Posted on September 8 at 9:23 p.m.

Jeanine Healey, if you are a lurker on this blog, I'd certainly like to know why you don't think Palin is a good parallel to Thatcher.

On Letters to the Editor: September 9, 2008

Posted on July 27 at 10:52 p.m.

I sure wish you guys would lay off Alligator Alley until we learn how much it is valued in the bidding market. We can't tell if its a good deal or a bad deal until we see the bids. My guess is that the bids will return a lot more than the current $17M net before taxes. Sure, the toll will go up, but $2.50 is ridiculus! Heck, you blow $12-15 in gas for those 78 miles!

On Letters to the Editor: July 28, 2008

Posted on July 7 at 7:14 p.m.

#35 & #40 Truth. Hey, Truth, are there two of you? Or maybe there's a mini-me. How could I be in 100% agreement with you on #35 and 100% disagreement on #40. One of us has a split personality!!! Perhaps we'd make a good golf foursome.

On Letters to the Editor: July 7, 2008

Posted on July 7 at 2:23 p.m.

#35 Truth. Hey, we agree! However, had you not gone on to show your support for nuclear, I would have ranted about your use of "alternative sources", fearing that it meant "anything but nuclear".

I'm not in favor of frittering away Federal research money on solar, wind and bio. If these can be made competitive, industry will employ them. Beyond nuclear fission is fusion. I support a major Federal push that would make it available by 2040 at which time a good proportion of the cars on the raod will be EVs.

Because oil is fungible, you buy a barrel but have no idea where it comes from. We need a system that will permit the US market to favor North American oil. I don't know how to do this, but we want to reduce the oil we get from risky sources as rapidly as possible. We can reduce the gross use of oil by increasing the state taxes by one cent per year. We could do the same with the Federal tax but I'm loath to give Washington any more taxes by any means.

On Letters to the Editor: July 7, 2008

Posted on July 7 at 11:19 a.m.

#18 BobbyD. You say:

"Alternative fuels are what need to be pushed."

Are you aware that "alternative fuels" is a Leftist code word for "renewables, but NOT nuclear"? Is this what you actually intended, or do you support nuclear as the dominant component of a long-term energy policy that is both clean, cost-effective and secure?

If you are opposed to both drilling AND nuclear, then you are keeping company with those who want high energy prices and shortages so that the public will demand nationalization of the energy industry.

Clarify your comment, please.

On Letters to the Editor: July 7, 2008

Posted on July 6 at 7:25 p.m.

#4 Colorado. For the sake of discussion, how about putting ONE of their "destructive thoughts" on the table. I need to better understand your beef.

On Letters to the Editor: July 7, 2008

Posted on July 5 at 9:05 p.m.

Re Colin Kelly, he says:

"In keeping with this American tradition of letting large corporations manufacture and sell at a profit their product to the naive public..."

Does he expect a private corporation to sell at a loss? Then he goes on to say:

"They want me and you to pay U.S. Sugar $1.75 billion....to clean up the mess they created."

Geez, I thought that payment is for the value of the land on which U.S. Sugar would otherwise be making a profit. Furthermore, if the State doesn't buy the land, other agriculture interests would. Kelly sounds sorta socialistic to me!

Having said the above, I've been very much opposed to the current outrageous sugar subsidies. Unless a crop/product is essential to national security, there ought not be any subsidies. We ought to be getting our sugar from the Dominican Republic and other low cost producers. But US jobs and property taxes are at stake and that's what drives the politics of sugar and most everything else.

On Letters to the Editor: July 6, 2008

Posted on July 5 at 7:22 p.m.

#36 Dooley. Any school east of the Susquehanna it too liberal for me! When you've crossed the Massachusetts border, you've really had it. The damage comes from the community and your associates, not the book learning. Just the wrong foot to get started on in politics!

On Letters to the Editor: July 5, 2008

Posted on July 5 at 5:56 p.m.

#42 Cyclsailor. How can we have a discussion of Bush-Obama policy differences when you put two non-issues on the table; ie, something Bush did more than five years ago? We aren't talking history.

OK, let's agree that Bush hasn't pushed hard enough on drilling and nuclear, but he's certainly for both. Now you can describe Obama's policy (Don't talk to me about ethanol, solar and wind...they do not an energy policy make.)

On tax policy, if you are going to be responsive you'll describe Bush's current policy and compare it directly with Obama's.

By the way, I didn't ask that policies be "listed"; I asked that they be described (briefly, of course).

All these many words reflect exactly why I suggested that ONE current Bush policy be put on the table for comparison with what Obama wants to do. Obfuscation gets us nowhere.

On Letters to the Editor: July 5, 2008

Posted on July 5 at 4:03 p.m.

#35 Truth. Sure, I'm biased, but who isn't? I'm biased politically, about what I eat, who I like, what pair of shoes I prefer. Surely, I'm not that different from you...except politically. But that's America! I stand with my offer to Cyclsailor: put ONE Bush policy on the table and describe the changed policy that Obama would propose as an alternative. Both you and Cyclsailor are acting like politicians...a lot of words and nothing specific to chew on.

On Letters to the Editor: July 5, 2008