<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Picking a President" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/831]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from ZachDCox]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1816424]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I just read this and I do disagree, Obama said it best last night, sometimes you just have to say NO.  Sometimes you have to stick up for what you believe in.   It is clear Obama has a belief system (which I happen to agree with).  It is clear that Romney does not (modulo that he may be a decent man in his church).  You only have to look at his business deals and from his performance in the primaries and last night; it is clear he has absolutely NO belief system about politics (that he is willing to share.)  The Scott Adams article seems to say that this sort of behavior, which he call pragmatism is OK to have.  I disagree because you have no evidence that that the man is just hiding a good belief system or that he really has NONE!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1816424]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from AlessioCalcagno]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1810573]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[http://www.4dietonline.com

Dieta dimagrante personalizzata per dimagrire e tornare in forma. 4 diete personalizzate dimagranti online.Dimagrire velocemente con la tua dieta ipocalorica personalizzata online. 4 diete online veloci per perdere peso ed inoltre trucchi e consigli sul mondo dell'alimentazione.


Dimagrire con la tua dieta dimagrante personalizzata online. 4 diete dimagranti personalizzate per perdere peso con il metodo 4 diet.


Dieta dimagrante personalizzata online per dimagrire in modo sano e duraturo. 4 diete personalizzate dimagranti per perdere peso in modo naturale.Gentile Utente in questa sezione del sito ti mostreremo su cosa si basa il nostro operato.

Il Sito 4 diet Online si basa su metodi di valutazione riconosciuti dal mondo scientifico internazionale come validi strumenti per la determinazione della composizione corporea e della predizione dello stato nutrizionale e dei fabbisogni calorici.

Innanzitutto dopo aver inserito i tuoi dati ed acquistato il pacchetto della dieta calcoleremo tramite formule predittive diverse a seconda del metodo da te scelto ( standard, rilevazione antropometrica o impedenzometria)  il tuo peso ideale e il tuo fabbisogno calorico giornaliero.

Per la determinazione del fabbisogno calorico giornaliero utilizziamo una media ponderata elaborata dal nostro staff per il metodo 4 diet Online di formule predittive quali :

Lorenz - Bertheam- Wand Der  Wael â€“ Ottaviani ( tutte riconosciute come validi strumenti dal mondo medico scientifico internazionale per calcolare il fabbisogno calorico giornaliero).

Il nostro metodo mette al centro del tuo processo di dimagrimento non solo il calo ponderale ma anche l'educazione alimentare che deve permanere anche dopo il processo di dimagrimento.
Per questo motivo la scelta di alimenti sani e salutari viene effettuata proprio dall'utente per ben 4 volte nell'arco di 3 mesi per sviluppare una reazione cognitiva comportamentale che lo porterÃ  a valutare la disparitÃ  tra la propria alimentazione e quella proposta nelle liste di 4 diet Online. Per fare ciÃ² il nostro sito dispone di un database con piÃ¹ di mille alimenti in continua evoluzione.
Una volta scelti gli alimenti il nostro staff valuterÃ  un' alimentazione appropriata alle tue esigenze fisiologiche utilizzando solamente gli alimenti da te scelti. Ti chiediamo di scegliere il maggior numero possibile di alimenti per permetterci di bilanciare la tua nuova alimentazione non solo nei macro nutrienti ( Proteine, Grassi e Carboidrati) ma anche nei micronutrienti ( oligo-elementi, vitamine, sali e fibra). 

Le nostre diete prevedono una perdita graduale ma continua di peso e  siccome il fabbisogno calorico del nostro organismo Ã¨ strettamente correlato al peso corporeo il nostro staff consiglia di registrare tutte le variazioni ponderali e quando queste iniziano ad essere significative ( almeno 3 kg in meno ) di ricalcolare la propria dieta con i nuovi parametri.

Il nostro obbiettivo Ã¨ quello di farti perdere peso in modo rigoroso ma equilibrato attraverso un'educazione alimentare che permanga nel tempo e che trasformi il tuo impegno in un risultato solido e duraturo.

La dieta e gli alimenti che proponiamo derivano tutti dall'alimentazione mediterranea, la dieta riconosciuta dall'organizzazione mondiale della sanitÃ  come modello per il controllo del peso corporeo e di conseguenza di tutte le patologie metaboliche cronico degenerative come diabete ,ipercolesterolemia e ipertensione. Inoltre il nostro staff rivolge una particolare attenzione all'indice glicemico degli alimenti privilegiando quelli con minor impatto metabolico sull'organismo.

Per terminare a vostra disposizione c'Ã¨ una sezione dove potete chiedere al dietista eventuali dubbi che possono essere utili anche come educazione alimentare.

Augurandoci di esservi utili rimaniamo a vostra disposizione per eventuali chiarimenti e Dieta come stile di vita.

Molto spesso quando associamo l'idea di persona magra si pensa a qualcuno che pesa poco o che porta una taglia 40. Niente di piÃ¹ falso. Anche se a dire il vero il BMI Ã¨ un utile strumento di controllo della forma fisica esso mette in relazione solo l'altezza e il peso della persona presa in esame. Essere in forma quindi non Ã¨ una questione solo di peso ma di rapporti fra massa magra e massa grassa. Oltre ad avere un rapporto ottimale fra questi due compartimenti corporei per avere anche una certa esteticitÃ  bisogna dare tono e volume alla muscolatura.
Per ottenere ciÃ² non basta ridurre il peso ma bisogna ridurre sensibilmente la percentuale di grasso corporeo e mantenere costante o incrementare la percentuale di massa magra.
Ovviamente alla base di questo percorso c'Ã¨ la dieta dimagrante personalizzata , che deve essere calcolata in base alle nostre esigenze fisiologiche, deve assicurare il giusto apporto calorico giornaliero, e non eliminare mai nessun nutriente dalla nostra tavola. 
Oltre alla dieta , anche se la piÃ¹ azzeccata per il nostro organismo, dovremmo impegnarci seriamente in qualche attivitÃ  sportiva anche ludica come lo zumba o il golf. Ovviamente maggiore sarÃ  l'impegno sportivo e maggiori saranno le sollecitazione maggiore sarÃ  il risultato dal punto di vista estetico, inoltre perdendo massa grassa ed acquistando massa magra vedremo notevoli cambiamenti fisici senza necessariamente perdere molto peso.
Oltre all'attivitÃ  fisica e alla dieta dimagrante il mio consiglio Ã¨ quello di dare la giusta importanza all'acqua, ed associare le tre cose in modo permanente e costante nel tempo. Insomma Ã¨ una questione di stile di vita , di rapporto con il cibo e costanza e regolaritÃ  nell'esecuzione  dell'attivitÃ . fisica. 
Per poterla perpetrare nel tempo la dieta non deve risultare troppo faticosa ma deve incastrarsi perfettamente con le nostre abitudini e i nostri ritmi di vita, farne partecipe la famiglia e gli amici, dobbiamo sentirne quasi il bisogno fisico e riceverne la giusta gratificazione sia dal punto di vista estetico che fisiologico.
Se riusciamo a cambiare  non solo il nostro corpo ma anche la nostra mente il gioco Ã¨ fatto i risultati saranno duraturi nel tempo, fare la dieta con qualche piccolo sgarretto e fare ginnastica in settimana non saranno piÃ¹ peso o una rinuncia ma semplicemente il nostro stile di vita! suggerimenti.
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1810573]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from JoetheWebmaster]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1797707]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Elections are just an emotional horse and pony show... The dynamics of the situation is Federal style government speeds the nations entropy process because any phase transition (mainly failures lately) at the federal level quickly transition locally, there is only one. Hence the reason for states rights... redundancy. That way one phase transition doesn't effect the entire system, there are 50. With redundancy the nation has room to correct failure and slow the entropy process. Just look at history... exponential entropy as soon the redundancy was removed. Simply, don't put all your eggs in one basket.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1797707]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from ob1]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1793993]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Whitehouse dream team:

President = Scott Adams
Vice President = Adam Savage [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1nSuWztIrY ]
Messaging = Dan Roam [ http://www.danroam.com/ ]
Funding = Colbert SuperPac [ http://colbertsuperpac.com/ ]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1793993]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Shimmerville]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1790368]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[They didn't have Rolling Stone at the newsstand, so I got Weekly World News.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1790368]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Bankerdanny]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1787072]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You seem to recall a different campaign Obama than I do. I recall a centrist campaigner that has been a very leftist governor. I recall a man who promised to have the most open administration in history who is just as quick to hide behind privilege *cough* Eric Holder *cough*.  A man who promised a more ethical administration (although I don't think the Bush administration had the ethical issues that many liberals would say it had) has not distinguished himself in that regard (see Sebelius, Kathy). Crony capitalism has been just as powerful in the Obama administration. Prominent Democrat John Corzine's firm miss-appropriated over $1 BILLION in supposedly segregated customer funds, I must have missed the perp walk where he was arrested for significant violations of securities laws. 

For the most part the Obama from the campaign was smoke and mirrors and the real Obama administration has been to the far left and an example of what you get when you bring Chicago style politics to the nation's highest elected office.

I also think it is wrong to label the Tea Party movement as racist. You think the only possible reason to dislike Obama is because he is black? Personally the Christian right has it's hooks too deep into the Tea Party movement for my tastes. But I know many supporters and I have many conservative friends that can't stand Obama and none of the reasons have anything to do with his race.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1787072]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from larryh77]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1782321]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, why would you think Romney would lose every debate?  An incumbent President who failed in so many of his &quot;hope and change&quot; promises is a pretty big target.  And Romney, I think, is an excellent speaker!  He should have no problem with Obama.

Still, wish it was Newt instead of Romney.
I'd love to see Obama in a debate with Newt Gingrich!  I would guess that at the last moment some emergency would come up and Obama wouldn't even show up!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1782321]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dilbertSpawn]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1782047]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Here you advocate the idea of not re-electing a president who can't get anything accomplished regardless of the reasons.  I have to say I'm opposed.  Following that policy would make refusing to compromise a solid political strategy for any members of congress who wanted to see the president voted out, and I don't think any reasonable people want to encourage that.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1782047]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Allen]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1781699]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@whtllnew, if you had clicked on the link and read the whole column I was referring to, you would see that Sowell went on to explain that a very similar phenomena occurred during the Reagan administration, which hardly took place during an agrarian economy.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1781699]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from meblackstone]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1781133]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[So when Clint Eastwood said &quot;It's time for a businessman!&quot;, the crowd went nuts, as if he said &quot;It's time for free alcoholic beverages!&quot;]

Republicans drink?

Somewhere there was a study on people's perception of trustworthiness. If I recall correctly, we should be electing Nurses first, then Engineers.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1781133]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Therion]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1781073]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Dooby, interesting post. Unfortunately, I don't think we're anywhere near the stage where the super-rich become targets of mob violence. There was a recent story that this class have accumulated an off-shore treasure trove of 21 trillion dollars, which is larger than the economies of USA and Japan combined. Think about that: the money these &quot;wealth creators&quot; have taken out of circulation in the world economy is larger than the economies of USA and Japan combined. There should have been national outcry; yet hardly anything was said, even in left-wing publications.

Probably the reason that Sheldon Adelson has donated so publicly to Romney's campaign is that Republican voters are so indoctrinated now that they think greed is something to be admired. To me, &quot;businessman&quot; is a dirty word, comparable to !$%*!$% or !$%*!$% but to the majority of Republicans, it's more consistent with &quot;saint&quot; or &quot;super-hero&quot;. So when Clint Eastwood said &quot;It's time for a businessman!&quot;, the crowd went nuts, as if he said &quot;It's time for free alcoholic beverages!&quot;

[How does one take wealth "out of circulation"? If you buy a yacht, the money keeps circulating. If you invest in any sort of financial instrument it is still part of the productive economy. Someone is using that investment to build businesses and fund infrastructure. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1781073]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from kirpi]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780771]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I have been reading this blog a lot, so I may be dubbed a part of your rational audience :) That said;

- You haven't asked critism on this one? Why is that? May you be less confident about the value of these ideas than you are in general?
- I am all for a level discussion field where congress (well my local version of it) is under direct spotlight. It would be good for US discussion too. But this blog comments section does not strike me as of an especially good design for quality discussion. I would suggest a threaded comment plugin (such as Disqus, IntenseDebate or any plugin) that would make it clear who answers to what. Then, you wouldn't need to edit comments to reply to them. (at least technically)
- My third point would be about racism. I know you are a pragmatic person (I like to think of myself to be one too) but isn't voting an African-American president off to disperse Tea Party is analogous to surrendering democracy to make terrorists stop?

You will already know but just to state for the others who are not owners of this blog, I'm a Turkish citizen living in Turkey. So I &quot;may&quot; be objective too on USA politics. (Full disclosure: I watch all your news on Daily Show and Colbert Report {just for the fun they have on Fox network} :)

[You're right about the comment thread. That's on my list for the future. But I think you analogy is a stretch. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780771]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Labreck]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780647]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[What funny is for an external observer, the USA political system is doomed to gridlock. You have three level, each competing for nearly the same power and you give the population a chance to blindly fallow their emotion and change part of the different chamber at different time. Someone could call it putting fresh blood in the middle of a president's term, most other will only say that just a good way to keep the system paralyses unless the three level are strongly leaning the same way.

Obama did what he had to do to manage the economy. Any republican president in his shoes facing a democrat congress would have as much luck getting their economic plan passed.

Also, in an objective note, you heard a lot more of republican polluting and bringing down the political debate that the reverse. Demagogy, notably on the health-care system of Obama was just that, demagogy. That a severe minus for republican for anyone who wish to try and keep up the political debate. I don't care if Romney lie to the masses to become a good public servant, but I do care when the masses do buy unnecessary argument that are logically flawed. 

And yes, definitely, if what you say Adams is true, that a second mandate for Obama mean a gridlock system, then every extreme conservative should vote for the guy. They genuinely think that any form of government is bad. Strategic voting is sometime weird.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780647]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mongoose]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780525]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regarding firing politicians for poor performance, I have had the idea for several months now that someone should start a campaign to try to get as many people as possible to vote against all incumbent Congressmen this election, no matter what they think of their particular candidates, Republican or Democrat, etc.  Given that Congress has a lower approval rating than telemarketers and lobbyists (!), you wouldn't think this would be that hard, but unfortunately people often like *their* Congressman, don't want to support the other team, etc.

Actually, it's far too late for this election, but it could be awesome in 2014 if things still aren't going well.  It would be especially nice to start the campaign before the Congressional primaries.

If anyone reading this wants to steal the idea, please do so!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780525]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Dooby]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780524]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Do you ever wonder if maybe Romney isn't so much a candidate as he is a useful distraction? Maybe he's like the magician's right hand, getting people to focus their attention while the left hand does the actual trick.

I'll explain. Right now, inequality and the concentration of wealth are happening at an unprecedented degree and seemingly still rising. There are a lot of people, most easily seen in Occupy Wall Street, who have come to see not the government, but the banks and the wealthy corporations as the true enemy of society. And with that rise in attention for the evils of unchecked capitalism comes the real possibility that the rich themselves could become the target of mob violence.

How do you, if you're a super rich Wall Street type, help reduce the chance of being mobbed by angry poor people? Maybe you get them to focus their energy on politics instead, and away from what you're doing.  Present them with someone who is practically a caricature of Wall Street greed, and convince them that to strike against the hated Wall Street, they should work within the system to prevent that caricature from winning an election. All the while, you give them an alternative whose speeches call to their primal populist need for justice against the rich, while proving through his policies that he'll do nothing that would hurt you, whether you've committed grand-scale fraud and tax evasion or not.

Obama is no threat. Mob violence and revolution against the banks is. Could it be that that's all Romney is? The magician's right hand? Our distraction to keep our energy completely locked up in a political system that the rich already control?

If you believe that the answer is no, then my question is this - why is Sheldon Adelson, a man who resembles a Bond supervillain and has multiple DoJ investigations surrounding him, giving to Romney so publicly? If he really wants Romney to win, there are so many ways he could give him cash without anyone knowing he was behind it. It sullies Romney tremendously, and I can't believe he wouldn't realize that. So why give it out in the open where it looks like Tammany-Hall level corruption, if not to get people angry about the super-rich buying an election?

That's what's been bouncing around in my head lately, and I'd be curious to hear what others think about it.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780524]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from asparaguspee]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780248]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Sorry everybody, I meant to say &quot;you're driving it.&quot;]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780248]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from asparaguspee]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780247]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Oh my. I decided to breeze right on past &quot;racist,&quot; because I have very little to add - it's reprehensible if true/a silly statement if false. 

But, [I think &quot;fault&quot; is the domain of non-thinkers.] and [Fairness isn't a real thing]? I don't know what to do with that... I guess I just hope if I ever rear-end somebody's car, your driving it.

(Not really, of course -  I'm just trying to illustrate what an odd way of thinking those statements represent.)]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780247]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Raskolnikov]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780246]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[fivethirtyeight.com is now giving Obama an 80 percent chance of winning.

Romney/Ryan might be getting desperate enough to start going VERY VERY negative with their ads.  (I don't live in a swing state, maybe that's already happening?)

Just for fun, can anyone come up with an ad they could run the day before the election that would hand them a landslide victory?

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780246]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Melvin1]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780244]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I think the main difference between the parties (today) and the candidates is big government vs small government. Sure there are stupid things on both sides (GOP taking a hard line on some social issues and Dem's being beholden to unions no matter how bad it is for the country), but the overarching principle is individualism vs government solutions.

Recall Reagan: &quot;government is not the solution; government is the problem.&quot;
Then Bush Sr. was voted out for reneging on his promise not to raise taxes.
And Clinton proclaimed &quot;the era of big government is over.&quot;
  ... ah, the good old days (of high employment, job growth, falling inflation, falling deficits, etc).

Then the Tom Delay congress under Bush II decided to grow fat and spend like drunken sailors on leave. So they were thrown out.  But the Democrats proved that they could outspend even them.  And they &quot;took a shellacking&quot; in 2010.  And here we sit.

So, while it's understandable that the left wants the government to help people, those on the right, rather than being selfish, believe that the best way to help people is for the government to get out of the way and let the private economy grow, hire, and pay people.

It has been said that the best housing program, the best health care program, educational program, anti-poverty, social safety net that could ever exist is a growing economy with ample jobs.  The government can't create this, but sure has proven adept at thwarting it lately.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780244]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780052]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@Raskolnikov

[The short answer on why Rolling Stone is often more credible than The Wall Street Journal or the New York Times is that they are not beholden to the same advertisers.]

I don't know that I would consider NYT or WSJ to do a good job at fairly and intelligently summarizing the candidates either.  We need to set our sights higher.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1780052]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
