Comment history

War profiteers

I realize wikipedia is not a perfect source for information, but if you can tell me a source that both the left and the right agree is unbiased I'd like to know it. As far as the sources you've listed, they both seem somewhat credible, but neither really goes into much depth on the subject. Each sums up the enitre election in less than one page. Say what you want about wikipedia, but it certainly doesn't condense topics to that extent. You should definitely take a look at the wikipedia articles on the election. They include the same information that is in each of the sources you've listed, but they also include facts your sources have left out. One example is your claim that "Gore would have lost even if the recounts had been allowed." I realize how you might think this after reading these condensed and incomplete summaries of the data, but you should definitely check out the original sources, that are posted on wikipedia. After looking at the unsummarized data it's pretty obvious that an actual recount should have been done.

June 26, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fuel standards

Of course no one "makes the argument" that they don't believe in global warming because they don't like Al Gore. No one would actually want to admit that. My point was that instead of an actual discussion of the facts on these issues, people try to discredit a whole load of scientific research by putting down someone who happens to be talking about the research. I guess all I was trying to say is that Al Gore and global warming are not one in the same.
When the Tom Shewmon writes "this is the initial result of the Al Gore-induced hysteria" he's implying that Al Gore is the reason anyone would care about global warming, and that a 35mpg fuel standard is a crazy knee jerk reaction to a movie.
It's along the same lines as the "liberal fad" argument, that tries to downplay any kind of public interest in education on important topics as being a trend that will pass before next year's spring fashion hits the shelves. Instead of talking about facts and their validity, we're talking about someone who's reading the facts and then how the public reacts to the facts. It's so unconstructive.

June 26, 2007 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fuel standards

Whether you think Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Ronald Regan or George Bush is a bad politician (yes I would have to agree none of them live up to my standards), it really doesn't change the facts. Global Warming is happening. Most experts agree that it is happening, so we can either take believe them or shut our eyes to the problem.
The same goes for Peak Oil. It is definitely going to happen soon, if it hasn't happened already, and though it doesn't mean we'll run out of oil, it does mean that most of us won't be able to afford the comforts that come from cheap, abundant energy. 35mpg by 2020? Is this a joke? That's like telling someone with lung cancer that they need to cut down to smoking only 1 pack of cigarettes in the next 15 years.
The fact that some people are actually arguing over such a small step in the right direction does not give me a lot of hope for the future. Seriously though, if you don't believe in global warming because you don't like Al Gore, at least look up Peak Oil. This is going to be a serious problem and everyone should be educated about it.

June 26, 2007 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

War profiteers

Other than the sources that scenebooster listed, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject.

n May 2000, DBT(the company put in charge of Florida's voter registration lists) discovered that approximately 8,000 names were erroneously placed on the exclusion list, mostly those of former Texas prisoners who were included on a DBT list that turned out never to have been convicted of more than a misdemeanor...Voter demographics authority David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC, reviewed The Nation's findings and concluded that the purge-and-block program was "a patently obvious technique to discriminate against black voters"

dagopman-- I agree with you that the "confusing" ballots didn't seem that confusing, but really, that's just the story that the media picked up, while a bunch of other shady things that happened in Florida were not really covered. Here's just a few:

---The manual recount in Miami-Dade County was shut down shortly after screaming protestors arrived at Miami's recount center. It turned out that these protesters were Republican Party members flown in from other states, some at Republican Party expense

---Some 179,855 ballots were not counted in the official tally. These were ballots which were mistakenly filled out. However, in predominantly white counties the voting machines (Accuvotes) would return the ballot and allow voters to try again, whereas in predominantly black counties the reject mechanisms were not enabled, thus giving voters only one chance to mark the ballot correctly

---Xavier Suarez, who was ousted as mayor of Miami in 1998 on charges of absentee voter fraud, was later elected to the Executive Committee of the Miami-Dade GOP party. Suarez helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County for the 2000 presidential election

---State senator Daryll Jones claimed that on the day of the election there had been an order to set up road blocks, which were set disproportionately in Democratic regions of the state

As far as the recount goes, I'm not sure about you, but it seems pretty fishy to me that anyone would actually want to stop recounts on a vote that was so close and so contravercial.

June 26, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Park care

thank you for elevating the level of discussion.
I have no problem with anyone who has a different opinion than mine. I do have problems with a lot of the petty name calling and lack of respect towards sharing ideas on a public forum. As far as your opinions on persticides used in public parks, Wal-Mart, president Bush, etc, I strongly disagree on all counts. But since, this particular letter has to do with the parks, lets stay on that issue.
Ok, I realize most people want their public parks to have a certain level of neatness, but is there really no middleground between using dangerous chemicals (yes they are dangerous--that's why they have the labels that say they're dangerous) to try and make the park look like a golf course, and having no upkeep to the point where it looks like a wild field? A friend of mine owns a lawncare business and doesn't use any pesticides, but our yard is virtually free of weeds. I'm no expert on park upkeep, but it seems that it's definitely possible to make both sides of this discussion happy.

June 21, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Park care

So the "hippies" don't want to spray public parks with dangerous chemicals. God man, we should drag 'em outta town by their long hair and unkept beards for trying to keep our children from being poisoned.
But seriously, tell me RT and b3 and gl0ck, what makes someone a "hippy" or part of the "looney left"? I'm actually curious what you think? Where do you draw the line?
If I don't have any tie-died clothes, but I voted against Bush am I still a hippy? What if I'm in the millitary, but I shop at the Merc, does that make me a looney leftist? How about if I hate the idea of another Wal-Mart, but still go to church on a regular basis? Ok, how 'bout this one: I have long hair, but I still shower everyday. Or what about if I own my own farm, but I want the war in Iraq to end? What if I'm a mother working 60 hours a week to support her kids, but I drive a bio-diesel?
It just seems that you guys should make up some sort of parameters, so you can make sure to childishly put down only the people that you have absolutely no common ground with. Or maybe you just don't care about civilized discussion. Maybe, to you, these forums are a way to let out whatever stored up agression you've been building during the day, and you don't really care about the issues being discussed at all. If so, I'm sorry for wasting your time with any kind of logical thought.

June 21, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Merc set for $1.5M renovation

Yes, the price for food at the Merc is slightly higher, but it does taste better and it is much healthier for you. I wouldn't exactly call that overpriced. I'm by no means even mildly rich (or even close to the middle class really). I can afford to shop at the Merc because I think it's important to eat right and I've budgeted the small amount of money I have so that I can shop there. Now if that makes me a "liberal idealogue" I guess I have to rethink what those words mean.

June 12, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another shot for Sixth, SLT project

Three words come to mind when reading this article.

April 17, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Attorneys preparing for Wal-Mart trial

So what exactly does Wal-Mart have the right to sue for? Weren't they trying to build a store that was larger than the size specified for the lot? And wasn't the area zoned so that department stores were not allowed to build there? I've heard something about how the lawsuit has to do with discrimination, but can someone please explain to me what the real grounds of this lawsuit might actually be? If the people in this town don't want another Wal-Mart, shouldn't we be able to decide that? I mean isn't that what the whole point of what city planning was designed for in the first place?

April 6, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wal-Mart issue could be revisited


It doesn't happen everytime, but for the most part Wal-Mart has been proven to bring property values down.

Because Wal-Mart leads to the closure of surrounding businesses, the property values on those commercial strips decrease as more and more establishments remain vacant. It has been shown that when a Wal-Mart is built close to a
residential neighborhood, the property values of those homes are put in danger.

One good example of this is when in Lake Charles, LA neighbors of a Wal-Mart supercenter watched their property values drop 28% within the first 4 years after the store opened.

More instances can be shown in a report on Wal-Mart's impact on a group of towns in Iowa. If you want to look it up it's called--- What Happened When Wal-Mart
Came to Town? A Report on Three Iowa Communities with a Statistical Analysis of Seven Iowa Counties

Here's some more info. This link shows data for decreases in property values in a New Hampshire town.

April 5, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )