Glad to know you survived the "zooming"! I really need to talk to that guy about his driving.

Have fun in San Diego.

I’m doing great.

We will be taking the RV for a spin the first week of September.

My son in-law Greg is going to drive it up to the NC Mountains for us and if everything goes according to plan we will be there for three weeks and then head back home.

Wulf

Are you going to visit Transylvania County? There are lots of waterfalls, that's why I am asking.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

We will be around the Cherokee area I think that’s Jackson County

I believe Transylvania County is a little further east.

Wulf

I always feel at home in the mountains.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

We have a family connection to the Cherokee area so it's like home to me.
My grandmother was born there.

Wulf

You will really enjoy that. Is this the first time in that RV?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

No, we took a short trip in it when we first got it. The kids have used it more than we have.

Wulf

Is it a motor coach or trailer?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

It’s a Fleetwood Revolution LE diesel motor coach.

RV!!!! You do it right!!!!!

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Well we were planning on making a lot trips when I retired so we got a big one.

We keep it in one of our company warehouses on the south east side of Atlanta

Mrs. Cy and I want to become work campers and live on the beach.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I retired sometime ago.
Camping or sitting on the beach gets old pretty quick, believe me--try it a year or two! Same with the woods.
I advise you to have something to do that you like---something productive---maybe many things. One of mine is computers, another is family about 12 times a year--including a Hawaiian or European vacation
once in a while (chip in), another is we get together 12-15 times a year at various homes. Good food, good TV, etc., we know our grandsons pretty well. Write some for your children and grandkids. They will enjoy that stuff of olden days.
Stay away from too many old people--you will become one of them!

Do not use alcohol as a sub for planning and energy! One good drink is sufficient before meals.

I viewed the web site that you sent me of the RV Park in Fla. Looks like a nice place to retire.

I love the ocean but right now I'm not able to do a lot. So the Mrs. decided we were going to the mountains.

My response was yes dear.

Now where have I heard that before.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

“…we aren't going to let you steal it from our children and grandchildren!”

How is this not the very essence of Republican economics with huge tax cuts for the wealthy creating trillions of dollars in public debt to be passed on to our children and grandchildren?

Let’s not forget what Bush inherited, an economy so robust that Greenspan labeled the paying off of the national debt to a serious problem because it would limit his ability to influence fiscal policy by manipulating interest rates to affect inflation.

Here’s Greenspan’s speech from 2001, 5 days after Bush took office:

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Greenspan said:

“The challenges you face both in shaping a budget for the coming year and in designing a longer-run strategy for fiscal policy were brought into sharp focus by the release last week of the Clinton Administration's final budget projections, which showed further upward revisions of on-budget surpluses for the next decade.”

“The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011, including an on-budget surplus of $500 billion. The CBO reportedly will be showing even larger surpluses.”

“In the end, the outlook for federal budget surpluses rests fundamentally on expectations of longer-term trends in productivity…”

His cautionary ending, “We need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake.”

Exactly what Bush and the Republican congress did not do.

The only hope to keep from stealing “it from our children and grandchildren” is to elect Obama and the Democrats.

Clinton leaves a recession to Bush and you try to say that he inherited a robust economy? Did Bush cause the stock market crash in 2000 too?

Since “Clinton Administration's final budget projections” showed a huge surplus and since Greenspan, who helped engineer the mess, put it in a speech, then it must have been true. Good enough for the Carter Center anyway.

We've missed you!

No, I'm not relying on just Greenspan's speech. His data was from the OMB and CBO. If you have some secret data which trumps the top government budget agencies of Congress and the White House please share it.

(Just to be clear, I do not represent the Center here. They're non-partisan, I'm not.)

I wish I had more time for some spirited debates.

The data I'm looking at is the negative GDP growth of late 2000 and early 2001 (before any Bush tax cuts took effect).

I tend to believe that reality trumps OMB and CBO projections. How do you get those surpluses from a contracting economy?

The economy was for the most part expanding albeit at a slower rate. This is to be expected under Republican administrations especially when considering GNP instead of just GDP. For every four year period from Kennedy through Clinton, the best growth in GNP under any Republican does not reach or match the average under the Democrats. Conversely, the worst performance under any Democrat does not reach as low as the Republican GNP growth average. George Bush’s administration is not included but, being at the very bottom, his figures will further skew the Republican average down.

Gross Domestic Product

Series ID: GDP
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Release: Gross Domestic Product
Seasonal Adjustment: Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate
Frequency: Quarterly
Units: Billions of Dollars

2000-01-01 9629.4
2000-04-01 9822.8
2000-07-01 9862.1
2000-10-01 9953.6
2001-01-01 10021.5
2001-04-01 10128.9
2001-07-01 10135.1
2001-10-01 10226.3
2002-01-01 10333.3

From 2000 until 2002 the GDP expanded by $ 703,900,000,000.

GDP is the common measure used now. A negative percentage change from the preceding period, over several periods, marks a recession. That’s what we had in late 2000 to 2001 - a contracting economy.BEA.gov.

I don’t think that there’s much dispute over that. The dispute is how we got out of it, and the answer of course is growth from tax cuts. Leave the money in the hands of the producers, not the government hacks who pay people not to work.

Neither the CBO nor the administration's own calculations show anything but negligible impact of the tax cuts except in increasing the deficit.

CBO: Tax Cuts’ Impact Has Faded

“CBO director Peter Orszag concluded that the tax cuts’ indirect impact on economic growth, investment and saving and could affect this year’s budget deficit anywhere from an increase of $3 billion to a reduction of $14 billion, depending on the assumptions used. That is separate from the direct boost to the deficit through lost revenue and the added interest on borrowing to cover the gap of $211 billion. It currently expects this year’s deficit to be between $150 billion and $200 billion, (2007) implying that without the tax cuts, the budget would probably be in surplus this year.”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities review in “A Comprehensive Assessment of the
Bush Administration’s Record on Cutting Taxes” found:

“The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.”

“The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.”

“The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.”

A Comprehensive Assessment

Here are the figures for real GDP growth since 1947. For whatever reason, it is clear that the Bush administration is going to average at the very bottom. It’s hard to make the argument that Bush’s tax cuts led to growth in the economy

GDP Growth Rate

Do liberals really think that we can tax ourselves into prosperity? We have had record tax receipts. The cause of the budget deficit is that the record spending is even bigger.

I can’t believe you would even cite a couple of leftist organizations like the Center on budget and policy priorities and the Brookings institute, especially a report from 4 years ago. They say that “The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950…” Again, revenues have hit records since then (and are up as a percentage of GDP), but why should we be the least bit concerned that revenue sucked out of the economy by the federal government is at the lowest level since 1950? The only problem I see with that is that it’s still way too high!

Your sources also contradict each other. Peter Orszag of the CBO states in a letter that “As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1, attached).” cbo letter
How do you ‘splain that?

The tax cuts stimulated the economy this time just as they did when JFK and the great Ronald Reagan implemented them. It just doesn’t happen in a week, which is as far out as a liberal think tank like the Center on Budget and Policy can think.

Your “GDP growth rate” link didn’t work by the way.

Have you seen the new census report? Real median income was up for the third year in a row. I thought that was a little strange for the “worst economy ever”. I also noticed a big dive in income on the chart starting around 1978. I wonder who was president then. Lucky for us it took a sharp turn back up after Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts took effect.

Jeff always cites numerous contradictory sources and trumpets them as fact. It is a tactic he relies on contstantly, especially when he is losing the argument.

The article below from Investors Business daily. It refutes Jeff's sources and his argument completely.
---------------------
American Income – Better Now than 8 Years Ago
(The Pie Got Bigger)
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economy: Average U.S. income fell when George Bush took office in 2001. Naturally, Democrats and the media unfairly blamed him for it. But now Americans are better off than when Bill Clinton was president.
According to the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service, average adjusted gross income in 2006 hit $58,029 in 2006 dollars. It was the first time that average income had exceeded the peak year of 2000, the year before incomes began to decline. The average income in 2006 was 1.2%, or $739, higher than in 2000, when incomes were swollen by capital gains from a roaring market, and $1,369 over the 2005 average.
We've heard a lot about how Bush has mismanaged the economy, but there's no evidence of this. In fact, incomes began growing in 2003 after falling in 2001 and 2002 and have trended upward every year since. The small bump in 2003 was followed by gains of $2,291 in 2004 and $2,210 in 2005.

Meanwhile, there's been only one quarter of negative GDP growth, the fourth quarter of last year, which was preceded by two quarters of 4.8% gains.
It can hardly be argued that Bush is responsible for falling incomes in 2001 and 2002, or that he's been a poor steward of the economy.
He inherited a decline that began on Clinton's watch with negative growth in the third quarter of 2000 and again in the first quarter of 2001. A stock market crash and the 9/11 attacks hit incomes hard, as did a series of Fed rate hikes. The effects of the resulting slowdown continued until Bush's economic policies, especially his tax cuts, kicked in.
Thanks to a growing economy, Americans' real disposable income has increased every quarter but two from the beginning of 2003, when Bush's policies started going into full effect, to the first quarter of 2007. Some of the growth was remarkable, including a 7.5% jump in the fourth quarter of 2004 and a 6.3% increase in the third quarter of 2003.
In November, voters will pick a candidate to replace a president who did an exceptional job of steering the economy through tough circumstances, but hasn't gotten a shred of credit for it. The best choice is the man who's more interested in increasing income than redistributing — and ultimately shrinking — it.
______________________________

Ruth Kimble

Ruth has at last found an article which completely refutes my sources and argument completely. I was very interested in this because almost every source I use is analyzing data from the IRS, CBO and OMB so naturally a source refuting the Congressional and White House budget offices has to be good. Maybe as good as some of Richard Hobb’s sources!

Alas.

The crux of the article is this: “Internal Revenue Service, average adjusted gross income in 2006 hit $58,029 in 2006 dollars. It was the first time that average income had exceeded the peak year of 2000, the year before incomes began to decline. The average income in 2006 was 1.2%, or $739 higher than in 2000…”

Well that blows my argument completely! In reality, the economy is in terrific shape! Up over a FULL PERCENTAGE POINT in just six years. Why, that’s two whole tenths of a percentage point on average per year!

On average…

But looking at the data (darn it) what do we find?

Total income increased by $619.2 billion or 8.3 percent, all of which went to those making more than $75,000, and 42 percent of which went to the roughly one in 400 taxpayers who made more than $1 million in 2006.

The average wage in 2006 was $46,996, down $101, or a fraction of 1 percent, from $47,097 in 2000.

Among workers with salaries of less than $1 million, the average wage in 2006 was up $170 from 2000.

Average U.S. Income Showed First Rise Over 2000

But let’s not disparage Ruth’s robust economy too much. After all it is an average of $735 for those who got it. After 6 years of Republican economics, you’re averaging almost $0.38 a day more. Keep on like this and, compared to 2000, you’ll be making a whole dollar a day more in 2020.

Bush’s tax cuts did not come anywhere close to stimulating the economy, proven by the facts that (1) this has been the slowest recovery on record, (2) the economy has not returned to its pre-recession level, and (3) the recovery has been only a small fraction of the pace the economy grew after Reagan implemented his tax raises after Bush 41 implemented his tax raises and after Clinton implemented his two large tax raises and (4) proven by virtually all time-correlated studies using actual data.

GDP was revised upward to 3.3% for the second quarter. What's worse is the 13.2% increase in exports. Darn that free trade. Of course it would be even better with more free trade agreements - which is precisely why the democrats in congress are blocking them.

And don't hold the charts upside down, Jeff. Tax cuts lead to growth and productivity increases, which is the only way to increase real wages.

"After 6 years of Republican economics, you’re averaging almost $0.38 a day more."

Wow, I guess we are better off now than we were before!

Thanks, Dubya. That 38 cents a day makes a world of difference!

Vote McSame!

Usually, reasonable folks can disagree on controversial topics. However, your inability to admit Bush’s tax cuts worked resembles Obama’s inability to admit the surge worked. It borders on categorical lunacy.
Keep jousting at windmills. It is very amusing Don.
Ruth Kimble

Bush tax cuts worked!!!!
Do you not read the papers? Foreclosures, high unemployment, unending wars, on and on.

Surge worked!!!! six years and we are definitely staying---just like the Russians are staying in Georgia. Even the Afghans criticized us for allowing a 100 A DAY OF THEIRS TO BE KILLED! There is still no fit government in Iraq, no hospitals, no schools of any order, no water, no electricity, no nothing of consequence. But we will hang around in the conclave zone to try and keep Iran out for ever. It sure worked!

Actually Bonkers, if not for Bush’s tax cuts, the economy would have been in a recession years ago. But don’t let that stop you from spouting the liberal talking points. Good lib. Good lib.

By the way – Congratulations! You figured it out. I really am Denise.

WAIT! No, this is my week to be Steve Brown. Ooops. So I’ll have to be Denise next week. Or was it Git’s turn to be Steve Brown? Someone left me off the identity calendar distribution list. Do you have a copy? If so, please forward it to dollar@bogus.com.

Oh wait, here it is. Just found my copy of the weekly identity calendar. It was in my junk mail folder. I’m supposed to be sage this week. Isn’t that you? Actually, YOU are on the schedule to be Denise this week. Good luck.

If you really want to know who I am, take the letters of my fake name, derive their numerical equivalents, and subtract 336. That will give you two out of the four numbers of my street address. If you multiply that by 7,829, it will give you my phone number. Then you can do a reverse telephone number search and figure it all out.

(That ought to keep our friend bonkers busy for a few months . . . Oh darn it, did I say that out loud?)

Ruth Kimble

I care not for names, anyway.

As to Mr. Bush (soon), He let the banks go crazy, he let the oil companies go crazy with write-offs and tax breaks, his war back-fired---letting oil triple instead of holding it level, he started a war he didn't know what he was doing in, he abandoned the Taliban to their will in Afghanistan, he caused the price of oil to rise so much with the war, and ignoring China's usage, that RUSSIA became rich again with their large stores of oil and feel like bullies again!

I won't argue further with someone who doesn't understand these kind of things, nor care.

Russia and China drill for their own oil, on their own soil, as well as foreign waters (Cuba coastline). The spike in oil prices is due to oil speculators driving the cost up, and demand exceeding supply. Do you think the Democrat imposed moratorium on offshore drilling might have something to do with it too? Feel free to pick up a newspaper, turn on the TV, or read a blog without bias.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Let me prove it to you. Let’s talk Roe vs. Wade.
It doesn’t really matter who we elect as the next President. If you think about it pragmatically, Roe vs Wade will never be overturned. All the concern about the Supreme Court balance is overblown. Think about it.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would relegate women to nightmarish back alley abortions. It will never happen. In the future, both sides will keep making attempts to score points with related issues on the fringe of this topic. No matter what the composition of the Supreme Court, I do not see Roe vs. Wade ever being overturned. If it does get overturned, a mass revolt among women nationwide would result.

Both sides have compelling arguments on this issue. I sympathize with both. In the future, both sides will continue to try and score points by challenging the extremes of both positions. But at the core, Roe vs. Wade will remain intact. That is what I believe.
How am I doing? That is pretty much how Denise feels about this issue, isn’t it?

Now that I’ve proven I really am Denise, I guess I will have to give up the charade. From now on, just call me Ruth “Denise Conner” Kimble, for short. LOL

Ruth Kimble

People who have a fit all of the time concerning whether to have a baby or not, on either side, have more to worry about than what other people do!

This item alone makes hypocrites out of most "cons" who usually want the government out of our business---and that includes having babies. Do you want to make all crimes or immorality a federal offense?

Just don't, or do, your own abortions and let poor little 14 year old Susie or a 25-30 year old nut (like the one in the news now) alone with theirs!

If you insist on arguing "murder" then forget an answer.

Hey, we made alcohol illegal, and then legal again by the changing of the Constitution! We seemed to have worse alcoholics with bath tub gin and lead utensils than we did with bottled in bond!

And people aren't going to quit sexing either.

However, we have to look at Obamas voting record concerning the partial and live birth abortion issues. He was the only one to basically vote for this nightmarish practice. Even after that nurse plead the case to Obama of the infant that she rocked for 45 minutes until it died in her arms. He still voted to keep this pracice in place. Seem a bit souless, doesn't it?

Then again, I'm a man. So, no uterus, no opinion.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

The argument against welfare has validity only if corporate welfare is included. Talk about creating a needy class! Exxon, Haliburton, Blackwater, Fannie May & Freddie Mac, and on and on and on.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

First off, "welfare" is a stipend paid to people for doing and contributing nothing -- hardly how you can define Corporate tax deductions or credits. Second, the corporate tax rates should be REDUCED -- those corporations actually PRODUCE our energy, home investements, war time support, JOBS, etc. Instead, why don't we stop making our lending institutions make bad mortgage loans to people who can't pay them on properties that aren't worth it in the first place? Oh yeah, that wouldn't be "progressive". Heyyy, why not have Obama get his benefactor, Tony Rezko to finance all those questionable mortgages? That way Fannie & Freddie could continue on with the business of keeping responsible mortgage lending afloat!

If you just practice being a bullshi**er then I guess that's all you are.

I just read not two weeks ago in the Washington Post, Reuters, etc. that Large Corporations do not pay any Taxes at all. By the time they get their incentives, deductions, etc. they end up paying No taxes. That cheats the little business owners. They do pay taxes, as well as the rest of us tax paying citizens.
If these corporations want to take their jobs and businesses out of this Country then, they should be taxed double or triple..if they don't like it then they can go to Russia. Russia might let them set up their business and if it starts making money, that business probably won't get to keep a red cent..is that a pun? Na that's China... We have the best Country for Business in the World but unless people/Corporations start sharing the wealth this Country is going down. "Rome" does that ring any bells. Rome sure lasted a lot longer than this Country will if we don't change our ways.
There is always going to be needy people that is just the facts of life. Some need lots of help, some need help for a short time, some need help all their lives.
It costs money to keep a Country like ours running smoothly, all able Citizens have to share in that expense. Corporations make billions of dollars, they should pay their fair share of taxes just like everyone else.

How much do you think Exxon (a corporation in case you didn't know) paid in taxes for 2007? I'll give you a hint: It's about the same as the ENTIRE amount paid by the bottom 50% of individual income tax filers.

I paid a lot of that Exxon tax---I burn a lot of their gas!

I believe the article in question was about foreign corporations, like Canon, Nikon, etc. Home Depot reported paying $2.4 billion in income tax for the year ended Feb. 3, 2008. Wal-Mart paid $6.9 billion. Altria Group (Philip Morris) paid $4.1 billion in income tax plus $3.5 billion in federal excise tax.

Where else are taxes going to come from? Income dropped for the bottom 90% of Americans for 2005 (the last year I could find) by 0.6%. The gain in income for the top 1% of Americans averaged $1.1 million in 2005.

The top 300,000 people in the country make more money than the bottom 150 million.

As for Exxon, according to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion. This reflects almost $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.

Exxon paid $30 billion worldwide to all governments at all levels for 2007, on profit after deductions of $70.6 billion. The bottom half of American taxpayers paid $27.9 billion in income taxes (2005) not including Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (7.65%), state and local income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. Their average annual income is about $14,000.

If you want to slow the growth of government then vote Democratic.

The top 300,000 people in the country make more money than the bottom 150 MILLION. Unbelievable Jeff.

Is that what they call taking from the top until the bottom fall's out? Good Grief.

I guess you could slow the growth of government by decimating the growth of the econmy, Jeff. Is that what you mean when you say "If you want to slow the growth of government then vote Democratic"?

Interesting point, but we would all have a higher standard of living if the liberals in government left the capital in the hands of the capitalists instead of redistributing what they see as a fixed-sized pie.

Wealth is created by the producers, naturally they're going to end up with more than the non-producers. If you want more wealth, start producing.

Jeff is right.

If you have income over $250,000 (or $5,000,000 on the McCain scale), then you must be willing to open your pocketbooks and contribute to the common good.

Help build new infrastructure and transportation systems (bridges, highways, railroads, mass transit). Help make this a more just society and one with more hope for those who have not been so fortunate as you.

If you have a lot of money, then this country has been good to you. Step up to the plate and stop whining.

IT BELONGS TO YOU!! We haen't quite made us into a marxist state yet, have we? And it has been known to happen, that people actually do work hard and sacrifice to make what they own! Believe me, those that are making 250,000 are already having their pockets picked!

IT BELONGS TO YOU!! We haen't quite made us into a marxist state yet, have we? And it has been known to happen, that people actually do work hard and sacrifice to make what they own! Believe me, those that are making 250,000 are already having their pockets picked!

Boo Boo,

Let me guess, you're a government educated liberal democrat.

The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. Corporations are moving jobs overseas where corporate taxes are less, and they are therefore able to make more of a profit.

Barack Obama wants to raise corporate taxes, which will in turn drive even more jobs out of the U.S.

My oh my! Conservatives do have a sensitive side after all! My original comment was in reference to the "hand-in-the-till, treasury-raiding" welfare payments and favors to certain corporations. I brought up Exxon because of their "favorable" treatment regarding the Exxon Valdez incident, not how much they pay in taxes. You would have me all wrong if you think I am in favor of any form of "welfare", where something is given for nothing. The social welfare is a mechanism to keep the poor in that condition, and is not designed to help anyone. A class of people are given the opportunity to put their hand out for assistance, and then something is put into it that truly makes them poor. The crying and whining about social welfare is more pitiful than the welfare itself.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

I'm an Independent. I vote for the person, NEVER for the Party.
Thank you Jeff and Mapleleaf, I knew you both could explain Taxes much better than I.
My Pity is for those not able to work. Those that WON'T work are on their own. Those here illegally are draining our resources, they all need to go back to their own Country . We no longer have enough jobs for our own citizen's let alone another Countries.

If you just practice being a bullshi**er then I guess that's all you are.

You are exactly correct there. I could not agree more. Your logic is awesome dude. Your manners could use a little work though.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

"Don't do this when the wind is blowing really hard."

what an idiot!

There was another kite surfer who was a 2007 Darwin Award nominee.

Main, I suppose that one can't help but notice that the very vast majority of the Darwin Award winners and nominees are males.

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".

You, like others in the administration, don't see the importance of our dead and wounded when it was done not out of necessity, but out of power and oil.
People should have to pay for such judgements! Otherwise we will have a country half-full of thinkers like you!

You probably didn't read the article prior posting your reply. This is normal behavior for Bonker$. I guess the meds aren't working. Anyway…we’ll move on to your statement about oil.

I'll play your little game. The war (Iraq) was all about oil. Let's see here. The big bad oil companies actually BUY 70-80% of all the oil imported into this country, because of regulations here limiting drilling and building of new refineries. But not just from Iraq. There is Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico and many others that we don't seem to be at war with for oil. Oil is detrimental the US economy, and not just used in automobiles and heating oil. So, if you can live without pavement, plastics, nylon, coke (concrete), WD-40, and bearing grease for your three wheeled bicycle, then call it a war about oil.

Please remember that there is also a difference between a profit and a profit margin. Those evil oil companies that drill, import, refine, distribute, pay employees etc, make 8% profit margin, and the government make 36-45% on that same oil for doing virtually nothing. It must be a war for oil. So, you don't want a war for foreign oil and you don't want to drill here or add any new refineries to increase supply and drop prices. OOOkaaayyy.

You can complain when you go totally granola on us. If you want to go out and harvest the wheat, grind it on a mill stone, bake the bread in the adobe oven, then do so. Until then remember this quote from the band Cracker:

"Get off this. Get on with it. If you want to change the world, shut your mouth and start this minute."

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

As Reagan used to say, "there you go again."

Rent a limo? Go to Atlanta? How many have been killed up there in those areas in the last few years? Too many basketball players there for me.

Anyway the crowd that goes to places like Red Room are poor people who can't rent a limo. Someone else usually has to buy most of the drinks.

The sex stuff in Atlanta is pretty well hidden in private rooms. At a price.

Let the minions and peons use the red room.