I'll probably be villified for this but as an "outsider" - an independent who has no ideological lock with either the liberals or conservatives - I contend that both sides of the aisle have a few good ideas for the problems facing our country but at the same time I totally refute the notion that either is at it's core more "caring" or deserving of our complete loyalty.

Two hundred and some odd years down the road the "great experiment" which is our nation is in it's entirety neither the one Madison or Hamilton envisioned - and that is the way it should be.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*fluffs pillow* i can still get in about 30 good minutes of sleep.

http://tinyurl.com/r5ade

Army intelligence, definite maybe, customer service, Democratic values....

Neocon et al,

Your hypocrisy is laughable. We read your redundant campaign on the "criminal" and "treasonous" acts of the NYT, and at least three times a week we are treated to "America=bad, Terrorists=good" garbgage. Yet when smeone takes an issue that you all deem frivoulous, you trot out the old "yawn" comments. Once in a great while, apply some logic and decorum. You may find it refreshing.

I now know why some folks are so ill informed about most of the issues today. They sleep right thru what is happening in our world on a day to day basis.

Let's see, the environment: Democrats want to portray republicans as in favor of dumping used motor oil and other waste into streams - not true. Democrats try to convince us that republicans are responsible for hurricanes and other extreme acts of nature (including 'global warming') because the us didn't sign the economic ruination act known as the 'Kyoto treaty'- not true.

Poverty: the democrats want to convince as many voters as possible that it is a good and moral thing to steal one citizen's property and turn it over to another who will vote for them. (welfare state)

Civil rights: Tell it to the grand kleagle from WVA. Or George Wallace.

Women's rights: this one doesn't even deserve comment.

Civil liberties: Call this the "Al Qaeda bill of rights" when taken in the contex the lte writer is using it.

Neocon, you missed on every point. The environment: Democrats are asking for decisions based on science. And as for portrayal, how many times have we been portrayed as tree-hugging loons? Just two weeks ago I saw a comment like: "If ____ isn't driving a vegetable oil car and living off 100% solar power, then his opinion is invalid". You continue to frame the discussion as radicals vs. reasoned. When in fact, we want policies to respond to the overwhelming scientific evidence. Global warming didn't start in 2001, but to reverse policies desingned to curb what is a very real fact is abhorrant.

Poverty: Tough to sell your point less than a month after your party shot down an outdated minimum wage of $5.15 using myths like "We're trying to save small businesses". And less than a year after the ignorance of lower class suffering following Katrina.

Civil Rights: To quote you: Yaawwn. As you should have read many times, the Byrd occurence was over 40 years ago, and the last time I checked, Wallace has been dead for some time. (BTW the rumbling sound you hear is him spinning in his grave because of the people you have associated him with.)

Women's rights: You had no rebuttal; neither do I.

Civil Liberties: To quote one of your colleagues yesterday: "What a disgusting, misleading thing to say about people who have a differing opinion."
To suggest that anyone supports Al Qaeda simply because he believes in the rights guaranteed by the constitution is the most vile suggestion I see from you (regularly).

And before you trot out the chestnuts you've used on me specifically in the past two weeks, I do not hate conservative family values (some I have use for, others, not so much), and I am not filled with rage or hate. So work on a new routine. Your material is stale.

Howie G.
You are arguing with the "little retarded boy" as he is incapable of carrying on a cogent conversation. One line you left out was his use of the "one line parrott of the DNC". This is so humorous when coming from such a myopic thinker....cut that....myopic person. If there was ever a product of right wing talk radio 24/7 it is the one who calls himself "neocon", and I call "The Butner Boy". He regurgitates what he hears and masticates from Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Neil Bortz.

Howie G,
Remember the old saying about minds and parachutes---both work only when they are open.

Point: Carrying on a conversation with a brick wall will always be one sided. Neocon has proven time and time again, he neither reads nor thinks on his own.

DD,

Do you honestly think that you give yourself any credibility at all when you refer to people with whom you disagree as "retarded" or as "Butner Boys"? I even remember you calling someone the village idiot once.

I know that you and some others snipe at each other often, but it sems to be getting progressively worse. If you are even as remotely open-minded as you would like to think of yourself as being, you must understand that everyone has a differnt opinion on certain points. Having one that differs from your own is in no way a sign of intellectual weakness.

I have been away from these forums for a while now and may have missed a great deal, but from what I have seen, you come across as exponentially more arrogant and close minded than anyone else on here.

It is realy kind of sad, because on the occasions when you are able to check your rhetoric, you can make some very good points. If you are so correct in all that you know and do, let facts be the cornerstones for your arguments, not insults.

Good points, Swanks. Now, DD, listen to good advice. Don't call names...you lower yourself to the level of those you taunt.

More later, Howie.

Don't y'all be too hard on the poor lil Deek, he can't hep it! He tried hard, but he jes can't keep his lil mouf shut... lol lol lol I sure would like to see the size of that vein on his forehead one time. lol

I propose we all ignore the one who calls himself neocon--that will be the best way to handle it as he seems to be the ONLY one who posts here that has no intellectual curiosity--hence my barbs.

Swanks,
Would you now explain to Ms. Dunn, your moniker?

Yeah DD, be more like Jimmy Carter and less like Cynthia McKenney, lol

Someone mentioned George Wallace above. Wallace apologized for all his racists comments and ironically received over 90% of the black vote in his last election to public office.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XJWtbRNdoqgC&dq=Politics+of+Rage+Dan+Carter

Unfortunately, Jesse Helms NEVER attempted to atone for his remarks. Strom Thurmond apologized and received quite a large amount of black support. Seems folks like Jesse never learn. We should all be embarrassed he EVER represented our state.

I have the highest regard for those who admit their mistakes and apologize. Wish we had some in DC who could do this.

I remember when Jesse was a radio personality and a Democrat. My yellowdog Daddy loved him. He didn't live to see Jesse turn tails and run (his mouth that is)

I'm counting on you, DD. No more names. You will make me proud, and I will give you an "A"...just can't completely leave the teaching mode.

Carol,
Have you read this??
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13918661/

UNBELIEVEABLE! I really admire Arlen Specter for swimming against the current!

Ah, my nickname.

Honestly it isn't a very interesting story, but here goes.

My best friend and roomate in college started calling me "swanks" and it soon spread. I never really asked him where he got it from, he just kind of assigned nicknames to others. We also had a guy called "The Daddy", a guy named "Hot Pockets", and a guy named "The Big Dog" among others. I'm sure my friend had some form of reason for "swanks", but I never knew. That was about the time the movie Braveheart came out, and the king in that movie was called Edward Longshanks or just "shanks". Since my roomate loved that movie and went to see it multiple times, I always assumed he lifted it from there.

"Democrats are asking for decisions based on science?" Whose science? For every website you can link as "proof" that man is affecting the global temprature, I can link you to two that says otherwise. What's the point? The democrats have been using the 'global warming' mantra to instill fear into citizens in the hopes that they will elect them and 'reverse' global warming. What a farce! Are they going to plug every volcano as was mentioned here a couple of days ago? Are they going to impose limits on solar activity? Are they going to create a global fire department to stop forest fires around the world? NO, they are going to tax AMERICAN businesses out the wazoo in the name of 'saving the planet'. Only the gullible swallow this tripe. Count me out.

"Poverty: tough to sell after your party shot down the outdated minimum wage"... wEasley signed a nc min. wage into law last week. There, feel better now? Get prepared to pay more for goods and services because businesses will simply pass this cost along to the consumer. BTW, how many people in this country truly rely on the min. wage to support a family? I know of none. I think the min. wage should be abolished...period. Just another government example of government interference into private business, nothing more.

Civil liberties: The democrats support policies that are favorable to our enemies... true or false?... True.

Swanks,
Seems you forgot that when one rolls the cursor over your name,

"Swank-a-lota-pus" comes up.

Just wanted to try and keep you honest....When I was in college, quite a bit before you, we knew what the phrase meant....and most still do.

Good try with the Braveheart reference though.

Working backward this time.

Civil Liberties: Absolutely False!

Poverty: What a typically neocon position. Just because you don't know anyone trying to survive below the poverty line, it is not your problem. That attitude is the very one that typifies the "I got mine, let them get their own" mentality that is the biggest problem with the right. Thanks for making it so obvious.

Global warming: Just because you buy the propaganda, you don't get to call it science. I'll challenge you to name ten scientists who study atmospheric conditions who will dispute global warming. If the number of climatologists and atmospheric scientists is 10,000, there aren't 50 who can dispute global warming (much less 20,000), and of those, 45 are on the payroll of someone with something to lose. I guarantee it.
And of course I don't expect greenhouse gases to stop entering the atmosphere, but that's never been the argument, try as you might to portray it as such. Once again, the discussion becomes about some imaginary straw man that no one ever argued in the first place. So the next time you want to dispute my contentions, try aiming at what I actually wrote instead of choosing a preposterous argument that no one ever suggested.

“When in fact, we want policies to respond to the overwhelming scientific evidence. Global warming didn't start in 2001, but to reverse policies designed to curb what is a very real fact is abhorrant.”

Howie, back in the 70’s was it “overwhelming scientific evidence” that stated our world was going to freeze? What about the great scientific evidence that states Greensboro air quality is so very bad that the EPA needs to put Guilford under regulations but correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t air follow the jet stream and most of our polluted air comes from the west and south? So is that a great policy based on “overwhelming scientific evidence”. Same goes for oil refineries or better yet what about forest/logging? Can you point me to “overwhelming scientific evidence” that a state never cutting down a tree is the best way to go? I mean what’s happening in CA right this moment?

Poverty: First off if a person is working a min wage job and expecting to make a living, well sorry isn’t going to happen. Min. wage jobs are (or use to be) for high school and college students, retirees, homemakers etc. It is not a job to make a career out of. How many people do you know who states their goal in life is to be a Wal-Mart clerk? Secondly can you please look in today’s jobs section and pick me out one job that starts off at min. wage? I look at the want ads and have never seen one. Most jobs pay $6.5 to $10 an hour, I know because I have applied for them.
Katrina: are you stating that the best policy is to have generation after generation raised on welfare that the people have no idea how to take care of themselves, so much so that they must wait on a “welfare check” before they can evacuate? But more to the point they do not understand that when a hurricane, ice storm, earth quake etc. etc comes that they will have to prepare for at a min. of 3 days to survive on their own? Back a couple of years ago we lost our electricity for 2 weeks and no where did I see any help from fema, or any other government agency. Answer me this, if welfare was the best policy, why do we still have it and not just have it but millions more are on it? Don’t you think 30 plus years is long enough to use a little “scientific evidence” and realize it is a failure?

Civil Rights: From the letter: “Democrats care more and do more to enable people of color to succeed in America.”
If this is so tell me why more people of color (percentage wise) are on welfare then any other race like Asians? What polices have the democrats passed that enable more people of color to succeed? Do you suppose the High Point Choice Plan allowed more color people to succeed?

Women's rights: from the letter: “The Democratic Party is more likely to allow international policy to be driven by the rights of people rather than what is right for business.”
So do you feel that “international policy” is best for women? What policies would those be? And if we are going to allow international policy to drive the rights of the people for women why not all of them? Why not just throw out the Constitution and just let international policy rule us?

Civil Liberties: What rights would those be Howie the ones the founding fathers wrote or the ones a bunch of judges “interpreted”? What do you find more vile a child rapist/murder having a confession thrown out because of “civil liberties” or a confession allowed to stand because it was freely given?

"Just because you don't know anyone trying to survive below the poverty line, it is not your problem."

So Howie tell me have you ever tried to survive below the poverty line? I have and actually still am. So tell me do you feel it is a great policy to raise property taxes, gas tax, tax food, have a fake car inspection tax, raising the car tag tax? Do these policies help those living below the proverty line? Suppose the goverment raised their pay an extar $2000, do you think that would cover all the above tax raises? Sure most people below proverty doesn't own property so that doesn't affect them right? Wrong who do you think pays that tax increase, the landlord or the renter? So rent goes up $10 a month, no biggie right? What about having to pay $50 more a year for gas or having to pay $8 more a year to renew their car tax? I suppose those things don't hurt those living below the proverty line huh?

Yeah, swanks was expanded to swankalotapus eventually. And I eventually opened up an email account with that name on it. But swanks certainly has a more melodic rhyme to it, to me anyway.

What is your point? Why all the concern over my name, and most of all, why do you think I am being less than forthcoming about it?

Does swankalotapus have a real meaning?

I agree with Carol and Swanks et al. I don't want to wade through mud and mud slinging. We have many bright people here--let's discuss the issues and stay away from generalizations that are not as strictly defined today as they may have been in the past. Right, Left, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative---let's leave out these words, as they divide, demean and I don't think that any group has their own "separate, clear, and indivisible" set of facts, opinions etc.

Let's focus on issues and concerns---If a man, whom I do not know, belongs to a party that is news to me, has a good point---let's entertain it. If we don't think the idea doesn't carry water, then, let's disagree.

I agree with Carol and swanks and anyone else who is adverse to name calling. There are many smart people who contribute here--If we kept our comments "to the point or issue" we could really cover alot of ground without having to wade through mud slinging. I for one, to take this a step further, would like the words: Left, Right, Democrat, Republican and similar generalizations left out---they are usually too broad to be accuracte and many sides do see things more similarly than we want to admit. If we focus on the issues and come up with acceptable solutions to problems---isn't that the main thing.

I like having at least two parties but lets respect differences and maybe even benefit from the differences. I apologize for these two responses as I thought my first one was lost.

Trish, some of your points are directed at stuff I wrote, some is not, and you have a lot of stuff to sort through, but I'll give it a shot. My apologies in advance for the length:

Howie, back in the 70’s was it “overwhelming scientific evidence” that stated our world was going to freeze? What about the great scientific evidence that states Greensboro air quality is so very bad that the EPA needs to put Guilford under regulations but correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t air follow the jet stream and most of our polluted air comes from the west and south? So is that a great policy based on “overwhelming scientific evidence”. Same goes for oil refineries or better yet what about forest/logging? Can you point me to “overwhelming scientific evidence” that a state never cutting down a tree is the best way to go? I mean what’s happening in CA right this moment?

--It was not overwhelming evidence in the '70's that the earth was going to freeze. There was speculation that another ice age may occur, but it was by a much smaller number of scientists. No where near the vast majority who agree about global warming (which by the way may ironically lead to an ice age). And to cite another example from the '70's, if you'll recall, we were told by the scientific community that the hole in the ozone layer was growing and we were at a critical state. We had to stop using aerosol cans and make better air conditioners. Well, the world fixed the problem, I still have air conditioning, and I still use deodorant. But thanks to scientific research and development, the majority of harmful CFC's were removed from everyday use, and the ozone layer has repaired itself. And my deodorant does not cost $200.

Poverty: First off if a person is working a min wage job and expecting to make a living, well sorry isn’t going to happen. Min. wage jobs are (or use to be) for high school and college students, retirees, homemakers etc. It is not a job to make a career out of. How many people do you know who states their goal in life is to be a Wal-Mart clerk? Secondly can you please look in today’s jobs section and pick me out one job that starts off at min. wage? I look at the want ads and have never seen one. Most jobs pay $6.5 to $10 an hour, I know because I have applied for them.

--I never said that the minimum wage was the antidote to poverty. My point was that my party was at least in favor of raising the ridiculously low wage that had been the same for 10 years, while the costs for goods and services had gone up every year. And for a staunch supporter of the right, neocon was picking an inopportune time to criticize the Democrats' approach to poverty.

And to your point I say how do you get to decide that the minimum wage is for college students (who wouldn't work for it) and retirees (ditto). I assure you that most people getting minimm wage would like to get more, and didn't start out in life deciding upon a minimum wage career.

Katrina: are you stating that the best policy is to have generation after generation raised on welfare that the people have no idea how to take care of themselves, so much so that they must wait on a “welfare check” before they can evacuate?

--Not remotely. I didn't say the first thing about welfare, and I don't see in any way how it's relevant to this point.

But more to the point they do not understand that when a hurricane, ice storm, earth quake etc. etc comes that they will have to prepare for at a min. of 3 days to survive on their own? Back a couple of years ago we lost our electricity for 2 weeks and no where did I see any help from fema, or any other government agency. Answer me this, if welfare was the best policy, why do we still have it and not just have it but millions more are on it? Don’t you think 30 plus years is long enough to use a little “scientific evidence” and realize it is a failure?

--Once again, I didn't say anything about welfare.

Civil Rights: From the letter: “Democrats care more and do more to enable people of color to succeed in America.”
If this is so tell me why more people of color (percentage wise) are on welfare then any other race like Asians? What polices have the democrats passed that enable more people of color to succeed? Do you suppose the High Point Choice Plan allowed more color people to succeed?

--I didn't write this, so it's not really appropriate for me to defend it, but I will say that your terms are confusing. I thought "people of color" meant anyone who wasn't white, which would include Asians.

Women's rights: from the letter: “The Democratic Party is more likely to allow international policy to be driven by the rights of people rather than what is right for business.”
So do you feel that “international policy” is best for women? What policies would those be? And if we are going to allow international policy to drive the rights of the people for women why not all of them? Why not just throw out the Constitution and just let international policy rule us?

--Again, I don't know what the author's intent was here, so I'll let him respond.

Civil Liberties: What rights would those be Howie the ones the founding fathers wrote or the ones a bunch of judges “interpreted”?

--The rights guaranteed by the constitution. And since the founding fathers didn't explicitly address phone tapping or internet security, we have no choice but to rely on our lawmakers and a "bunch of judges" to guide us.

What do you find more vile a child rapist/murder having a confession thrown out because of “civil liberties” or a confession allowed to stand because it was freely given?

--Don't insult me.

Trish,

To your second point, I was directing that comment specifically at another poster on the board. My point was that the positions of many ultra-conservatives, neo-conservatives, and ultra-right wing Republicans (those may all be the same people, but I don't think so) suggest that as long as their needs are met, then everyone else should fend for themselves. Social Security, medicare, affirmative action are all just drains on the economy and tools for the lazy. So tell me Trish, if you were making $10/hour and you lost your job, would you want unemployment, or would you say "no thanks"?

Howie, first off thanks for responding, answering the questions and being respectful, it is much appreciated.

"my deodorant does not cost $200."
Thing is I remember quite clearly being told that there was overwhelming evidence about the big freeze and that it was much of the scientific community, heck I remember it being in my textbook at school and discussing it.

As for aerosol cans, I might be mistaken but aren’t they still around? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them and used them. As far as the AC was there no higher cost to get rid of Freon (sorry have no idea how to spell it)? I know that I can’t afford to switch out my car ac so now I get to drive in 100 degree weather with no ac. What about the low-flow toilets, was that a good policy? I mean we use twice as much water with those just to get the toilet paper to go down. Also I don’t see where your opinion is for Guilford County being under EPA regulations when in fact our air pollution comes from the west and especially from Charlotte and nothing not even the EPA regulations is going to change those readings.

"And to your point I say how you get to decide that the minimum wage is for college students (who wouldn't work for it) and retirees (ditto)."

Actually I do not decide min. wage for college or retirees, it is just a fact that the majority only work part-time and actually choose these low-paying jobs. When I was 16 and got my first job I made min wage and believe me if I could have decided on a different one I would have. Certain job’s salaries are based on the job itself. If a job doesn’t require a skill then the majority of time a person is not going to be making a lot of money out of that job.

Katrina: “--Not remotely. I didn't say the first thing about welfare, and I don't see in any way how it's relevant to this point.” Sorry I interpreted this comment wrong: “And less than a year after the ignorance of lower class suffering following Katrina.” So before I get it wrong again, what were you attempting to say here? A person on welfare isn’t the same thing as “lower class suffering”. But confused by your statement of what the min. wage has to do with Katrina.
“--Once again, I didn't say anything about welfare.” As explained I am a bit confused about you statement of lower class and Katrina suffering, can you please explain to me what point you were making?

Civil Rights: “--I didn't write this” True, that is why I put "from the letter". I answered it because it seemed like you wanted to discuss this topic. Oh and again, sorry I always understood the term “people of color” to mean African Americans.

Women's rights: “--Again, I don't know what the author's intent was here, so I'll let him respond.” Again I took it from your response to neo, that you wanted a rebuttal, so I rebutted.

Civil Liberties: “--The rights guaranteed by the constitution. And since the founding fathers didn't explicitly address phone tapping or internet security, we have no choice but to rely on our lawmakers and a "bunch of judges" to guide us.”

Oh I thought the process was for our "Representatives", as in “We the People” who are our elect representatives was given the right to make laws. (Actually I kind of learned that too through "school-house rock and the "Bill" song!). I’m a bit confused of where in the Constitution it gives judges the right to write law.

--Don't insult me.

Well you stated: “To suggest that anyone supports Al Qaeda simply because he believes in the rights guaranteed by the constitution is the most vile suggestion I see from you (regularly).” So I wanted your opinion on the Jessica Lunsford confession: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-30-child-confession_x.htm?csp=34
Also since you stated you believed that we need judges to “interpret” or better yet “guide” us. Does the Fifth Amendment say anything about informing a person they have the right of the Fifth Amendment and if they are not informed that anything they say is not admissible?

"So tell me Trish, if you were making $10/hour and you lost your job, would you want unemployment, or would you say "no thanks"?"

Actually, I am making ten dollars an hour and if I wouldn’t mind getting unemployment. To be honest I always imagined unemployment lines and major hassles and would have never thought of getting it. Imagine my surprise when a good friend/ co-worker was laid off and informed me of just how easy and how much it pay is. Heck yeah, who wouldn’t want $400 a week to sit around and do nothing? That right there is my dream job. But just because I want it doesn’t make it right. What about unemployment payments but with community service? What about actually having people do something other then the (wink wink) sending out 2 resumes a week deal. What incentive is there for anyone to find work if they are given a free paycheck with no requirements?

Also Howie back to the original letter’s point and the question I asked you, if the “Democratic Party cares about the fate of poor people” how does the policies of the Democrats to raise taxes (license, car tag, inspection fee, property tax, food tax, sales tax, gas tax, etc. etc.) how does these polices “help the poor people” in your opinion?

Trish,

Here we go again. Again, apologies to all for the length of the post.

Howie, first off thanks for responding, answering the questions and being respectful, it is much appreciated.
--Trish, I honestly try. Just one of the "values" I have. ;-)

"my deodorant does not cost $200."
Thing is I remember quite clearly being told that there was overwhelming evidence about the big freeze and that it was much of the scientific community, heck I remember it being in my textbook at school and discussing it.

--I doubt that the evidence was so unanimous. There are virtually no scientists who are not on oil companies' payrolls who are disputing this fact. The ice age theory was based on much less data from a much shorter amount of time. I remember a textbook referencing jet packs as a way of personal travel by the time I graduated high school, but that time has long since come and gone and I still
don't have one.

As for aerosol cans, I might be mistaken but aren’t they still around?

--Yes, but the scientific breakthrough was the removal of CFC's (chloro-flourocarbons (SP?)). The elimination of CFC's from aeorsols, air conditioners, and other sources allowed the repair of the ozone. Neocon called global warming a hoax that will result in higher taxes on business (though he's still never cited a motive for the thousands of scientists to collude to do this) that would be passed on to us. I was citing an example where the impact was never even noticed.

As far as the AC was there no higher cost to get rid of Freon (sorry have no idea how to spell it)? I know that I can’t afford to switch out my car ac so now I get to drive in 100 degree weather with no ac.

--For the sake of space and time, I didn't address the fuel tax before, but is that the reason you can't afford your car's AC? Because I am much more concerned about corporations gouging the public for $3 per gallon, on the way to the highest profits ever recorded, than I do an additional 2.9 cents per gallon that NC fuel tax went up.

What about the low-flow toilets, was that a good policy? I mean we use twice as much water with those just to get the toilet paper to go down.

--You may be right about the low-flow toilets. I'd like to see some data about the change in water consumption directly related to this measure. Richard Burr introduced legislation to repeal the requirement, but I don't know if there was any data to back it up, other than anecdotal. If so, I'd like to see it. We've had them in place long enough now that we should see results.

Also I don’t see where your opinion is for Guilford County being under EPA regulations when in fact our air pollution comes from the west and especially from Charlotte and nothing not even the EPA regulations is going to change those readings.

--Again, for space and time I skipped this one. I think the responsible position has to be that we (counties) are all contributors to the air quality. If we are going to put pressure on places west of us, we have to demonstrate to folks east of us that we are responsible.

"And to your point I say how you get to decide that the minimum wage is for college students (who wouldn't work for it) and retirees (ditto)."

Actually I do not decide min. wage for college or retirees, it is just a fact that the majority only work part-time and actually choose these low-paying jobs. When I was 16 and got my first job I made min wage and believe me if I could have decided on a different one I would have. Certain job’s salaries are based on the job itself. If a job doesn’t require a skill then the majority of time a person is not going to be making a lot of money out of that job.

--I certainly understand that. My first job, too, was making min wage ($2.90/hr). But because I make more now, that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there are others who do not. And the that the poor in this country are getting poorer while the rich get richer, is a fact, and a republican value that I cannot agree with.

Katrina: “--Not remotely. I didn't say the first thing about welfare, and I don't see in any way how it's relevant to this point.” Sorry I interpreted this comment wrong: “And less than a year after the ignorance of lower class suffering following Katrina.” So before I get it wrong again, what were you attempting to say here?

--I was attempting to add to my prior statement that neocon was on shaky ground, given the treatment of the poor by the current administration. When you look at the two acts -- shooting down a raise in minimum wage and the atrocious handling of the Katrina disaster -- for neocon to attack the democrats' treatment of the poor was not very sound judgement.

Civil Rights: “--I didn't write this” True, that is why I put "from the letter". I answered it because it seemed like you wanted to discuss this topic. Oh and again, sorry I always understood the term “people of color” to mean African Americans.

Women's rights: “--Again, I don't know what the author's intent was here, so I'll let him respond.” Again I took it from your response to neo, that you wanted a rebuttal, so I rebutted.

Civil Liberties: “--The rights guaranteed by the constitution. And since the founding fathers didn't explicitly address phone tapping or internet security, we have no choice but to rely on our lawmakers and a "bunch of judges" to guide us.”

Oh I thought the process was for our "Representatives", as in “We the People” who are our elect representatives was given the right to make laws. (Actually I kind of learned that too through "school-house rock and the "Bill" song!). I’m a bit confused of where in the Constitution it gives judges the right to write law.

--Judges do not write laws (never said they did). But I believe in the three branch check and balance system that has gotten us 230 years down this particular path, where no branch, Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, is any more important than the other. I believe I learned that in school. It was established this way by our founders so that no person or small group could have too much power. And if the Supreme Court, which has a Republican majority, can state that the president has over-stepped his bounds, then I see the process is working.

Well you stated: “To suggest that anyone supports Al Qaeda simply because he believes in the rights guaranteed by the constitution is the most vile suggestion I see from you (regularly).” So I wanted your opinion on the Jessica Lunsford confession: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-30-child-confession_x.htm?csp=34

--I also believe in our justice system (flawed though it may be) as the best one on earth. If due process ws not followed in this case, and this guy is guilty, then for him to walk free would be beyond tragic (but as I understand it there is enough evidence to convict). Likewise, I believe that a convicted person who is later found to be the victim of failures in the justice that led to his/her wrongful incarceration also suffers a tragedy. But until someone devises a better justice system, I'm sticking with this one.

Also since you stated you believed that we need judges to “interpret” or better yet “guide” us. Does the Fifth Amendment say anything about informing a person they have the right of the Fifth Amendment and if they are not informed that anything they say is not admissible?
--I don't know what the 5th amendment says, and I don't have time to look. I have to go now. Take care.
I see you've written a couple more. I may get to them tonight; I'll try.

"I challenge you to name ten scientists who study atmospheric conditions who will dispute global warming". I could name ten and more, but that is not the point. The point is the democrats are trying to convince voters that if we elect them, they will reverse nature and end 'global warming'. THIS IS A FARCE !! Again what are they gonna do??? Plug the volcanoes and pass legislation limiting solar activity??? Again, I'll tell you what they would do: tax businesses out the wazoo.

Civil liberties: Who is working to get the GITMO boys ACLU lawyers? Who wants to tie up the us court system for years to come hearing endless appeal after endless appeal? The DEMOCRATS and bleeding heart liberals.

Poverty and the min. wage: Anyone who has been in the workforce for any length of time and is making a career out of a job that pays min. wage has far more problems than a hike in the min. wage will fix.

Trish,
As usual, very good and logical points.

Howie G,
We will be waiting for the names of those ten scientist until hell freezes over! If he could possibly find them, they would be the same ones who dispute carbon dating, evolution, and the fact the world is over 10,000 years old. I should say, the same three that are out there now....saw one discredited the other day when he had to admit he derived 90% of his income from Shell Oil. LOL!

yawn

"yawn" -- good one neo; hadn't heard that before.

Anyway, couldn't get connected last night, so here are some quick responses before I runto a meeting.

Neo, your re-rebuttal about global warming was redundant, so I'll refer you to my earlier posts which address your points. But I'd still like to see the ten names. And for my education, could you give me some insight as to why thousands of scientists would conspire to invent this "farce", if the only motive is the needless taxation of US companies? I'm stumped on that one.

Civil liberties: Following your train of thought, what would be so bad about getting attorneys for the Gitmo detainees? One good results would be that we could hopefully begin to return our nation to some moral high ground. If we are to say we are a nation of laws and morality, then we need to demonstrate that to the world. If all the world sees is torture, Abu Grahib, soldiers' murder trials, and detentions that do not adhere to Geneva Conventions, we lose our authority to tell other nations how they should conduct themselves (like Russia and Israel). If we return to those values that are supposed to be foundations of our society, maybe once again we will have that authority. And adding 300 cases to the already loaded justice system is just a drop in the bucket. Are you worried that some of these guys may actually be found to be not guilty of anything?

Poverty: I am once again amazed at your lack of concern for the poor. Are you so arrogant as to assume that people making $5.15/hr do not include among their "bigger problems" the fact that their costs of living are rising, while take-home pay is shrinking? I realize you don't care about these people, so just stay out of the conversation. Don't presume to tell these people what their priorities are. I certainly wouldn't.

And Trish, sorry again I didn't respond last night. Connection troubles.

Taxes -- car, tags, inspection, food (?), sales, etc.

I won't try to defend each tax we are hit, because some of them frustrate me too. I know that gov't services cost money, and therefore gov'ts have to collect taxes to pay for the service. When I was in school, I learned that NC was called "the good road state". If that means we have to pay more gas tax than other states, then we need to decide as a state if it's worth it. If we don't want to be "the good road state", then we should vote people into office who will lower gas taxes at the expense of good roads. That's basic civics and I trust you understand taxes and expenses. I obviously can't defend misuse of highway funds and other government waste, but that's the general point.

I will reiterate that I have less problem paying an extra 2.9 cents/gallon to my state, where I may see some benefit, than I do paying an extra dollar/gallon to Exxon so the CEO can get a $400 million retirement package.

Real quick on unemployment (I'm late for a meeting): The question isn't about the right or wrong of wanting something for nothing. The program is in place to prevent people from going bankrupt if the flow of money stops for a few weeks/months. Are there people who abuse it? Sure. Should it be dismantled? Well then who is going to house all the people who get evicted after being out of work for a month? We'd see welfare come back in a big way.

Gotta run

Howie, thanks for all your comments and for taking the time to share your views. You are a welcome addition to the bloggers. Hope your meeting went well.

Thank you, Carol. I appreciate it.

Howie, I appreciate everything that I have read of your postings over the past day or so. It has helped me to think deeper and to look at things in a broader view. Thanks for helping me!

Shalom

well now you're just embarassing me. I'm starting to feel like Goober in the Andy Griffith episode where he grows a beard and everyone expects enlightened thought from him. I hope I can live up to your high praise. (BTW, the Andy Griffith Show was a prime source of my value system:-)

Howie, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Also please don't worry about length, I myself was slammed many times about writing "books" however it doesn't bother me, I enjoy the discussion

--I doubt that the evidence was so unanimous.

Actually there are just as many scientists who are not on oil companies payrolls that still dispute global warming. The question I have about global warming is look at history, the earth has already had an ice age, however there were no humans, no cars, no burning of the fossil fuels so hmm how can these things all be the cause. As to “global warming”, in my opinion it would seem like the temperatures would continue to climb every year, let they do not. As a matter of fact I remember very clearly that back in 1995, July (about this time) it was record temperatures at 105. Wasn’t last year, the year before etc. etc. So I don’t see a steady continued climb every year, how is that explained?

--For the sake of space and time, I didn't address the fuel tax before, but is that the reason you can't afford your car's AC?
No my car is extremely old and it cost to much to fix the broken ac, as I just can’t pour a can of Freon into it.

--“And the that the poor in this country are getting poorer while the rich get richer, is a fact, and a republican value that I cannot agree with.”

A republican value, when it fact republicans want to give the people back there money as opposed to taking it. What about the rich democrats who continue to get rich without helping the poor, is there any doubt that Kerry/Edwards falls into that category? To be honest every politician where Dem or Rep, are only out for power and to get power you have to get votes. Dems don’t care about poor people, only care about whether they can get their votes. For me it all boils down to the basics: Dems think that the people are not smart enough to take care of themselves, so the Dems must do it for them. Sorry I can not vote for a party who feels I’m stupid and I need them to look out for me. This is the whole basis for the Dem. Party. This goes back to the fundamentals of Plato and Socrates.

-- the atrocious handling of the Katrina disaster

This is where I disagree with Bush (yeah liberals look someone who disagrees) I saw no atrocious handling of Katrina disaster. I like everyone else heard the public service announcements (remember everyone making fun of Tom Ridge???) to be prepared to take care of yourself for at least 3 days before help would arrive. Secondly the Republicans had nothing to do with the atrocious handling of Katrina disaster. If I remember correctly a certain Dem. Mayor, Senator, and Governor were in charge of that. So much so that one Mayor herded his poor citizens into a dome instead of evacuating them via school busses.

--Judges do not write laws

Judges don’t right laws? What about the Eminent Domain ruling, that wasn’t a law being written? Do you honestly believe that our forefathers really wanted private property confiscated by the government? Oh and please name the “Republican majority” on the court right now.

Will try to get to the rest, sorry was busy at work. By the way thanks again for a good discussion.

"Howie, thanks for all your comments and for taking the time to share your views."

"Howie, I appreciate everything that I have read of your postings over the past day or so. It has helped me to think deeper and to look at things in a broader view. Thanks for helping me!"

Hmm I do declare, I must be the invisible blogger with only Howie and Neocon having the speical decoder ink. Or maybe it could be that two people who love the claim to be so openminded really aren't that openminded. But if they can see this secret post, thanks for reminding me why I do not like to come to these blogs anymore, I see nothing has changed.

Anyways, thanks Howie for a good debate/discussion, glad to know some people are can defend/explain their postions instead of just giving platitudes to others.

Howie,

"I obviously can't defend misuse of highway funds and other government waste, but that's the general point."

Thing about it is NC has one of the highest gas taxes however we rank near the bottom of good roads. I brought this point up because this letter writer states that the Democrat party cares so much for poor people, when this is the best example to counter that. For the most part taxes do not hurt the rich, however they can put a big dent in the funds for the poor people.

"I will reiterate that I have less problem paying an extra 2.9 cents/gallon to my state"

You only pay an extra 2.9 cents a gallon? Do you know exactly what you are paying in gas taxes? I think I'm paying 30 cents a gallon, well until it goes up again, doesn't it go up again this next month? The thing I most find funny is how a lot of people (most of which reside on this blog) tell me they don’t mind paying more taxes to the government, yet somehow I doubt they would send in extra money, am I right? If you don’t mind paying more would you mind paying my share too? Also when it comes to pricing what we pay at the pump, that isn’t set by the CEO. That is all done on the market.

“Well then who is going to house all the people who get evicted after being out of work for a month? We'd see welfare come back in a big way.”

Actually what did the people do before welfare/unemployment? The government has no business being in the welfare department, the private sector does a much better job, all the government has done is provide for generation, after generation of people dependable of the government and since you mention Katrina, perfect example of what happens when a class of people are put in that position, unable to help themselves. Oh and one more point to answer your question, way back when before the government “welfare program” that broke down families, families housed others in need, although with churches when families were unavailable, most neighbors did also because communities were tight, but with no need of that today because we have “government” to take care of us all that has been tore down. Hence the reason we have generation after generation on welfare, high poverty, high crime and low test scores.

Again, thanks for the responses, I have enjoyed this discussion.

Trish, I was hoping to hear back from you. Looks like neither of us has insired the other very much, but I'll give it one more try. BTW, I, too,
enjoy the discussion, and I appreciate the respect you have shown me.

"Actually there are just as many scientists who are not on oil companies payrolls that still dispute global warming."
-- It's not even close. The debate is really over on this issue. But I'll offer the same challenge I said to another poster: provide ten scientists whose motives are legitimate. I'd really like to know who they are because I can't find them.

"The question I have about global warming is look at history, the earth has already had an ice age, however there were no humans, no cars, no burning of the fossil fuels so hmm how can these things all be the cause."

-- No one is saying that ice ages haven't happened in the past, and that they wouldn't have happened without human involvement. But that does not disguise the fact that we are contributing to the global warming of our planet.

"As to “global warming”, in my opinion it would seem like the temperatures would continue to climb every year, let they do not. As a matter of fact I remember very clearly that back in 1995, July (about this time) it was record temperatures at 105. Wasn’t last year, the year before etc. etc. So I don’t see a steady continued climb every year, how is that explained?"

--Easy one. It's the average temperature of the earth, and more specifically the oceans. Just because you remember a hot day eleven years ago, that doesn't have anyything to do with average temperatures, which are rising at an unacceptable rate. I remember more days in the NC winter that were near 0 degrees, and more days of snow. But again, it's average temperatures of the oceans that drive weather and melting of ice caps and other factors that are so damaging.

"No my car is extremely old and it cost to much to fix the broken ac, as I just can’t pour a can of Freon into it."
--I've been there. Bet you wish for an ice age on some of these days. :-)

"A republican value, when it fact republicans want to give the people back there money as opposed to taking it."
--That's where I think you are the most off base. The tax cuts are benefitting millionaires. The poor are getting poorer (benefits cost more, take home pay decreases), and are expected to be happy about a check for $300 that they got four years ago. But that was just an advance on the tax refund you were going to get anyway. And then we had to pay taxes on it! You should face facts. If you are not a millionaire, you have sen no benefit from tax cuts. There is no other way to state it.

"What about the rich democrats who continue to get rich without helping the poor, is there any doubt that Kerry/Edwards falls into that category?"
--I thought they were trying to help the poor. Have you heard Edwards' "Two Americas" stuff? That's exactly what he's talking about.

"To be honest every politician where Dem or Rep, are only out for power and to get power you have to get votes."
--You may be right, and we are all wasting our time writing about it. But my optimistic (or naive) outlook won't let me believe it. Hence I spend hours arguing these points.

"Dems don’t care about poor people, only care about whether they can get their votes. For me it all boils down to the basics: Dems think that the people are not smart enough to take care of themselves, so the Dems must do it for them. Sorry I can not vote for a party who feels I’m stupid and I need them to look out for me. This is the whole basis for the Dem. Party. This goes back to the fundamentals of Plato and Socrates."
--I have heard this before and have no idea what it stems from, but I can't agree with it. I am a Democrat, and while I don't presume to know what is best for every person in every situation, I can tell you that tax cuts for millionaires is not the answer for how to get a country at war and suffering catastrophic losses out of a debt that will take generations to erase.

"This is where I disagree with Bush (yeah liberals look someone who disagrees) I saw no atrocious handling of Katrina disaster."
--What TV were you watching?
" I like everyone else heard the public service announcements (remember everyone making fun of Tom Ridge???) to be prepared to take care of yourself for at least 3 days before help would arrive."
--How would you expect these people evacuating on foot to carry their duct tape, plastic sheeting, gallons of water, etc.? How much help would those things have been? Luittle joke for those paying attention.
"Secondly the Republicans had nothing to do with the atrocious handling of Katrina disaster."
--What is FEMA's responsibility? I think it is Emergency Management. The mayor made huge errors. The governor made even bigger ones. But for there to have been no rescue for five, six, seven days, when camera crews were able to infitrate the area, is unconscienable. If you compare the federal response to Katrina with the response the year before in Florida, the disparity is striking. Pres. Bush was shoving ice bags into car windows and shaking hands within the week. In Katrina, there were still people dying for weeks. And the recovery since has been no better. There are still furniture and appliances in trees in Mississippi, and people living in tents on the foundations of their 150 year-old mansions.

"Judges don’t right laws? What about the Eminent Domain ruling, that wasn’t a law being written?"
--Not sure. I'll have to take your word on that.
"Do you honestly believe that our forefathers really wanted private property confiscated by the government?"
--So where do you stand on government condemning property to make way for a new WalMart or Target? I don't think this is a democrat/republican issue. It happens every day in every congressional district. You can't re-route an interstate around every family home, or it would take six hours to get from Greensboro to Raleigh. (I guess I'm not sure what your point is here.)

"Oh and please name the “Republican majority” on the court right now."
--Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy

"Howie, thanks for all your comments and for taking the time to share your views."

"Howie, I appreciate everything that I have read of your postings over the past day or so. It has helped me to think deeper and to look at things in a broader view. Thanks for helping me!"
Howie,

"I obviously can't defend misuse of highway funds and other government waste, but that's the general point."

"Thing about it is NC has one of the highest gas taxes however we rank near the bottom of good roads."
--Have you traveled out of state much, because I think we do pretty well. Regardless, it was more an illustration, but I'm not going to head down a path of whose roads are best. Tough to quantify.

"I brought this point up because this letter writer states that the Democrat party cares so much for poor people, when this is the best example to counter that. For the most part taxes do not hurt the rich, however they can put a big dent in the funds for the poor people."
--I couldn't agree more. And for the poster I was responding to to suggest that it was not in anyone's interest to raise the minimoum wage was, to me, the height of hypocritcal "We know what's best for you" thinking. And the tax cuts, as I've mentioned, do not help the poor and middle class. They just don't. And to believe otherwise is just delusional.

"You only pay an extra 2.9 cents a gallon? Do you know exactly what you are paying in gas taxes? I think I'm paying 30 cents a gallon, well until it goes up again, doesn't it go up again this next month?"
--I can see why my answer is confusing. There was so much complaining at the first of the year about the NC tax going up 2.9 cents, you would have thought that Easley was going to each house and asking for a quart of blood with a screwdriver. I guess I was still holding onto that argument, even though it was because of the price gouging last year that our rates went up, and very few republicans complained about that. Instead, they insulted the intelligence of people like me, insinuating that we do not understand supply and demand and price elasticity.

"The thing I most find funny is how a lot of people (most of which reside on this blog) tell me they don’t mind paying more taxes to the government, yet somehow I doubt they would send in extra money, am I right? If you don’t mind paying more would you mind paying my share too?"
--I hear this a lot from my republican friends (of whom I proudly have many). My answer is this: If my main problem with the govenrment is how they spend my tax dollars, why on earth would I give them more to spend against my wishes?

"Also when it comes to pricing what we pay at the pump, that isn’t set by the CEO. That is all done on the market."
--Total cop-out by our friends in big oil. I never said that the CEO sets the price, but I don't beleive for a second that with the shrinking number of oil companies (thanks to mergers and acquisitions) that there is such a thing as competition in the gasoline market. Competition is the great equalizer in capitalism. Yet with fewer and fewer companies, they have nothing to lose by raising their prices and having others follow suit for the big money grab. Record profits, when our country is in war and crisis.

"Actually what did the people do before welfare/unemployment? The government has no business being in the welfare department, the private sector does a much better job,"
--please explain that for me. Do you mean companies would pay for the housing of unemployed? Tough to turn a profit, so I don't see that payign off.
"all the government has done is provide for generation, after generation of people dependable of the government and since you mention Katrina, perfect example of what happens when a class of people are put in that position, unable to help themselves."
--I think to lump this "class" of people together as unable to help themselves is a disservice. These individuals were all their for reasons that I cannot explain, because I do not know them. But they were told to evacuate, and those who could leave the city, did so. And the people who went to the dome were also doing as they were told. So to tie this to welfare/unemployment is way off target.

"Oh and one more point to answer your question, way back when before the government “welfare program” that broke down families, families housed others in need, although with churches when families were unavailable, most neighbors did also because communities were tight, but with no need of that today because we have “government” to take care of us all that has been tore down. Hence the reason we have generation after generation on welfare, high poverty, high crime and low test scores."
--This may not surprise you, but I don't agree with the premise here. I agree that families and communities used to be knit more closely. I grew up in a small town (less than 5,000) so I understand, and miss that feeling of community. But I don't blame welfare for the fact that I hardly know my neighbors, or that I worry about my children walking to school, when I walked easily twice as far to my school for my whole childhood. (Do kids even walk to school anymore?) Whether or not welfare exists really has no bearing on most of what you cite from the "good old days".

"Again, thanks for the responses, I have enjoyed this discussion."
--Ditto

Howie,
Thanks for your comments above. With some real right wing wackos posting here daily, it is nice to see you take on the points that were raised. I am in agreement with 99% of your post. I am just too lazy to try to post the responses.

Thanks again--

Humor for the Day: "I'm a Democrat. You're a Republican. I'll hug your elephant and you can kiss my ASS.

“Looks like neither of us has insired the other very much, but I'll give it one more try.”

Howie I do have to say although you might not have changed my opinion, you have given me a lot to think about. For me, even though there might be global warming (as I stated I really don’t believe it but even if there is) I feel that future technology will find a way to fix whatever might be wrong. (Actually there is some term I didn’t learn to well in Sociology class, but that’s that I am).

“provide ten scientists whose motives are legitimate.”

To be honest, global warming is not on the top of my list. When I have a free moment, I will do some searching, now I’m not making any promises because I am not the search king like JDR but will see what I can come up with.

“But that does not disguise the fact that we are contributing to the global warming of our planet.”

Sorry I still don’t buy it. Wasn’t there some article that way back when the Artic was tropical? There has been warming patterns, we might even be in one now, however I see this as a cycle. What about the sun warming up, wouldn’t that produce more rays, hence the warm up.

“It's the average temperature of the earth, and more specifically the oceans.”

As mentioned what about the energy produced by the sun.

"Bet you wish for an ice age on some of these days. :-)”

You got that one right, an ice age right about now would really help me out! ; )

"If you are not a millionaire, you have sen no benefit from tax cuts. There is no other way to state it.”

To be honest, I make so little that for federal I actually get back money that I haven’t paid in. So poor people will not be affected with a tax cut when they aren’t paying anything in to begin with. Even if the taxes were raised on the rich, the super rich would not pay anything, funds would go into trust, tax shelters etc. etc. But when taxes are raised they raise everyone’s. Remember the great Bill Clinton and the tax for the rich, wasn’t it also a tax raise on the elderly social security also? Now the state is totally different. I make so little I don’t get taxed by the federal government, but Mr. Easley and the democrats in this state feel that everyone should pay. More to the point democrats don’t just stop at income and social security taxes, they also like to tax food, clothes, gas, utitilities, actually they tax everything. So when Easley states the food tax is “just temporary” and then sorry we still need your money, who in the world do you think that hurts more rich people or poor people. Actually I suppose that poor people on food stamps don’t actually pay the tax, but folks like me who aren’t it kills me.

“I thought they were trying to help the poor. Have you heard Edwards' "Two Americas" stuff? That's exactly what he's talking about.”

Sorry Howie you had me rolling on the floor with this line. Kerry who sends what like $250 on a hair cut, fine dining, lives in his mansions (how many does he have now like 4 or 5). Edwards is no different, what making all is money by stealing for the poor people he represent taking over half of their settlements? So which America does Edwards fall into?

"I have heard this before and have no idea what it stems from",

Actually it comes from political scientist. More to the point it where a person falls on the political spectrum line balances with where they believe Plato or Socrates philosophy. Also if you look at the roots of socialism, communism, left leaning philosophy you will see that these formed because they felt like man was unable to take care of themselves. As for the debt I remember hearing it every night on the news when Reagan was president and then low and behold Clinton because president and everything is hunky dorey. So have no fear when a Dem gets elected by the time they are sworn in all will be right with the world. The homeless will have houses, there will be a “surplus” and millions of people will suddenly have health insurance as well as grannies will have all their meds and the little kiddies will go to bed with their bellies full!

" --What TV were you watching?
All of them actually. I remember hearing people told to evacuate, leave hurricane coming, get out of town. And I remember seeing interviews will many people stating that aww “we going ride it out” done it many times as a matter of fact we survived Camille.

--How would you expect these people evacuating on foot to carry their duct tape, plastic sheeting, gallons of water, etc.? How much help would those things have been? Luittle joke for those paying attention.
First they would have water at least, not to mention some food. Did you see all those people griping about no water no formula for their babies. Ever heard of stocking up? Laugh at us southerners but when we here snow you will not catch us without bread and milk! : )

--What is FEMA's responsibility? I think it is Emergency Management.
True however even FEMA states 3 days on your own until they are equipped to get set up. 3 days. What do you plan, FEMA to stock food, transportation and water in a disaster area so what they can be blown way during said disaster? Doesn’t make sense. So you keep supplies out of the danger zone, how to get them down to area? Not to mention that anything the government puts there hands on sucks? Have you gone to the DMV, post office lately? Just a fact of life.

But for there to have been no rescue for five, six, seven days,
Sorry what news station where you watching? I saw thousands rescued by the coast guard on the first day and all the days after that. So for you to sit there and say no rescue for five to seven days is flat out wrong. Also sorry but many may be unaware of how our government is set up, the President cannot just send troops into a state, the governor has to request federal troops. National Guard is called up by the governor.

"If you compare the federal response to Katrina with the response the year before in Florida, the disparity is striking."

Please don’t even go that route. I happen to be in FL when Andrew came through, remember that one? Katrina was much bigger then the one in FL the year before, but not Andrew, do you know how long those people lived in tent city? Heck Katrina people got to live in wonderful hotels and on cruise ships, no tents for these people, so please spare me the BS on that front. Not to mention the whole $2000 debit card, which was no where to be found in either FL hurricanes. Plus dying for weeks? I will however agree recovery since hasn’t been better, but you know when are people going to do something for themselves instead of sitting there whining for the government to pickup their trash. Not to mention all the fraud involved with the give a ways from fema nor that before a person can move into a fema trailer (no tent for them) they have to be approved by NO utilities (sorry how is that Bush’s fault?)

“I don't think this is a democrat/republican issue.”
This is what I find ironic, funny how when the leftist SC judges votes this way it turns out no to be a dem/rep issue. Funny thing is when it happens in congressional districts, normally you go through zoning boards, people who can be voted out.

"Kennedy”:
Can you please send Kennedy a memo and remind him of that fact, he seems to have let that slip is mind. I can only hope that Roberts and Alitio prove to be conservative. History has shown that Republicans are very bad when it comes to picking SC judges.

“Have you traveled out of state much, because I think we do pretty well.”
Yeah I have and not just me saying a federal review of roads and bridges ranked NC near the bottom, again once more thank goodness for Mississippi!

"And the tax cuts, as I've mentioned, do not help the poor and middle class. They just don't. And to believe otherwise is just delusional.”
Any money that I get back in my pocket is a benefit for me anyone who says otherwise is delusional!

"Instead, they insulted the intelligence of people like me, insinuating that we do not understand supply and demand and price elasticity.”
Think about it is the states and federal government make more straight profit then oil companies when it comes to gas. I’m running out of time so will have to come back to this one.

“I never said that the CEO sets the price,”
However you did state they gouge and in order to do that they would have to set the price which sorry is all done on the commodities market. Again short on time will come back to this one.

--please explain that for me. Do you mean companies would pay for the housing of unemployed? Tough to turn a profit, so I don't see that paying off.
No I am talking about charities: churches, Salvation Army, mosque, temples, red cross etc. etc. Government is incapable of running anything with any inefficient. funny thing is point to FEMA and disaster but insist that the government should still be in the welfare business

As for the rest, will have to get back with you. I am running late as is. As always thanks for a good conversation!