DISQUS

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I think it is incorrect for Mr. Snyder to say Obama will be forcing health care providers to give free health care to those who cannot afford to pay.

The fact is that Obama was saying he will provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it. That creates a whole different kind of economic problem, but it is not a direct problem for health care providers.

In fact, providing health care insurance to more people would expand the customer base for health care providers. And by extension, generate more revenues and more profits for health care providers.

Having lived in Bangkok with my Thai wife, I can assure you Thai people are NOT spiritually bankrupt. The vast majority of Thais are practicing Budhists, and random acts of kindness occur all over the place without warning. They honestly believe in the Budhist maxim "Do good - get good."

It is sad and discouraging that so many Christians feel they must go to countries like Thailand and convert the locals to Christianity. It would be much better for everyone if they just stayed home and cleaned up their own back yard.

Over the past 2000 years, many wars have been started and evil acts have been committed by self proclaimed Christians (in the name of God of course), but not by Budhists.

Is Mr. Obama just dumbing down and trying to buy votes by saying what un-informed people want to hear about taxing oil companies, or he is truly a left wing nut?

And surely he doesn't really want to re-open the free trade agreement with Canada and risk losing 'no-strings-attached' access to oil from the largest foreign supplier of oil to the USA?

In my opinion, Mr. Coleman's position on global warming is logical and almost certainly correct.

Scare mongers in the 1970's warned that we will all perish due to global cooling caused by man made CO2. Many of those scare mongers are still around but have switched to saying we will all perish due to global warming caused by the same man made CO2. Of course it's impossible to have global cooling followed by global warming in only 3 decades. Such drastic climate changes take many thousands of years.

I can only hope that people in the media will stop using the words 'pollution' and 'CO2 emissions' as if they were the same meaning. By definition, these are not the same and are not even related in meaning. But the popular mis-conception is that they are fully interchangable. I think that mis-conception is what drives a lot of people to buy into the global warming hoax, and fill Mr. Gore's wallet.

I was involved in anti-pollution efforts in the 1970's as a liason between industry and government. I was a guest speaker representing industry at various public functions and still believe in what we said back then - Pollution is harmful to health and wasting energy is harmful to the economy, so we should take steps that make sense to reduce pollution and energy waste.

Unfortunately, our worthy goal of reducing pollution and conserving energy has been side tracked by the global warming crowd and by media that promotes them. All the money and effort wasted on global warming over the past few years could have solved the real problems - air and water pollution, and energy waste.