricing structures and production quotas to help keep costs stable.

Oats – I am happy to hear that you aren’t an environmentalist ideologue and that you understand supply and demand. You alluded to the fact that I was stuck on page one of – supply and demand (101); maybe you can help me through page 2.

If oil prices go up dramatically does America’s corn, barley and oats growers reap more money per bushel because a higher demand for ethanol is created? If so, don’t you have a vested interest in an expedited oil shortage?

marion- sheep follow the lead sheep no matter where it leads. cattle follow each other to slaughter. some of us prefer to think for ourselves. republicans have ransacked this country long enough. show me one thing bush has done to help the middle class during his two terms. gas was 1.50 a gallon under clinton.
it is now 3.87 here in missoula. bush's friends don't just own the mutual funds- they own the the whole shootin match and they are not in business to see us get a great deal.they are in business to maximize their profits. and mccain has tagged along with bush every inch of the way. the only statements that look stupid to me are the ones parrotted by you and other right wing zealots too blind from GOP snow to see that you are being deceived into carrying the water for the wealthy elite 5% who now control over 85% of all assets. under clinton the top 5% controlled 55%. way to go bush. the rest of us split 15%. what a great deal huh, marion. just think if mccain succeeds in stealing the white house with more lies the top 5% will soon have it all.
by the way, mccain and his wife are in that category.

Daryl, If we were anywhere near an oil shortage it would make sense for companies to pursue the current open door leases in the gulf of Mexico. They don't want to, they make more money selling you oil from overseas and our leaders have the leaverage into leading the willing into believing the world is going to end on one issue elections. It will make no difference in our lifetime if they do open up ANWR, they have no intention of doing anything there anytime soon. It is a hot button that fools will get bothered by.
Personally I would rather be an environmentalist than a constitutionalist or a liberatarian. At least the environmentalist has big enough cajones to call BS on his or her own. The latter however are too easily fooled. They cast their default vote for the GOP which continues to strip their civil rights and liberties and then they are too ignorant to figure it out and blame everything on the enviros. In the meantime the GOP has a laugh riot because all they have to do to get their vote is make up a rumor that their opponent is going to take away their guns. Evidentially these types have no sense to realize this is a simple scare tactic. What a bunch of real men, huh. Maybe you should pick on them for a change.

It is usless to argue with anyone who doesn't believe there is a relationship between supply and prices. If you can convince yourselves that the more oil that is available the higher the prices there is no more that I can say.
Allow drilling and let us use our oil instead of competing with china et al, and watch prices drop.
The price of corn has gone sky high because we are trying to use it to replace oil, and there is now a shortage.
There is no doubt that the less we use the greater the supply to the market and the lower the prices. That will only last so long though before we see businesses closing down, & jobs declining, is that really what you guys want?
If you are proud to be an environmentalist, be proud enough to take responsibility for the results of the things you force on the rest of us.

Noone has denied supply and demand. I only asked why if there was such a shortage are we not already drilling our reserves off the gulf of Mexico? A question that you are unable or willing to answer. Although I do agree with Problembear, you are being bamboozled to the high heavens marion.

Oats, I have to admit I had not heard about any oil leases not being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico until you and problem mentioned it and I haven't' had tiem to investigate it. I do know that there has been a lot of noise about them not drilling on all of the leases they have on land, and that I do know about. Not all of it is on oil bearing formations. When the government sells leases they are bundled and some are known to be likely areas and some are known to not be likely or even just not to be period oil bearing formations. If I were making a guess I would imagine that would be the most likely reason they would not be drilling on leases they own. Do you have some specifics so I can do some research?
Not in the morning though, I am going to run up on the mountain and look for a bull moose again. I have some shots of him shedding from the other day, but we are supposed to have that thing called sun tomorrow. We haven't seen it for awhile.

Marion Here is a link detailing the oil fields in the lower 48 states.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

You may also find this interesting. Although is believed to be an even dirtier form of oil.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/aqx_p/7550?gclid=CIia7oLozZUCFRSO1QodlkSqig

Oats ~
Using your reasoning, why don't we open up ANWR because they won't drill there anyway.

Most people have never been there, I have, the northern plain of ANWR is such a miserable and ugly place it is only good for two things, energy production and prisons. If a prisoner spent very much time there at all they would never re-offend. We ought to put a dozen of them up there.

Marion- you are right - to reason with the unreasonable is a fools errand!

Daryl -

Who is more fool? The fool or the fool who follows the fool?

or a reasonably intelligent person who can judge for him/her self which candidate is likely to help the middle class and which candidate is likely to help the rich? on november 4th we will see who the fool is mr hunter. not before.

Problem bear ~

You said: a reasonably intelligent person who can judge for him/her self which candidate is likely to help the middle class and which candidate is likely to help the rich?

If you need free stuff Obama will give you some.

I'll go get my own stuff, but I better do it before Obama makes me pay for your stuff.

It is a shame that American's now believe that they need to be subsidized by the government. It is a shame that we know look at the successful as enemies. It depresses me to see half the country has its hand out. I drive a bus everyday as I try to become an entrepreneur at night, all I need is for the government to not tax away what little investment money I have.

I have a chronic disease and I don’t want a socialized medicine scheme bankrupting the medical research industry. Health care is for the reasons I stated on an earlier post on this thread, socialized medicine scheme will make things worse not better. The government doesn’t run anything right, i.e. social security, Medicare, the Veterans hospitals.

I qualify for s-chip for my children but I would rather keep them on the good employer provided group insurance that they are on now, but if my employer is paying for my s-chip government insurance he won’t want me on his plan. Good employer plans will go into the junk heap of history.

Fanny May and Freddy Mac sure helped us didn’t they – that’s what happens when the government gives you stuff.

Are the rich luckier than us? – Yes. Do most of us work for the rich guys? Yes.

When the economy is good rich guys make money then they build a second home and my community profits, they go on vacation and my community profits.

According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that's right...Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, 'that's because they have ALL the wealth!' Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it...you're RIGHT! That really isn't fair. They're paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners...pay NOTHING. That's right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a "refund" (handout) at years end.

It looks like they are paying their fair share to me but as a guy that grew up on welfare I take pride in being able to carry my own weight. All I want is a lean government that doesn’t cost to much.

if you want to turn the keys to the white house over to W's buddy go ahead but don't shove propaganda dressed up as fact in my face and call it truth, mr hunter. this tax foundation you speak of is nothing but a rich guy propaganda factory designed to fool the gullible into lowering the taxes on the rich. it is fairly well known by now that W and the GOP controlled congress has doled out enough tax breaks for the wealthy in this country already. but taxes are not the whole picture, mr hunter. W has seen to it that the wealthy in this country have a fast track to every benefit our treasury has to offer. did you know for instance that Mr rumsfield began his service on W's cabinet with about 6 million in assets and left his post a few years ago worth about 80 million?
how did he do this? by investing in the companies that he directed the military to use. i call that corruption of the highest order, mr hunter. this is only one particularly egregious example in thousands of similar cases. what about competitive bids for cheney's company halliburton? does this monopoly give you pause as you bend your knee kissing the ring finger of aristocracy that the GOP has become in the final days of their corrupt reign? if not then apparently nothing will and I pity you and yours.

Daryl, seriously. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privatized and deregulated. By becoming deregulated they were able to fudge numbers, white out a few credit scores, massage a few debt to income ratios, make adjustable rate mortgages to those whom should never have been give loans so large . They had noone to report to, made some unscrupulous and even predatory loans which are going bad as such and now they are going bankrupt as a result and WHO is bailing them out? The republicans, the same guys that thought they could have a "grand ole Party" with all the money they could make when they thought it brilliant to privatize it. If you are a corporation and can support them by giving them large donations, they'll do whatever you want, and even bail ya out when ya F it all up. If you are not a corporation and you are voting republican, you are voting against your own self-interest.

New Word - VPILF

Go Palin!

Problem Bear ~
The story of Halliburton's ties to the White House dates back to the 1940s, when a Texas firm called Brown & Root (now Halliburton) constructed a massive damn project near Austin. The company's founders, Herman and George Brown, won the contract to build Mansfield Dam thanks to the efforts of Johnson, who was then a Texas congressman. Current criticism over Halliburton's lucrative Iraq contracts has some historians drawing parallels to a similar controversy involving the company during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration.

Nearly 40 years ago, Halliburton faced almost identical charges over its work for the U.S. government in Vietnam Back then; the company's close ties to President Johnson became a liability.

During Clinton Administration, Halliburton Received $2.2 Billion From US Government For Work In Kosovo. “Between 1995 and 2000, while Democrat Bill Clinton ran the country and Republican Dick Cheney ran Halliburton, there was no talk of favoritism or political ties as the Houston-based company billed the government $2.2 billion for its work in Kosovo.

Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review mentioned Halliburton’s performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense, issued in September 1996. In a section titled ‘Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics.

Clinton Procurement Official Steven Kelman Calls Allegations Against Halliburton “Somewhere Between Highly Improbable And Utterly Absurd.” “One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded – whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert – who doesn’t regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. … Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits – and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. … As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million – a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder.” (Steven Kelman, “No ‘Cronyism’ In Iraq,” The Washington Post, 11/6/03) – Problem bear- Newspapers hardly get more liberal and hate bush more than the Washington Post.

Halliburton has a well-deserved reputation for doing very good and difficult work under impossible circumstances.

THAT IS WHY ALL THE PRESIDENTS USE Halliburton for tough jobs!

Daryl, There were 12 people in Bush's cabinet that got to vote whether or not to go to war with Iraq. 9 out of the 12 had ties to companies that would profit hugely from this war. Can you name them and the companies that have made them multi-multi-multi millionaires over the past eight years! Can you differentiate their before war earnings with their earnings now? It's funny how people like you think it's an awful thing to help a guy that lost his legs in a work accident or got paralyzed by a drunk driver but it's A-O-K to commit fraud to help your corporate buddies garner 95% of the wealth in the country. Shame on you Daryl you go to work everyday, still qualify for subsidized health care, yet don't really give a shit that you are the working poor and want to make it worse than it already is? Who gives a crap if you don't take the subsidy, you create the condition by voting for the people whom give these guys the reign to charge you up the ass for their products, pay lower tax ratios than you do, and get bailed out when bad things happen. It's called corporate welfare Daryl, how can corporate welfare be so much more important to the working poor than the benefits that probably won't be available or enough to support your children if your illness should take the best of you.

I believe it was the 435 members of congress minus one that authorized war.

Rudimentary Marion, who made the case for war to congress, who gathered the "evidence" and who helped "advise" Bush. You know the same people who came back later and said they lied?
Here is a hint:
"Russert: Before we take a break, now that we have determined there are probably not these stockpiles of weapons that we had thought, and the primary rationale for the war had been to disarm Saddam Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, said that you had settled on weapons of mass destruction as an issue we could agree on, but there were three. “One was the weapons of mass destruction, the second is the support for terrorism, and third is Saddam's criminal treatment of his Iraqi people.”

He said the “third one by itself is a reason to help Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did.”

President Bush: Um-hmm."

Congress did not decide to go to war Marion, they were mislead into voting for someone elses decision.

Oats quote:
"Congress did not decide to go to war Marion, they were mislead into voting for someone elses decision."

Maybe you should watch this.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-Iraq.wmv

Huh is right.

1) This video misses an extraordinary amount of history between 1998 and 2003.
2) The information that was made available in 2003 that mislead congress was later denounced.
Noone here is denying that it was believed at the time, it has later come out that it was all a bunch of lies. That is why some of us are more inclined to see the bigger picture than follow these arrogant aristocratic leaders that falsified the information in the first place.

The funny thing is even W can admit he lies to get elected, how come so many of you can't admit these guys are full of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSBgGXoNgrQ&feature=related

Oats ~
Your said: "Shame on you Daryl you go to work everyday, still qualify for subsidized health care, yet don't really give a shit that you are the working poor and want to make it worse than it already is?"

Sorry comrade, I guess I'm not a very good socialist!

:)

Right on Oats!!!!! It will come as one he** of a shock to the "I'm entitled" crowd when they convince everyone that working and being responsible for oneself is silly and suddenly no one is paying for all of the goodies they feel they are entitled to. If they have to work to survive like the rest of us instead of demanding and suing for more & more at someone else's expense it will be pretty sad watching them starve rather than take a little responsibility.

You're response is confusing to say the least.
Are you saying that we need to get the corporations off welfare and make them stop taking advantage of the working class. Or are you confused by what I said, what I mean is people that go to work all day everyday should not be sudsidizing these corporations and getting paid at levels of pay that leave them in income brackets where they still qualify for welfare and if they are in that postion, they certainly shouldn't be voting republican ( at least not in the sense that this party has evolved into today ). Although it is a sad truth in America today that most wage earners earnings are around poverty level, it is always confounding to me that they would continue to support the candidates that create this situation.

a special forces friend of mine told me that when someone is tortured at excruciating levels for long periods of time they get used to it and you need to increase the pain in order to get what you want out of them. maybe this is what is at play here. bush has not tortured americans enough with his corrupt idiocy, liar wars and economic catastrophes .we've gotten used to working for less and paying more for everything or doing without. maybe the GOP feels it needs to up the ante with a dose of Mccain. who knows after two years of mccain we might find ourselves longing for the good old days of W.

Oats ~

You said: "what I mean is people that go to work all day everyday should not be subsidizing these corporations and getting paid at levels of pay that leave them in income brackets where they still qualify for welfare."

I don't qualify for welfare, nether do most that the libs are trying to make s-chip health care available to, but I will qualify for the new SCHIP if we are unfortunate enough for it to pass congress. It wants to insure all children up to twenty-five if their parents make under 2.5 times the poverty level, that would have extended federal health insurance coverage to children in families making as much as $82,600 per year. That is ignorant, yes help the poor; I am not poor, keep the s-chip health money in the pocket of the taxpayers. Insure those that are really in poverty to the age of eighteen then they should be on their own. I was in poverty when I grew up and I got good health care, when the government starts extending coverage to those that don’t need it the health care of the poor will go down as there will not be enough money to pay for the new entitlements

But SCHIP is part of the incremental creep of socialism as was social security and Medicare.

As a young idiot I didn't give retirement any thought so I don't have very much put away because SSI gave me a false sense of security - but that is my mistake, I own it.

This is a great country and I don't want to break it because I was irresponsible and reckless.

I am an expendable hunk of protoplasm and I don't think that bankrupting the country with our perceived entitlements on this piece of protoplasm or any of the other 300 million just like me is a very good idea.

Back in 1999 I did a little SSI study
http://www.greater-yellowstone.com/usa/ssi-trust-fund.htm

and a National Debt Study

http://www.greater-yellowstone.com/usa/national-debt.htm

It is all going to bankrupt us and we shouldn’t be piling on.

We don’t need health care reform we need tort reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform ) We need a temporary worker program that mandates visa workers to buy health insurance as a condition of granting the visa. We need to deport Illegal aliens after they are treated at the hospital.

If we do these things the price of health care will come down and we won’t be empowering the Nanny State.

Cradle to grave nanny state, why in the hell do you want that? I guess we are no longer men!

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed at a meeting in Vienna to cut output by 520,000 barrels per day to counter a drop in oil prices, which tumbled Tuesday below the 100-dollar mark for the first time since April.

Oil has fallen about 30 percent from a record $147.27 a barrel on July 11 as high prices and slowing global economic growth reduced demand for fuels. Crude in New York yesterday reached its lowest level since April 2, while Brent oil traded in London fell as low as $99 a barrel.

Wow, OPEC concluded yesterday that a lower demand for oil is making their product cheaper so OPEC wants to decrease production to make the price go back up, – DON’T TELL OATS!

Oh how I love it when the Arabs control our economy.

Yeah that's right, don't tell me because you and Marion already said that the speculators will never bid high again because Bush told them he was opening up the Alaskan front and there was going to be so much oil going to be flowing they knew there would be so much supply noone would ever pay that much again.

Unfortuantely Daryl you are a person who is riddled with anger and hatrid. So much so that you cannot see the benefit of providing adequate health care over bailing out non-law abiding corporations. You would rather make sure that those better off than you are taken care of than the children of our country. I feel very sorry for you, but no president can help your mind set, only mental health counseling can.

Oats ~
Liberal derangement syndrome, the more I see people with their had out the madder I get. Who needs treatment for that, that's just commons sense.

I don't know, I don't seem to be as angry as those with "Sarah Palin derangement syndrome." That is where this Capitalist verses Marxist argument started.

Oats - I have a deadbeat brother on SSI could work, I had another deadbeat brother that was on SSI that died of an overdose of meth because the government allowed him to have to much time on his hands.

Their kids could work but they don't because the government does not make them. Are the poor, you bet they are, they all have poverty of the brain through osmosis it becomes poverty of the wallet.

In Russia they used to have a saying - They pretend to pay me, I pretend to work - not there is a recipe for success.

You are right Daryl, those pesky little children should get a couple jobs too since their parents are working 3 or 4 and still can't afford insurance. I mean no ones around to play with them they might as well be working. My mind is made up I am voting that my welfare dollar go to support the lying, cheating, political favoring, highly sexed CEO's of the world. Heck, who needs healthy kids anyway. I mean the way we pollute things anymore they'll all die of cancer before they are 10 anyways. VIVA decandence. Oh yeah and keep those educaton cuts coming to, Poverty of the brain!
Let the children die and the new middle class really make at least 3 millon a year like McCain says.

It seems there are a few escapees from the Daily kos.
Daryl, you are to be commended, and have my utmost admiration.
I can't help but wonder how in such a few generations we went from building a country from scratch to people sitting on their hind ends crying that they are entitled to more and more and more. How could this happen?
My parents married and I was born during the Great Depression, my Dad herded sheep, hunted and trapped, whatever was necessary to support her, then me too. But they survived without government handouts. I worked to put myself thru college, it never occured to me that everyone wasn't working and trying just as hard.
Once I read an article in Life magazine about a family who was so poor they had to wash the socks at night, etc etc, and they needed more financial help. They also included a picture of the washing machine, which was a wringer machine, about like the one we used. It was what was in the background that taught me about how the media slants their stories. There was a tv antenna on the roof and the interior of the house showed the tv. We did not have a tv, and did not think we were deprived....besides there was little tv to be had in this area in those days.
If I were in charge, every able bodied person would work for every bit of "help" they got.
Again, you are to be commended Daryl.

who the heck said anything about hand-outs and not working? i work hard at my job. i am sure oats works hard at his job. just what in tarnation are you two babbling on about? i don't recall hearing obama say anything about hand-outs and not working? i swear it is just too exasperating to talk to you both. you obviously have no answer to both of our condemnations of the incompetance of the bush regime and the GOP's corrupt agenda to hand over the resources and credit of this country to the wealthy. the point is if they succeed it won't matter how hard you work. they will have stolen it all. we all work hard for less and less while your rich masters (not mine) ransack this country. don't tell me i don't work hard. my trade is one of the most difficult trades to do in construction and i doubt if you would last to the first coffee break. as for you marion, i am sure you worked hard for everything you have. that is fine. i do too. but i know when i am being bamboozled and eight years of bush's antics is enough for this bear.

PB
There are only a few Republican talking points. It doesn't really matter what you say or what question you ask the answer will be one of three variations.

Problem bear ~

If you reread my post I was pointing out how the government taught my family how they didn’t have to work, my brothers, sisters and their now adult non working children. I said nothing about your work ethic or Oats’s.

History has proven that the more you give people the more they want or need. You are waiting for government health care instead of fixing the problem that made health care cost so much. Welfare and social security has wrecked multiple generations of my family.

My inference is people that want to elect liberals do so because they want more entitlements like socialized medicine or to protect our existing Ponzi schemes FDR and LBJ already started. Or maybe to protect organized labor, I was a member of the Alaska teamsters and I never so much squandered time on a job site, there was so much to do, but I couldn’t pitch in because while I was waiting for a load I couldn’t help the operator. No wonder our jobs are going overseas.

Boy ain’t this a rotten country where the daughter of two schoolteachers can become vice president and president in 1012. Clinton came from humble beginnings, as did many of our presidents. Steve jobs and Bill Gates had good ideas and invested in their selves.

People rise from humble beginnings to riches everyday with no help from the government you feel is holding you down. But they know how to work smart instead of hard and they probably aren’t consumed by class envy. The government isn’t going to stop you from succeeding.

Jobs American’s won’t do, that is a new dilemma it didn’t exist not so many years ago, we have to put our poor on welfare so illegal aliens will do the jobs that they won’t.

Thanks Marion ~

It's time for me to take a few days off and go up to Yellowstone and photograph the elk rut.

Walking among the wildlife renews me after a long week of trying to straighten out the libs at election time. It is particularly fun this year because Sarah Palin has them all so apoplectic.

I realize that those I argue with are helplessly drowning in cool aid but hopefully the dialogue is helpful to readers.

Take a look at my flickr photo stream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daryl-hunter

have a good trip mr hunter and take care. we are all americans just trying to do the best we can with the shambles bush left us in. if curious take a gander over at the washington post tonight.
there is a story breaking on the scandals brewing over at W's interior department involving oil leases.

going there ourselves next week. once watched a couple of huge bull elk break a light pole at mammoth. great time to go there.

I'm going up Monday, maybe Tues. I am hoping against hope there is still some rut activity on the Madison, it has gotten skimpier and skimpier the last few years. Hope springs eternal that the rut will return to Norris, but for 2 or 3 years it has been nil. there was one limping bull and two cows there last year.
Mammoth really isn't my choice for elk photography because of all of the buildings.

mine either marion but my S.O. likes to watch the tourists do crazy stuff around 1200 lb animals. i've turned into one of those old men i used to disdain with a camper and big huge steps to get into it. used to get out on the trail more but comfort rules now.
very best time to get out into yellowstone though. can't wait. one more day at the salt mines then we get out and do what makes living in montana worthwhile. have a good time marion.

and nice photos mr hunter. real professional stuff.

By the way Daryl, those are wonderful images. Have you ever submitted any to Wyoming Wildlife?