I am curious on your opinion on income tax.

Do you think it is wrong that the state of Illinois adds an income tax of 5%?

The residents of Illinois that choose to work are not commiting a crime.

Many smokers generate huge healthcare expenses during their lifetime through the various illnesses that lead up to an early death. They don't directly pay for these expenses. I don't smoke and don't have the associated medical costs, however, through my premiums I pay for smoker healthcare costs, especially for low income smokers that don't have insurance.

Low income shouldn't be smoking because they can't afford it... All of us need to make choices on how we spend our money. I can give a thousand better and healthier ways to spend money that would benefit the person and their family.

"Otherwise every citizen of this state will end up homeless and broke over OVERtaxation by loser Quinn!!"

The alternative is to vote with your feet and leave the State of Illinois. That's what I did just a few weeks ago-I'm now a resident of the "red-neck" part of Florida. The state income tax rate in Florida is 0 percent, the roads are in perfect shape and the crime rate is low because the folks there support the 2nd Amendment-the right to bear arms. Almost heaven.

It's time to abandon ship (Illinois) and relocate. I wish I had done that 20 years ago.

"IL has the highest tax rate of all other states and we are still broke! Why? What has Quinn been doing with all our tax money?" THIS IS THE QUESTION!!! Smokers choose to use a product which, if used as intended, will kill them if we can get public funds from the sale of such an item, it is socially responsible to price cigarettes further out of reach. Sure there are people who will go out of state to consume or sell them at reduced prices, that has ALWAYS happened. Truth is this is a small amount of income and by design, temporary. so let's look at the cost of legislation; pay plans, monetary and other benefits, travel programs and costs, pension plans for early retirement ect. We can also vote with our feet. Cigarette taxes are just more smoke and mirrors

About 4 years ago, I was driving south on I-55 through the State of Mississippi. I stopped to get gas and when I went in to pay, all of the clerks in the store were talking about the guy in a van with Illinois license plates who just bought $1,500 worth of cigarettes. No doubt that those cigarettes were bound for the cigarette black market in Chicago.

Increasing taxes on cigarettes in Illinois just increases cigarette sales in other states and increases the size of the black market in Illinois. Of course, folks who participate in the black market don't pay Illinois cigarette taxes or Illinois income taxes.

So go ahead and raise cigarette taxes in Illinois. Smokers will just go elsewheres to buy their cigarettes and Illinois will be the loser.

I'm retired now but when we first moved to the Chicago area, all our housing decisions were made based on being a mile or so from a train station so I could walk to the station. During that time I say many people who drove to the station that lived closer than I did. I say that all individuals who live within one and one-half miles of a train station and still drive there should be forced to pay a premium for parking. Walking is better for their health and my health since they will be polluting less. I agree with Kilroy. Tax sweets and sugar loaded food groups more and don't tax healthy food. Let's charge a super premium for fast food locations with drive up windows. Not only are the folks in line to buy unhealthy food, they're polluting the air while doing it. I know, let's charge a 2% tax on whole milk, a 1% tax on 2% milk and no tax on fat free milk. I say we tax food based on the sugar contact as a percentage one serving has of the daily requirement. I and many other people are allergic to some perfumes so I use perfume free soaps, detergents and clothes softeners. I still have to be around people who use perfumes. That worsens my asthma symptoms and increases my health care costs and the healthcare costs of people like me. I'd like to see perfumes taxed and regulated until they disappear.

Daniel - too much to comment on, but just a quick reply. None of your examples are on a par with the cost to society of using cigarettes. (Maybe guns would be a good example.) If I was able to buy into a medicare program that only served non-smokers, than I might agree with you.

One thought that hasn't been discussed - as the population gets older, there's going to be more people on Medicare. Eventually - maybe even now - we won't be able to support open-ended and unlimited use of Medicare benefits. At that point, do we ration care? Do we say to benificiaries - you've got so many dollars of benefits. Once they're used up, you're on your own? I hope we don't get to that point. And part of preventing that from happening would be to discourage smoking by any means possible.

Amen. Yes, it's time to leave.

Why is it that Florida can have a 0 percent state income tax and have perfect roads and Illinois has to have a 5 percent state income tax and roads that look like they are from a war zone? Any tax money given to politicians in Illinois is just stolen by our elected representatives. Chicago was just named the most corrupt city in the United States. Illinois politics is just another form of organized crime and tobacco taxes are just another "street tax".

Instead of taxing people who use tobacco in Illinois, why don't the citizens of Illinois consider raising the tax rate on politicians?

Funny you should bring that up. I went to a Walmart on the 1st of the month a while back and couldn't believe the number of people with full carts of crap food, mostly jumbo bags of generic sugar puffs and the like. When I asked the check-out person what was going on with all these people she said the 1st of the month is when the poor get their food stamps or welfare checks (I can't remember which now).

I understand when you're poor and have limited subsidy, you buy what's cheap. But isn't our government doing them a diservice somehow, because when they develop Type II diabetes, they'll be on Medicaid so isn't the "system" becomeing self-perpetuating??? I'm just sayin'...

You're claiming that there are medical conditions that make smoking uncontrollable? If you're talking about an addiction, well, yes, but addictions are not medical conditions. Please find a reason to stop smoking. Your family, your friends, and the rest of society will thank you. I

You've missed the point of the article. It says, and many responses (including mine) aren't worried about whether smoking is right or wrong. We aren't concerned with political popularity. It's money - dollars - the cost imposed on society by smokers. Medicare is a shared expense. Smokers do not pay their fair share. If we don't do something to reduce their impact on Medicare, we will all suffer in the end.

Hi Richard -

I served in the United States Army and while I don't have any knowledge about what it was like when your father served, I can assure you that there isn't a sinister agenda to get soldiers to smoke. When I was in it was discouraged, but soldiers smoked anyway - mainly as a way to cope with stress or simply because they chose to smoke.

Also, when a soldier got caught smoking (you're not allowed to smoke during basic training) our drill sergeants would make them collect hundreds of cigarette butts and create a platoon standing in formation using the discarded cigarettes. It was a very time consuming punishment, but the message was clear - smoking is bad for you.

On a side note, a pack of cigarettes cost about $6 at most military bases, depending on what state you're in. Thanks for the comment.

Best,

George

Yes - that was wrong then. Maybe misguided when it began, and hard to stop once the goverment know about the dangers. But what's your point? Goverment is bad? I really don't understand where you're going with this response...

Let's be careful here. If smokers should smoke with their car windows rolled up, I assume that you would also support piping of the engine exhaust into the passenger compartment of the car so that the "pollution" generated by your car doesn't get into the air. And what about fireplaces? Should we require that fireplaces be vented into homes so that the combustion gases don't pollute the air? And how about electrical power plants? Where should power plant exhaust from coal-fired and oil-fires power plants be vented?

We all pollute the air when we drive, heat our homes or use a fireplace. Smokers have just as much right to smoke outside as people who drive, heat their homes or use a fireplace. And 2nd hand smoke from tobacco is no more dangerous to human health outside than auto exhaust, fireplace combustion gases or power plant exhaust.

Let's start thinking clearly about who owns the atmosphere. Toxic pollution generated by industry in China is more of a health threat in California than 2nd hand smoke from tobacco outside.

The comparisons you make are apples-to-oranges Richard. The air pollution factor is present, but I don't want to breathe tobacco - first hand, or second hand. I shouldn't have to endanger my health simply because someone chooses to smoke tobacco - that's why we don't allow smoking indoors, or within a certain distance of entry/exits to buildings. Someone smoking in their car with the windows down while I'm sitting in close proximity causes that 2nd hand smoke to go right into my car, and right into my lungs. I don't want it, and I shouldn't have to deal with it. I've asked the question that if it's such a wonderful habit, why don't smokers simply keep the windows rolled up and get more bang for their buck? Why do they ash out the windows? Why do they simply flick the butts out the window? I've asked the question of many smokers. The answer: "They don't want their car to smell like smoke, they don't want the ashes in their car, they didn't want to pay for the ashtray..."

Are there hazards to the air, and our health from the other issues you brought up? Yes. But until we come up with a non-polluting engine, and a non-polluting energy source - we have what we have. Fireplaces - I could live without those too - the smoke is quite irritating and invasive.

I quit cigarettes decades ago but I do enjoy an occasional cigar with a drink at a bar. Now I can't even do that anymore (except, weather permitting, in an outdoor beer garden).

Comparing smoking to tylenol is apples-to-oranges. One's a bronchio-constrictor, the other is an analgesic. Nicotine is one of the most toxic poisons known - I believe it was or is used as an insecticide.

Some people will be more affected by smoking than others and may go until 44 before having a problem, while others may go to 82. Other factors are the frequency with which someone smokes, and how they smoke (filtered, unfiltered, water bong, pipe).

The big difference between smoking and tylenol is that if someone takes a tylenol, it has no effect on me (well, I suppose, if they're allergic to it, have a seizure next to me and they fall on me as a result...but I digress). If someone's smoking in proximity to me, I'm adversely affected as a result of the 2nd hand smoke. Children are affected more than adults. Those with breathing difficulties or diseases such as asthma are highly affected and may die as a result of such 2nd hand exposure.

Workers in restaurants who are exposed to 2nd hand smoke are also adversely affected.

That's why I've always maintained that smokers should be allowed to smoke all they want, so long as they absorb all of the health-related costs, and do it in private with the doors and windows closed. Smokers should keep their smoke to themselves and leave people who don't want to smoke alone.

Richard, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The bad financial management and condition of Illinois is not the responsibility of ALL eligible voters in the State, simply the ones that voted, and keep voting for the fools responsible for the bad financial management...

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for these morons...

How about leaving alone small businesses and going after the huge corporations, who get all the tax breaks?? That is a big problem that would help us create revenue in the state. Also, regarding your comments about Wisconsin voters: Just in case you haven't been reading the news, Scott Walker's contributions are over 70% from out of state billionaires. If you really think he got elected by the good people of Wisconsin, then I feel really bad for you for not being informed.

I'm glad you were able to stop smoking. I'm sure your loved ones want to see you live as long as you can, and to enjoy your life as much as possible.

Frankly i'm glad thisperson still has an interest i Illinois. Perhaps they still own land here. At least he has some common sense.

Because it is my responsibility as an American to help educate other folks about what's going on in this country. I feel very fortunate to have been born and live in this country and I want my son (and your children too) to continue to enjoy the freedoms that I had.

D46 Resident, folks like you are a menace to America.

Those folks in "redneck" Florida already agree with me-no need to educate those dumb hicks. Those dumb hicks have forgotten more than you will ever know.

"Redneck" Florida is the home of the United States Navy and the US Air Force-the Blue Angels are based at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. I chose to live where our heroic military men and women live and where the people take the 2nd Amendment seriously.

May God continue to bless America. Our socialist President is going down with the ship in November and the recession will end on election day. I would have preferred Sarah Palin as president, but President Romney will have to do.

I too hope God will continue to bless America like he did in 2008 when we elected President Obama. I too will be glad that God continues to bless this nation when President Obama is reelected in November.

I also take my civic responsibilities seriously, so I am proud to live in the same state as a "menace" like D46resident, with whom you so vehemently disagree. I will take pride in a state that appreciates the whole constitution and not just the 2nd Amendment.

BTW, if the recession ends on election day, that would be two and a half months before President Romney would be able to do anything. Please tell me how a recession magically ends WITHOUT it being the people playing with the economy to affect a political end. The fact that you believe such a feat is even possible is a testament to your minuscule knowledge of macro (or probably any) economics.

You preferring Sarah Palin tells me all I need to know. And why you have nothing else to do but post on here. Lordy.

Richard, trust me when I say that I do learn about and do my best to educate others about them. Sometimes, regardless of the job one does, others just don't agree. Regardless of how good the message is, one has the right to be let alone - sometimes that means that good messages are missed out on, but that's their choice. Forcing someone to listen to a particular message, no matter how good, would be tantamount to legalizing a form of trespass.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink. All we can do is keep trying. Barry Goldwater got trounced, but he started a movement. That was almost 50 years ago.

If Wisconsin can elect a Republican governor and a Republican majority House and Senate, Illinois can do it too. Even Michigan has a Republican governor now.

I've got my doubts about Romney, but he's our champion. Another 4 years with President Obama at the helm and America as we know it will be a thing of the past.

It's not morality - it's dollars and cents. In this case, lots and lots of dollars.

Just leave it to the Dumbocrats, they'll always come up with someone to tax, and something to spend it on...

Seriously, I'm convinced that Illinois has no idea how to actually save money or cut spending. Heaven forbid that some supposedly disenfranchised group no longer gets a hand out, and the corrupt politician doesn't get their votes...

Term limits for elected office would be a great place to start with a Constitutional Amendment that actually makes sense...

Medical costs for smokers are 40% higher than for non-smokers. Medicare is running out of money. I see a connection there - if we reduce the number of smokers, we have less medical costs. And if they keep smoking, we have more tax money that can be used for Medicare. Win - Win in my opinion.

To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid."

With national average price of gasoline near $4/gallon and President Obama's veto of the KXL pipeline, the President is toast. With the US economy slowing once again and unemployment headed upward, President Obama is burnt toast.

Just like in 2010, it will be another Republican landslide. I wouldn't be surprised if the President lost Illinois (unless too many Republicans have already left the state).

You may see lots of Obama bumper stickers in Evanston, but Evanston is now the Berkeley of the Midwest.

Play all the electoral map games you want, but recall Carter led Reagan in the polls until late October. Reagan won the 1980 election in a landslide. It's true that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, but the sheer disgust with President Obama's lack of leadership will propel Romney into the White House.

Take a look at the Time/Yahoo discussion of the Black Swan. Really interesting reading.

Right, because the minority leader of the US House of Representatives has such INCREDIBLE power to do ANYTHING. I'm glad you have such a thorough understanding of the government.

Richard, your self-delusional bubble is amazing. Let me see if I can follow your logic.

The economy is in a recession (or so you claim) because the businesses don't trust Obama. So they are doing everything they can to hurt the economy because they don't trust him. And because these businesses are hurting the economy since they don't trust Obama that makes it his fault.

So according to you its President Obama's fault that the businesses are intentionally hurting the economy.

Once again, a misunderstanding of how the American economy works. Businesses are not expanding because of fear of the Obama Administration-in other words, businesses are keeping their capital (cash) on the sidelines or investing their capital (cash) in other countries.

It might come as a surprise, but American businesses expanded their hiring recently, but the expansion of employment is occurring in countries other than the US. The Obama Administration policies are driving American firms out of investing in America, just like Castro drove the most productive Cubans out of Cuba.

Yes, Administration policies and expectations of future Administration policies affects business plans for expansion-that's just common sense to me. Clearly, this Administration is anti-business and if President Obama is re-elected the economy will crater even further.

On the bright side, the Supreme Court will declare Obamacare unconstitutional and throw out the entire 2,700 page law that nobody has read yet or even understands.

When members of her own campaign chose to sit out the election rather than vote for her, I think that about covers it. I don't need to call her dumb. It is nice to know what sort of "thinker" you are, however. It explains A LOT.

Indeed it does explain quite a bit. Sarah Palin is the one (potential) candidate with the reputation for absolute honesty and integrity. Honesty and integrity are what is lacking in our politicians, both Democrat and Republican. And she can draw (and wow) a crowd. Honesty and integrity are what I value most in a person.

In contrast, President Obama seems to take delight in saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite. Besides President Carter, President Obama reminds me a lot of LBJ.

Honesty and integrity????? Stop, you're killing me. I might have just laughed myself into a hernia. You really are unintentionally hilarious. HA.

My guess would be forward.

"My guess would be forward."

Given President Obama's track record, it is my opinion that the President is a socialist and he is leading us "forward" along the path to socialism.

If would seem that if the President wants us to adopt European socialism, or any other form of socialism, that he is modifying the Constitution of the United States and that a constitutional amendment is required. A mere simple majority should not be an acceptable means of changing the social compact known as the Constitution.

Finally, the President has admitted what many of us have already known. The President is a radical leftist-a socialist for sure. Yes, let's turn America into Greece.

Maybe he wants to turn us into Germany? Or perhaps he's eying Norway, he did get a pretty award there. Maybe he's just plain envious of Sweden and all their furniture and cars. None of those countries are doing so bad.

But I, again, wish to remind you of something Richard. The US Constitution does not proscribe an economic system for the United States. It was written only eleven years after the Wealth of Nations was written. Capitalism was still an idea and thoroughly not adopted by any nation. But more importantly, the Constitution does not prohibit Socialism or Communism because those two weren't even ideas yet. Communism, the first of the two to have a specific name, didn't develop until after 1848 when it was written by Marx.

So the Constitution could not prohibit an economic system sixty-one years before that economic system was developed.

No doubt the term "forward" has different connotations depending upon who is using the term. The meaning of the term "forward" used by capitalists has a completely different meaning from the term used by a socialist or communist. Certainly, President Obama is no free market capitalist.

Backward! Let Mitt lead the way!

"When democrats say it, it means something totally different."

Case in point: "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." President Clinton-Democrat.

Yes Sully, Democrats use a different language than regular folks, simply because if Democrats were actually honest about their agenda, that would be the end of the Democrat Party.

If President Obama had told the electorate about Obamacare while he was campaigning for the presidency, Sarah Palin would be the Vice President right now (and the economy would be roaring). Instead of telling us about Obamacare, it was "Hope and Change".

President Obama swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. When the constitutionality of Obamacare was questioned, a President complying with the oath of office would have ceased and desisted with the implementaton of Obamacare until the Supreme Court ruled on its constitutionality. Instead the President pressed along with the implementation of Obamacare after it was challenged on constitutional grounds.

Oath of office? What Oath of Office-hell, that doesn't mean anything. Now I'm going to go sneak a smoke in the closet that Clinton and Monica used.

Comment on Obama-care being unconstitutional (Richard Shulte, 5/1, 2:59 pm):

At the moment, that's an opinion. A challenge does not make it true. The Supreme Court can not rule on a law that doesn't exist. Of course the President pressed along with implementation. There was no violation whatsoever of his Oath of Office in doing so.

On the other hand if he tried to enforce laws that have been ruled unconstitutional - that would have been a violation of the Oath of Office. But he didn't.

You may beg to differ all you want, because begging is what your argument has been reduced to.

Cite me the specific article and clause in the Constitution that prohibits socialism.
Cite me the specific article and clause in the Constitution that prohibits communism.

As for Germany, while irrelevant to the point here, I will mention that at our highest point we had the four division of the US 7th Army stationed in southern Germany. Four divisions. Even during the Reagan buildup of the 80s the ENTIRE US Army totaled only 18 divisions. The Bundeswehr had 12 from a country devastated by WWII and with a population a quarter that of the US. Currently, they have five divisions, we have less than one left there. Germany has paid its defense costs just fine, so did all of NATO.

But none of that matters to the point I made. How is it that if Europe is all evil and bad, Germany's economy is prospering just fine. How come Sweden and Norway, with their huge social spending are just fine? Perhaps, maybe, reality is a little bit more complex than "ARGH EUROPE EVIL!"

But I'm still waiting for that article and clause that prohibits socialism.

Sully, the Democrat attack chihuahua comes out from under the couch where he hides to nip at the heels of Sarah Palin. Sully is just reading the cue cards he's been given.

If Sarah Palin were as dumb as they say, why would Democrats bother to expend so much time and energy attacking her? It would seem that they would be interested in promoting her as a candidate if she's so dumb. Democrats viciously attack the folks that they fear.

This is just another fine example of Democrats' "War on Women".

"If Sarah Palin were as dumb as they say, why would Democrats bother to expend so much time and energy attacking her?"

Because she was the vice-presidential candidate.

It might just be possible that Democrats were genuinely terrified of the idea that someone they perceived to be that dumb would be a heartbeat away from the presidency. But for that to be true, that would mean that Democrats aren't entirely political creatures and do care about America. However, as Richard as very clearly pointed to everyone, Democrats are just a bunch of treasonous losers, so that can't be why they picked on Sarah. I guess we'll just have to again return to Richard's impeccable and infallible intuitive sense for what Democrats are and believe.

None of those ban communism. You are simply interpreting them to ban communism. There is not literal banning of communism in the constitution. You simply infer a ban the exact same way the pro-choice has constructed a right to privacy: by taking bits of several parts of the Constitution and assembling them to achieve your end.

Even then, your examples aren't universal in their "ban" on Communism. The Chinese communist party has, since Deng Xiaoping, developed their own system of term limits that they adhere to. Again, your "ban" on Communism that you inferred is based on your own interpretation of both the Constitution and Communism.

Unfortunately, your interpretation doesn't matter as you do not sit on the US Supreme Court, nor were a member of the Constitutional Convention.

Furthermore, if socialism has been taking over this country, it has been taking its sweet time. I dare say most Americans think things were pretty good in the 50s and early 60s, at the high point of Liberalism in this country.

Just to confirm, Richard - you're in favor of eliminating Medicare. You're in favor of eliminating Social Security. You will do away with public schools. You will eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency. You will abolish the military. You will get rid of the highway builders.

There must be shared responsibility for many things - according to Milton Friedman, wherever it's necessary for the common good. I think you agree with that - it's just a matter of degree.

I think Medicare is a good idea? Do you? if you do, then according to your point of view (capitalism), the biggest users should also be the ones who pay the most. Richard - as a group, that's smokers.

Have I missed a link in this chain of reasoning anywhere? If you're against communism, but for Medicare, then you should be for higher taxes on smokers.

So the Constitution is great because it diffuses political power, but Obama is able to override the Constitution simply by being a debbie downer.

That's a resounding endorsement of the Constitution there Richard.

Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all bad because socialism has ended the story there. But very conveniently, all of the countries I listed aren't done with the story. That's very convenient for you Richard.

No, I haven't noticed that the "income gap" is getting wider. Conservatives are not envious of what other people have. If the "income gap" is getting wider, it may have something to do with the Obama Administration's policies (and Governor Quinn's tax increase).

What I have noticed is that many highly-qualified engineers that I know are either under-employed or unemployed. Why should highly qualified engineers be in this situation? There simply is no excuse for what happening to the US economy.

Are you better off now than when you were on January 20, 2009? That's the question every voter needs to ask themselves when they step into the voting booth on election day, 2012.

To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid."

I think he should get a job writing history textbooks. I bet Texas would buy.

LOL! They would!

"Can't you find a message board in Florida, Kansas, Evanston or wherever you're claiming to live this week?"

The Democrats have tried to argue with me, tried to mock me, used Allinsky tactics and have removed my posts from Patch. Why? It's because I'm effective in tearing apart the Dem record and agenda.

What difference does it make where I'm from? Aren't ideas and concepts the same in Kansas, Florida and Evanston?

Why not tell us how great the economy is and how great Obamacare will be for all of us? Why not tell us how great the Quinn tax increase is and why we should all stay in Illinois? The reason you can't is that the last 3 years and 3 months have been an absolute disaster and the Dems know it. The Dems have to change the subject.

When Republican signs go up in Crook County, they are ripped down. Sorry, but this is equal time. Democrats think they own the internet, but sorry, once again you're mistaken.

If you can't defend your political beliefs in the arena of ideas, well I guess maybe your ideas don't have any merit.

When Illinois flips from a blue state to a red state like Wisconsin did in the November 2010 election and there is a conservative mayor in Chicago, I'll likely declare victory. Until then, I will exercise my right to express and defend my political thoughts.

One nice thing about the written word, you're not forced to read it.

So again, Democrats are evil for "mocking" you, using "Allinsky tactics" on you, and expecting a certain level of decorum. Ok, that's your right to believe that.

But when you go and say: "Sorry, but this is equal time," you are then saying that all those evil things Democrats supposedly "do" are justifiable tactics for you to do? Either that makes you evil or it makes those "tactics" not as abhorrent as you claim.

You aren't effective at tearing people or ideas apart. You are magnificent in your ability to repeat the same half-dozen dogmatic claims. You don't discuss or debate, you dismiss other people. Only you have the facts and anytime anyone else says anything contrary to your worldview, their facts, no matter how well sourced, are just lies. You are unwilling to consider any viewpoint other than your own.

Given that, yes, you are incredibly effective as tearing apart Democrats if you exclude anything that doesn't agree with you. It is hard to defend any belief against you Richard when all Democrats are evil, baby-killing, communists, bound on destroying America and replacing it with their worldwide, socialist, global government. If you can't even accept that Democrats are proud Americans who simply have a different view on the role of government, then why should anybody bother responding to you?

So you tell me Richard. How does someone disagree with you while still being a patriotic American? Is such a thing possible in your view?

Another impressive defense of the record of the Obama Administration. Bravo! Bravo! "Forward"!

The question of the day until election day 2012 is: Are you better off now that you were on January 20, 2009?

And for the folks who live in Illinois:

Are you better off today than when Governor Quinn took office?

"It's the economy, stupid."

Yes, I'm better off than I was four years ago. My son, for whom I was paying $3,500 a year out of pocket for health insurance, got back on my plan. My son and daughter, both going to college, were able to better afford their tuition because of the tax breaks we received. Inflation has been kept down - my cost of living hasn't risen. And yes - gasoline costs more, but frankly it's more in line with what the rest of the world has been paying, so I don't blame that on Obama. But on the other hand, we have more fuel efficient cars, so that helps.

So yes, I'm better off. Thank you, Mr. President, for helping make it so.

As for Illinois - I'm moving out once the pension crisis forces the state into bankruptcy.

Well, there you go again. Democrats can't discuss the issues, so Sully wants to discuss my finances instead. My finances are not the issue. You won't even tell us your name or where you live.

OK Sully, you tell us your name, where you live and give us your financial records and I will be more than happy to do the same. The ball is in your court-I'm waiting on you to do what you want me to do.

47 percent of Americans don't pay any income tax. Over 40 million Americans use food stamps. It would appear based upon Sully's post that if you are in any one of these two groups, you are not entitled to express your opinion. Why is that Sully-poor people don't count?

Yes, there are poor conservatives and poor Republicans. We don't need (or want) the government's help.

Based upon Sully comment, there is little doubt that Sully is an elistist.

Actually Richard, the quote that "47% of Americans don't pay income tax" is not true, unless you are talking about "sending in a check by the 15th of April." Those sources only refer to people who owe money as of tax day. If you have taxes deducted from your paycheck, as many people do, then you could quite easily fall into that 47% even while paying income tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/taxes/income-tax/index.htm

Once again, Sully wants to drag this discussion into a ditch. Please tell us what facts you have presented? If you review this thread, it becomes obvious that you have presented no facts. If you want to see an example of facts being presented on Patch, see the following discussion:

http://evanston.patch.com/articles/opinion-green-power-is-right-for-evnaston#comments

You still haven't told us how people are allowed to disagree with you Richard. How can people discuss things with you? What are we allowed to say?

By the way, your link is a terrible piece of evidence. There are 14 comments, of which you have so helpfully provided 12. Of those, 3 are just your opinions, 2 are old articles which have nothing to do with green power, 1 is from a blog, more opinions, of an incredibly conservative "thinker," 2 more is from an editorial piece by some conservative scientists, and 4 are from an incredibly conservative publication. Not one is a neutral source. Not one is a neutral piece, they're all opinion pieces seeking to persuade opinions, not present facts. And on top of that, only 2 out of the 9 pieces that aren't your opinions actually talk about green energy, the rest are you just using that as a soapbox to rant about global warming.

If Sully or I presented information from equally left-wing opinions you'd be all over us, but for you, it's all ok because your information is all true.

So again, I ask you Richard, how may people disagree with you? Is it possible that you might be wrong, because if you can't even accept the idea that you might be wrong (and I fully accept that I could be wrong on a whole host of issues on which I am not an expert) then there's no point to you claiming to have a discussion. If you don't have an open mind, it's not a discussion, it's a rant from you.

"three times the amount for a gallon of gas." I love that line. Yes, let's have gas prices back just as they were on January 19th. And let's do it WITHOUT bringing back the rest of the economy.

You know for supposed free marketers, conservatives have a real hard time remember that the economy was in utter free fall, hence the plummeting gas prices. Had GDP not been recessing, had employment not been shedding jobs by the bushel, had credit not been frozen, gas prices would not have been under $2.

Perhaps you can can come back to reality and take a look at the economic conditions that led to those prices.

"So, what do you take off the government's dole?"

Absolutely nothing-not even a dime. I paid for my son's tuition for K through 8 for private school ($72 thousand-Baker Demonstration School) while at the same time paying property taxes in Evanston, not that it's any of your business.

I also paid 100 percent of tuition at a private unversity for 4 years for myself without any student loans-I earned a 100 percent private scholarship to the Illinois Institute of Technology.

You're a pretty creepy guy for even asking, but we already know that.

Sully, I think you're in trouble here-two folks who know what they are talking about. Looks like it's 2 on 1 here-I'm talking about D64 being the one. You don't have any facts, only Democrat playbook cue cards-so you don't even count.

Well hey I guess Obama gets credit then for slashing the price of gasoline 30% before he even set foot in the Oval Office.

October 27, 2008: $2.66/gallon
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/10/gas-prices-2.html

January 19, 2009: $1.85/gallon
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/gas-prices-2.html

Oh, and by the way, GDP was recessing prior to Obama taking office. It recessed .3 percent in the third quarter, that would be a month and change before Obama was elected.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/gdp308a.htm

No, they've been deleted because you have a hard time being moderately respectful of opinions you disagree with.

Show me where I said anything was fake, a lie, or not true. Editorials aren't neutral pieces, they're biased opinions, hence why they are labeled as editorials and not put in with the normal news sections.

Conservative publications aren't going to publish information which supports global warming, or green energy, or anything contrary to their own opinions. That's the point of a conservative publication: to promote conservative goals. So if you expect me to be swayed by a conservative publication finding evidence to support their own opinion, well I'm going to look for neutral, non-biased sources to present a full picture.

But the real issue is that only 2 of the 12 "facts" you presented actually had anything to do with the topic, and even then, they didn't relate to how green energy would affect Evanston. They were, as usual, just more rants about green energy as a whole.

Facts may be facts, yes. But if you don't present the whole picture then they aren't correct facts. And I have very many reasons to doubt that the AmericanThinker has given the full picture, just the same as I would doubt MotherJones or TheNewRepublic if they published articles in support of global warming and green energy.

Seriously Sully, you need to take a chill pill and back off a bit.

Well, there you go again-Sully is reading from his Democrat cue cards again. Yes, conservatives are all "bitter clingers" clinging to our beliefs.

Yes, I'm bitter alright-actually I'm so happy to have escaped from the People's Republic of Evanston and Crook County. (Now I know how East Germans felt when they escaped over the Berlin Wall.) Being a former liberal, I know that liberals are the ones with a negative attitude. I know that "global warming" is a hoax, consequently I don't give my carbon footprint a second-thought. Recycling-some recycling makes sense, for instance aluminum, but in general recycling is a waste of time and energy.

Conservatives believe in America and believe America's best days are ahead. Leftists are ashamed of America and what America has accomplished. Who has a positive attitute?

Your comment brings a smile to my face. I live close to a white sand beach which stretches for 20 miles. The folks in Florida and Alabama are friendly and enjoy life. No more snow. Just about 2 weeks of "cold" weather in the winter. Life couldn't be better and business is improving.

We have our guns and bibles and best of all, there are few Democrats around. Praise the Lord!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Sully.

Sully, your comments never bother me. Your comments are expected-you folks on the left all read from the same cue cards-there's not an original thought in your head.

Why is it so hard for you to read what I wrote? I referred to Newsweek (and Time) as "an old article" and didn't comment on the New York Times article.

Now here's the reason your posts keep getting pulled:

"The problem with leftists is that they are so closed-minded"

You are utterly incapable of having a normal discussion with anybody who disagrees with you. Tell me right now, if there is one person in the world who disagrees with you on political, economic, social, religious, or any societal issue and who is NOT close-minded, stupid, arrogant, etc.?

Is it possible to disagree with you Richard and be a normal, rational, human being?

I see you've had time to criticize Sully but not answer my question Richard. So I'll repeat it agin:

Is it possible to disagree with you Richard and be a normal, rational, human being?

So your answer is "no." Thank you.

"Is it possible to disagree with you Richard and be a normal, rational, human being?"

Rational human beings would read the Time and Newsweek articles on "global cooling" from the 1970's and wonder why these two articles were talking about "global cooling". That's what a rational human being would do.

As you can see, Sully and Ole Buc just can't comprehend the notion that the "scientists" that say that global warming is occurring are wrong (or are corrupt).

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Sully and Ole Buc are not rational people. And why accept what they say if they are not rational people?

At one time, the "scientists" believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth. The "scientists" were wrong about that. Given this, it is possible that the "climate scientists" are wrong about "global warming" too. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case. Yet, Sully and Ole Buc just can't admit it because that's the foundation of their entire belief system.

If "global warming" is wrong, then just maybe everything else we believe is wrong too. Ooops.

Quite an impressive list of articles to read. Yes, Rush Limbaugh is lying. So is Hannity and that God-aweful Michell Malkin. Actually Rush, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Levin and other conservative commentators just upset the worldview of the left and have to be destroyed.

Sully and Ole Buc think that they own Crook County and Illinois, but Bill Brady won 98 of 102 counties in Illinois in the race for governor against Pat Quinn. The entire State of Illinois pretty much agrees with a more conservative agenda, but Illinois is controlled by Crook County.

Chicago was named the most corrupt city in America-no surprise there. Why would the populace of Chicago support corrupt government? Why would Sully and Ole Buc support the party of corrupt government? Seemingly, the only answer to that question is that they support corruption of government, which means that they are corrupt themselves. In other words, they are morally bankrupt and amoral.

How can people who are honest and have integrity respect someone who is morally bankrupt? Sorry Ole Buc, it ain't going to happen.

"How can people who are honest and have integrity respect someone who is morally bankrupt?"

Again, thank you Richard for making your point clear. This is why your posts have been pulled. You have no respect for anyone with whom you disagree. In your viewpoint, everyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt. Well I'm sorry you feel that way.

I have tried to present counterpoints to you Richard in a respectful way, tolerant of your opinion (with which I vehemently disagree), so that we can a proper, civil, discourse here.

You said "Democrats can't discuss the issues." I have asked you repeatedly how we can discuss the issues with you. Your response has been to call us morally bankrupt, corrupt, stupid, and a host of other pejoratives. Is it so hard for you to have a discussion where you do not develop a hatred for the other side? Is it so hard for you to actually confront an opinion or facts and not the person saying them?

The Patch's editors have been quite magnanimous for allowing a discussion that clearly has no civility to it for continuing this long. On almost any internet forum you, and Sully as well, would have long ago been banned for "flame wars." But here the "discussion" has been allowed to go for months on a half-dozen different topics. That's dedication to free speech.

I feel bad for you Richard, I'm sorry that you live in such a hate-filled world. You may hate me, but that's ok, it is certainly your right to believe that.

For all you Blue State and Red State apologists, it appears as if government corruption is pretty much color blind, at least to this apparently non-Socialist (and non Fox-affiliated) online source. Please note that neither Florida nor Illinois made the list.

http://247wallst.com/2012/03/22/americas-most-corrupt-states/

And while we're at it, we don't appreciate the endless nasty and obnoxious attacks on Sarah Palin. Accusing Sarah Palin of causing the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords-how ridiculous a charge.

And we don't appreciate the attack on the Lt. Governor of the State of Wisconsin with sexual references. (You might recall the exact words of the attack from another thread. (Patch did not remove the exact quote referencing fellatio being performed by the Lt. Governor on conservative talk-show hosts in Milwaukee.)

And we don't appreciate the attack on Ann Romney for working at home taking care of her children.

When Democrats publicly apologize to Sarah Palin, the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin and to Ann Romney, perhaps we can have a civil conversation. Until then, it's General Sherman's March to the Sea.

"...perhaps we can have a civil conversation. Until then, it's General Sherman's March to the Sea."

Then perhaps you shouldn't post here. The Acceptable Use Policy states: "Communities thrive when people care about each other, and as such, Patch expects all of its users to be respectful of others." You've made clear you have no intention of being respectful to others. Perhaps you should try to follow the rules?

"but you have no problem with them posting."

-I specifically told Sully to back down, and at 8:03 this morning said "On almost any internet forum you, and Sully as well, would have long ago been banned." I do have a problem with Sully's tone. Thanks for lying.

"Making the statement that people who support corrupt government, i.e. Chicago and Crook County (pay-to-play) are "morally bankrupt" is simply a statement of fact."

-That is an opinion. There is no legal definition for "morally bankrupt." You are classifying people based on your own opinion.

"The conclusion about being "morally bankrupt" is simply a logical conclusion from unchallenged facts."

-It is not a logical conclusion. For example, I voted for Forest Claypool in 2006 instead of Stroeger and in 2010 voted for Keats, the Republican. How does that make me corrupt?

"Now that you mentioned the "rules", Patch's rules of engagement require everyone to use their full legal name."

1: There are no "rules of engagement," but there are "terms of use." Not everything is war/fight.
2: Nowhere in the "terms of use" is there anything that says what you claim. If you want to lie and make stuff up, you should do a better job of it.
3: The "terms of use" do say that you are not allowed to post anything that "violates any party’s right of publicity or right of privacy;" I chose to withhold my legal name based on that right.

"Patch's rules of engagement require everyone to use their full legal name. Looks like Ole Buc, D64 and Sully have been permitted to post outside the rules which you quoted." Not true, Mr. Schulte. Legal name is required to register, not to post. Please get your facts straight.

First of all, it's D46, not D64. Dyslexic? And secondly, I never said a word about S Palin's intellect. I said, and I quote, "You preferring Sarah Palin tells me all I need to know". In your response, you ranted about how "they" called Reagan dumb, and W Bush, etc. I did laugh at your asserstion that she has "honesty and integrity". Apparently you spend so much time and so much energy posting long winded diatribes on here that you can't even read or comprehend the responses properly. It would be awfully nice if the moderators would start eliminating posts that veer wildly off topic, which would include all of your and Sully's p-----g contests. Is it too much to ask that actual residents of Grayslake and the environs get to discuss local issues without outsiders coming on and taking over to vent about their extreme ideology?

I give up, I will quit wasting my time on Patch. Pity there isn't another source for local news that you don't have to pay to read online. But you, Richard, are just plain psycho. Enjoy ranting to yourself, then responding to yourself about issues no one else is talking about. You need help.

The folks who live in New Orleans were really upset with President Bush after Katrina, but, after the Gulf oil spill, they came to realize that the Bush Administration actually did a decent job after Katrina.

The Obama Administration really botched the oil spill clean-up. After the oil spill, the folks from New Orleans changed their minds about President Bush.

Given a choice between Governor Blanco (D) and Jindal (R), the people of Louisiana chose the competent one-Jindal. Given a choice between President Bush and President Obama, once again the people of Louisiana prefer the competent one, President Bush, simply because President Bush was actually trying his best to help.

President Obama used the oil spill as an excuse to punish Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas for voting Republican in the 2008 election. (The Gulf oil drilling moratorium is all about punishing these four states.)

What sort of President would use an oil spill to punish Americans because of the way they voted in an election? That's obvious-sounds like something a Democrat from Chicago would do.

Since you have the Acceptable Use Policy up Richard, perhaps you can show me the Patch's requirement for "everyone to use their full legal name."

I keep waiting for him to respond to that one, too.

It's interesting that Sully hasn't weighed in on Patch's policy outlined above. I guess the Democrat chihuahua (Sully) is hiding under the couch.

Let's hear from you Sully-I can't wait to hear your defense of your rhetoric. This should be good.

RB, you are correct-I think that the best course of action for America would be "divorce" (peaceful fsecession). The gulf between segments of America is just too great to be bridged. In my opinion, there are only two options-divorce or civil war.

The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is to allow the people to remove a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution contemplates violet "civil war". In fact, Thomas Jefferson stated that a revolution would be necessary every 20 years or so for Americans to remain free.

Is "civil war" too "frightening to contemplate"? The alternative to "civil war" or "divorce between the states" is authoritarian government. We are well on our way to authoritarian government. An authoritarian government has already been established in C[r]ook County. A one party system is authoritatrian by its very nature.

The attack on Judge Robert Bork by Senator Kennedy in 1982 was (perhaps) the beginning of what we see today in politics. The protest by teachers in Wisconsin (the 3 week long teachers' riot) and the fleeing of Democrat legislators from Wisconsin shows that Democrats do not accept the results of elections.

When part of the population refuses to accept the results of elections, then what we have is the break down of government. The break down in government can only lead to civil war.

While divorce is difficult to contemplate, it is far better than the alternative-civil war.