Let’s think of some constructive ideas to support our paper and not just tear it down. I’m sure most of the staff and management are not happy with the cuts and are trying to do their best–how can we help them improve the paper and do whatever it takes to make it thrive? That is a real challenge in this economy but a necessary one.

JG Studio City

To do that I would have to accept your premises. As I don’t accept your premises, what is there to discuss?

Stop the intellectual dance.

If you know what mr. Corn wrote is false. please provide proof.

The additional statement: “Samuel, because the Democrats control Congress, they are the ones in position to take action to bring down oil prices. Just the announcement that we will drill in ANWR and offshore would help,” is just as senseless.

The meteoric rise in the cost of oil is not market driven. If it were, there would be long lines at gas stations, as was the case during the oil embargo in the 1970′s. The oil countries have not stopped pumping or shipping. The oil companies are refining oil. They are charging more for what they refine, which is one reason why their profits have been obscene for several years. The other reason is that laws that were passed to give them tax breaks when they were having problems in the past, can’t be changed because the Republicans have the votes to keep them in place. The last reason that the price of gas is high is speculator on the oil futures market. They keep bidding up the price, and there is no regulation on that. It can go as high as it can go. The Saudis have agreed to pump more to help bring it down, but that will help little.

Oil from ANWR won’t appear on the market for at least 8 years, will destroy the area, and won’t help much. We would have done better, and will do better by making vehicles have better mileage. If we had changed the standards a little each year over the last 8 years, we would be in a much better place right now. GM wouldn’t be thinking about keeping only Chevrolet and Cadillac with stock as low as it was in 1954.

We need to act rationally. Woody is having a knee jerk reaction, rather than thinking through this problem. The oil companies already the majority of oil bearing off shore sites under lease, and they haven’t drilled there yet. They don’t need any more leases until they drill there, where nobody objects to drilling. Why open up drilling where everyone objects, when they haven’t drilled where they have leases where nobody objects?

Woody hasn’t thought this problem through, or he just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Maybe, he’s just pulling our cumulative leg.

What a wuss.

Oh please. That has all the intellectual honesty of “have you stopped beating your wife.”

Being one of the few more thoughtful and sporadic (they go together imo) commenters here Randy, I think you were having a bad day in this case. The comment you respond to was in defense of Reagan not Helms silly.

I even gave you a clue in a response to reg here “I’m not a fan of extreme know-it-alls like Helms on the right or the left.” No one is perfect, so I forgive you just this one time.

Now we have established my men were not straw, in your spare time and after some thought, maybe you could address why it is no liberal since JFK have shown any backbone, and is this not the reason most all the depots in the world are routing for the neo-liberal candidate Obama.

The target in July was Chile. The Reagan Administration, fresh from its successes in helping to unseat dictators in Haiti and the Philippines, has been pushing strong man Augusto Pinochet to speed up Chile’s transition to democracy. Helms hit Santiago in a blaze of headlines, proclaiming his approval of Pinochet and suggesting that the U.S. ambassador was being used by the local Communists. Some American businessmen in Chile think Pinochet has got a bum rap in the U.S. media, but they were nevertheless unsettled by Helms’s performance. ”It tended to cloud U.S. policy in the eyes of Americans and Chileans as well,” says the head of a U.S. business group in Santiago. American businessmen in Chile fear that such publicity will harden U.S. opposition to Pinochet, increasing pressure on the Administration to block World Bank loans.

Pinochet’s government was responsible for a terrorist act in this country. Helms supported Pinochet to the end.

Facts are troublesome things to liars, Woody.

Sez you, peckerwood.

Helms never saw a murderious rightwing government in Latin America he didn’t like. He was great supporter of the El Salvadorian death squad chief, Roberto D’Aubiuisson, who had Archbishop Romero assassinated. This weekend they met in Hell.

- – -

reg, in your original linked quote that I dismissed, “Reagan’s success as a conservative leader, however, wouldn’t have happened without Helms’s bracing him,” you imply that Helm’s less popular beliefs were shared by Reagan. The quote from your latest link, “In 1976, Jesse Helms (then the junior Senator) first helped persuade Reagan to seek the presidency, and then engineered a stunning come-from-behind victory for Reagan in North Carolina, is something entirely different. The first says that Helms guided Reagan while the second says that Helms helped him to win a primary.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/f748d024-1ee5-4f63-b1fe-790dab8bcd3b

If you speak highly of someone who supported someone who committed these acts, then you support a terrorist enabler.

Those are facts. Deal with them.