You're right Kevin wrote on Mar 25, 2007 9:35 PM:Anyone with half a brain would know that Goat Hill is the wrong, wrong, wrong location for a stadium. So let's waste $100K on someone who tells us this when we could have hired more cops and firefighters.

Alf wrote on Mar 25, 2007 9:58 PM:Frank Lorey asks "Which law is more important, vandalism or trespassing?" I have an answer to that one, since the vandals committed both, they both are. Prosecute the perpetrators. As to "looks like a trash dump", if the vandals trespassed to look for trash, they still trespassed. If they reduced what was there to trash, they vandalized. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

Lugatz wrote on Mar 25, 2007 11:47 PM:Neil Hughes has a point. To follow up on his suggestion, we could insist that CostCo ignore child labor laws and give jobs to all those young kids that will no longer have a place to hang out after school. As for the senior citizens, they have already been hanging around long enough anyway: "let them eat cake."

Lugatz wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:06 AM:Re: "The World Is Watching." David Harris must be very young, to be so idealistic. Apparently he believes there is such a thing as an honest politician. Drat, those public schools! Don't they teach our kids anything these days?

el_patron wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:45 AM:well, Frank Lorey of Escondido,you speak with a vile outlook. We are to treat our fellow humans decently. Just because their possessions are meager gives no one a right to destroy them. Your value judgements are without morality or law. A person has a right to personal safety in this country. Let me go out on a limb, and make a value judgement : I bet you are a Republican.

Really wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:25 AM:Gasoline prices flat according to Grant. Ha ha. Explain why the oil companies made billions more in profits? Their highest prices ever! Our elected officials should do something NOW about gasoline prices. And I don't mean tell us to conserve.

gimmeabreak wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:38 AM:Way to go, Frank Lorey. Asking which law is more important "vandalism": or 'trespassing?" Question right back atcha Frank? Which human being is more important, a "legal" or an "Illegal" one? Using your poor excuse for logic, it's okay that somebody "Trashed" illegals trash, because they're just scummy undesirables? Is that what you're trying to say? Its one thing to lobby the Feds to do a better job of enforcing immigration laws, it's another to praise idiotically unconstitutional action by the City council - and its far worse than both to promote mob-rule vigilanti-ism against the poorest of the poor in our community. Disgraceful, callous.

gimmeabreak wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:57 AM:Hey Frank Lorey! Recognize this? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Its section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and it affords due process rights to ALL PERSONS in the U.S., not just citizens.

parking tab..... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 6:07 AM:Let's see...the Chargers gave the City of SD a bill from some MILLION dollars for what? Because the City required that they abide by laws ALL OTHER BUSINESSES have to--like having ample parking facilitate handicap people? Let Chula Vista have these guys: the cost is too high.

El Guero wrote on Mar 26, 2007 6:50 AM:It is irrelevant to Tina Jillings how many Latinos are members of 'You Don't Speak For Me.' But no more irrelevant than the fact that 10 million Mexicans (and three or four million 'other' Latin American) immigrants broke the law of the United States by coming here illegally. Thirteen million people is more than the populations of most European countries. How can it not be relevant?

Plenty fo ways... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:39 AM:to support our troops Al Maglietto. Try calling Camp Pendleton, or the Navy. They are always looking for volunteers to help affected families. Also, try Operation Homefront, they help families with car repairs, furniture, and all kinds of other stuff. It's out there, if you look.

Ron wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:50 AM:"It's hard to vandalize trash", that maybe your opinion Frank Lorey, but it's not relevant to the discussion. If these people trashed other people's property, then they need to held accountable for their actions. With that being said, it is just a little more than suspicious that these illegal camps were in the canyons for years, without so much as a peep from the San Diego policie department. This looks as if justice only goes one way, and this will infuriate those taxpayers live near these canyons, and have complained for years with no response from law enforcement to their concerns. It is extremely interesting to see how actively the police will pursue the case of vandalism of an illegal encampment that looks like a trash dump, "Warrants served in connection with migrant camp vandalism," March 22. I would think it is hard to vandalize trash. Now let's see them put the same amount of time and energy into removing those illegal encampments that are violating trespassing laws. Which law is more important ññ vandalism or trespassing? Who makes the decision like this for the police? And what are they doing about the illegal aliens who are violating the law by being there in the first place? I guess some laws are just not politically correct anymore ññ maybe we should remove them from the books! Or maybe with such selective enforcement of the laws the police just aren't needed ññ at least the San Diego Police Department. It appears that they are just there to police the rights of those here illegally in our country.

Do you find it odd... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:06 AM:as I do Grant Kuhns. That the very same people who are complaining about Big Oil gouging us on gas prices are the same who don't want us to drill anywhere domestically? And these same people never had a problem with increasing Government taxes on a gallon of gas? When the price goes up, it will eliminate drivers who can't afford it. It will move them to public transportation, this is exactly how it's done in Europe. Moving the price per gallon up actually reduces cars on the road. Now, if you think the Government has given you this right to drive your wrong. It is a privilege. And you certainly have no right to cheap gas. And as of this day, this idea of "price gouging" is urban legend at best. There has been no evidence of gouging. It's another straw dog argument attempting to bring Bush down and trying to tie him to Big Oil. It's baloney.

to Really wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:14 AM:You want the politicians to "do something", other than encourage us to conserve? Just what did you have in mind? Price controls? An immediate freeze on the operations of Exxon, Chevron, etc. so said politicians can confiscate all those profits and divvy them out to you and me? Viva La Cuba...

to Really wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:24 AM:If you don't want politicians telling you to conserve, I'll tell you: CONSERVE! If everyone made a concerted effort to conserve over a period of time, the oil corporations would be eating out of our hands and would have no choice but to lower prices due to their high supply. Your post makes it seem as if you feel you are somehow entitled to cheap gas, and you can't be bothered to conserve.

Al Maglietto raises an interesting point wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:32 AM:Support the troops, but how? My feeling is that the administration wants this to be its own little war. Bush asks citizens other than the military for no sacrifices, in fact he gives tax cuts. He allows the VA and army hospitals to deteriorate. He chose to go to Iraq with the military (and the equipment) that he had, without necessity. Most telling, he has, from day one, decided to hide the realities of the war from us: no coffins, no views of the injured, no funerals...the costs are hidden from our sight, just as the cost in money is hidden in the future. His only request to the people: be patient and go shopping. Comparing this leadership to that of WWII says it all.

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:56 AM:I wonder, Ron" at 7:50am, if Justice only goes one way or if it APPEARS to go one way. It boils down to this - Who is doing purposeful damage and who is doing incidental damage? They both are doing damage and they both need to be held accountable.

Realist wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:02 AM:When one goes through the legal process of becoming an American citizen, he or she has no problem. It's those who think they can cut in line. They fail to realize that their simple act costs taxpayers millions of dollars in health care and school costs. I applaud them for trying to seek a better life for themselves and their families, just do it the legal way!

Realist wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:07 AM:The only thing Americans can do to cut gas prices (besides going to the Government) is simply to drive less. No boycotts would work, simply because this nation is simply too dependant on gas powered cars, trucks, and SUV's.

Wow..... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:47 AM:talk about vicious. Tina Jillings has made this very personal in her attack letter today on Claudia Spencer. She has now ceased to be a serious person, it is proper to dispute ways and means of achieving legal status in this country, but not like this. And then she attacks her "brown-ness?" Kinda like the NAACP, except it only recognises NAAL(iberal)CP people's. As long as you agree with them, your included, once you don't, they question your heritage. Politics of personal destruction at work here.

Mail order bride? wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:44 AM:Absurd that Tina Jillings would make such an unfounded statement against Claudia Spencer that she was a mail order bride. Claudia and Mike Spencer relationship rooted from a Pen Pal correspondence Not a mail order bride situation. This is a perfect example that Hispanic open border activist like Tina Jillings will backlash on their own race when they don't agree on the same issue. This is another example of the open border activist to bully American citizens with lies and accusations. NCT should have done a little research on this before they printed non-facts about a person. I should hope that the NCT's apologizes to Mrs. Spencer for the printing of such an awful lie with a letter to the editor.

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:05 AM:For so long as there are many people who drive gas guzzlers, "Really", the oil companies will continue to have their strangle-hold on us. I need not list them, but among the ones I refer to are the fleet owned by our Governor. Even though I call the oil company profits obscene, we are to blame for keeping the demand up which allows the price to be high, Economics 101. If you trade a car that gets 15 mpg for one that holds what you need to carry and gets 30 mpg and you continue to drive the same distance, you have just cut your part of the demand by 50 percent and even if gasoline goes up by 20 percent, your fuel costs will go down and your emissions go down.

GK wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:19 AM:To Really, et al : According to the Tax Foundation, over the past 25 years ... in inflation adjusted dollars ... Big Oil has earned approximately $630 billion dollars in profits. During the same time, Big Oil paid $2.2 trillion dollars in royalties and taxes. Truth be known, Big Government is making 3.5 times more “profit” than Big Oil. So, who is “gouging”?

To Wow wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:20 AM:I guess the truth hurts. You are vicious in your comment towards Tina Jillings. This letter is not a personal attack at all the way I read is Claudia Spencer attacks and makes very specific racial remarks because of her "brown-ness" as if that gives her a license. What I read in the letter written by Jillings is just stating the fact because one is of a certain ethnicity that does not give one the right to speak ill of others in the same group. It is still racists. I think Rappers and others who use the "N" word just because they are African American is not acceptable. Think what you will about Jillings and I don't like her much but I do agree with her on this and she is very serious obviously.

Veronica O. wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:28 AM:I think your comment is half true. The part I agree with is "As long as you agree with them, your included, once you don't, they question your heritage. Politics of personal destruction at work here. " I think Claudia Spencer knows that not even her own husband or his band of vigilantes would include or accept her unless she agrees with them. Unfortunately Claudia has to question her own heritage. I do agree with Tina Jillings the color of your skin does not give you the right to persecute people of that skin color.

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:30 AM:Tina Jillings, in her hissing about Claudia Spencer, seems to have forgotten the First Amendment when she says "being brown does not give them right to make racist and stereotypical comments about anyone". It's sad that these bitter women choose to use their right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, of free speech that way. Then again, there are the people who stand on the street and verbally rail out at the world. Oh, well.

Ron wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:33 AM:to Alf @ {8:56am} on this subject, we agree. If you break the law, you should suffer the consequences. It is shameful for anyone to have trashed anyone else's property, no matter who they are. But, it is more than suspicious for the police to have known for years about these illegal camps, and did nothing to remove them. If it's good for one, it ought to be good for all. That's the law, and that's fair.

Ron wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:44 AM:And a little bit about "gas guzzlers." This seems to be the next moral argument. It is hypocritcal for those to preach to others about their usage, yet do nothing about their own. Gore is prime example of class elitism. (why do you speak of the speck in your brothers eye, when there is a log in thy own?) People, consumers in general, will always use the least expensive form of energy. When alternatives are as readily available, and on par with gasoline, then they will begin to move to those forms, but not until. Their not going to buy your moral outrage argument, give them valid choices, and let freedom ring. And keep in mind, those at the bottom of the heap, will always be hit most by any form of price increase. I understand your point about cafe standards. But what is a familiy of 4 or more to do when these beer cans they want to sell you, won't get the whole family safely to their destination? Drive two cars? where's the savings?

To Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:06 PM:Free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is a blessing. You use it to "verbally rail out at the world as well" on this blog. I think that Mrs. Spencer somehow believes that she can berate, insult, stereotype, and make racists remarks about Mexican immigrants because she is Mexican. Is that not the entire premise of her group?

regarding tina jillings wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:16 PM:I wouldn't be to quick to side with T.J. This is the very woman who called me a racist just for being white. She assumed I was standing along MM at the Vons shopping center during one of their protest, when in fact I was just an average Vons shopper stopping to see the on goings of the protest of both sides. But because I was white she called me a racist. I asked someone who she was, had she never made that statement directed at me I would have never had any opinion of her or these protest that have been going on. I guess I was just shopping at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nails wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:32 PM:Grant Kuhn's letter today was perfect. The logic was straight forward and hard to dispute. How could one read that letter and, with a straight face, continue to blame oil companies? The extent that some of these class warriors complaining about gas prices will go to brainwash others, is simply mindboggling.

the reason wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:36 PM:Mr. Al Maglietto asks why we don't get involved in this war in Iraq as a nation like we did in WWII - gas rationing, war bonds, etc. I would hazard a guess that since we were never attacked or even threatened by Iraq, a lot of us view this war as a one-sided invasion by the U.S. solely for the purpose of stealing Mideast oil. You can't compare that with Pearl Harbor.

big oil wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:41 PM:Grant Kuhns thinks we get a better deal from oil companies than from the government. He might be correct about this administration. But what about the obscene record profits by these oil companies the last few years? Do those get adjusted for inflation too?

I know Tina wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:47 PM:She is anything but a racist. Considering the hate and slander flung at her because she is standing up against the MM in Vista, I would be amazed if she wasn't wary with people she doesn't know. And that Von's parking lot was full of racists at all the demonstrations I attended. They were white racists though.

Wow to: to wow.. wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:15 PM:she lost the argument, so she went to the personal attack. If it is true that Claudia Spencer was a mail order bride, how is that illegal, and germain to the discussion? It's not. It was a vicious attack on her personally. In my reference to the NAACP, it is well known they don't not accept conservative blacks because of their political viewpoint. My point is if they only represent a particular point of view, then they do not advance the whole race, as stated in their charter. Same goes for Ms. Jillings, if you disagree, even if you are brown, you don't belong, you are not truly a Mexican, in her opinion. That's what I read. It's called: "Being down for the struggle."

I hear ya.... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:19 PM:To: regarding tina jillings, that's right. They can protest all day long, but you can not. They will not observe your rights to freedom of expression, or the right to assemble, they seek to shut you up, by playing the race card. I thought these people were open minded, supported open dialogue? Apparently not. Why are you surprised? They always quick to use this angle when they disagree with someone who confronts them. They have no sound argument, so they use the personal attack.

El Guero wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:51 PM:Tina doesn't have to 'stand up against the Minutemen in Vista' if she's a legal resident. In fact she'd do everyone a favor if she sat down and closed her big mouth.

to big oil wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:58 PM:You ask "what about the obscene record profits by these oil companies the last few years?" What about them? If you own stock in them, then good for you. You are a smart investor. If you don't (like me), then perhaps you should. But whether oil companies are raking it in, or they are being raked over, the fact remains that gasoline - when adjusted for inflation - is approximately the same cost as it was 30 years ago. I say, let them live like kings. Just like years ago when oil was cheaper, they will again find themselves back in the poorhouse. It's all cyclical, and government will have little to do with it.

To El Guero from La Guera wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:16 PM:Thank God we live in the U.S.A. and Freedom of Speech is a right we all enjoy. You can't tell her to shut her mouth any more than she can tell you to shut yours. All of you who are attacking Tina Jillings for voicing her opinion are within your right. The minutemen have no business harassing residents of the community any community. I must say I admire her resolve to defend her community from civil and human right violations. Your remark "Tina doesn't have to stand up against the Minutemen in Vista if she is a legal resident". From what I have read she is a 4th generation American. Why should that make a difference. Are you actually implying that attacks can be made against residents in the community if you suspect they are "illegal". I have trouble believing all the comments on this blog as some of this stuff seems so far fetched.

standing up to MM wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:22 PM:All of us who have a conscious need to stand up to the Minutemen in Vista and elsewhere. They are about hate against people who appear Mexican. We all know there is no way you can tell by looking if someone is here legally or not. So some people have decided that if you look Mexican you can be denigrated and denied rights as a citizen until you prove otherwise. This is not how America works.

Alf wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:23 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 12:06pm, I am caught again, because I do rant now and then. The funny part, if it can be viewed that way, is that I see a double-standard here.

GK wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:41 PM:Of course Big Oil’s reported earnings are going up ... they are being reported in the same inflated dollars as the price of gasoline. Duh! The oil companies' earnings are just under 10 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, while government taxes take 17 percent of the price of gasoline. Yet, I don’t hear many people accusing government of "greed." Since consumer emotions seem to run higher than their objectivity, I’ll make this prediction: your favorite demagogues will put on another show of investigating Big Oil ... Again, without finding culpability. Then, as consumers we will pay for Big Oil’s attorneys; and, as taxpayers , will pay for Big Government’s attorneys. If anybody is fixing prices it is our politicians.

the big oil conversation wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:58 PM:No one is talking about what we taxpayers GET for the taxes on gas. It's treated as though this were pure governmental profit. Is this true?

to GK wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:10 PM:You are right on the money. How long must Americans continue to do this silly dance regarding the price of gas at the pump? Liberals tend to blame the corporations, conservatives tend to blame the government, we see it every day. Neither are perfect, and if they both were then everyone would be happy. But then along comes a letter today by Grant Kuhns and it should make the casual observer admit that neither side has much of an argument, so can't we all just stop this nonsensical bickering?

Pluto wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:27 PM:People say the most unbelievable things on these blogs, like Ron: "the police to have known for years about these illegal camps, and did nothing to remove them". The truth is that these camps are a big issue each and every year, with complaints, investigations, back and forth. Some of them are razed by the police each year, especially in Carlsbad, usually after the harvest. Where you from, Ron, and why do you speak out on things you apparently know nothing about?

it's elementary... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:41 PM:Big Oil makes a profit, that profit is split to R&D new sites for drilling, expansion of existing sites, and buying newer technologies to make their methods efficient and cleaner. Profit also goes to the stockholders in dividends. Thirdly, the employees working for Big Oil also beneift from higher wages and benefits. What does the government do with their taxes on gasoline. Well, they say they collect them to build infrastructure, i.e. roads, bridges. We know that in California, we don't use the gas taxes collected for roads, we spend it on other mandatory spending. What were then asked to do, is pass more bonds to build new roads, rail, etc. It's like playing three-card monty. and like a bunch of suckers, voters will vote for this stuff, thinking "this time" they'll actually spend the money on what they say they'll spend it on. Of course, they don't, and again, your disappointed, but then your offered another bond, or tax, and they stupidly vote Yes again? It's the ol' fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Insanity.

to big oil wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:48 PM:There's not time to call it a profit. It's spent before it's even received! Of course the public gets services in return. But what is the unintended consequence? The least fortunate wind up being pushed out of their automobiles and onto public transportation or walking. Maybe to some who support high taxes on gasoline, that is the intention not only for the less fortunate but for most of us. It never works out that way though. Therefore the tax that is supposed to "help" only winds up being punitive to those who least deserve it: the poor.

El Guero wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:56 PM:If Tina's a '4th-generation American' why is she acting as a proxy of the Mexican government? Illegal immigration is wrong and it's against the law; it's not justified by the special pleadings of obnoxious tough guys like Tina Jillings. For all you (and there appear to be many in attendance today) who believe that illegal immigrants have a human right to be here, stop your shouting for a minute and try to understand that we the citizens (not the anti-citizens like Jillings) object to illegal immigration not on racial grounds. How could we? The United States is the most racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse society on Earth. What we object to is the culture of poverty and entitlement that illegal immigrants and their handlers promote in our communities, in our schools, in our politics, and in our health care system. Cry racism as much as you like, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

to it's elementary wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:09 PM:regarding the 2nd half of your 3:41pm....Very sad, but Very true.

More to WOW wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:17 PM:You wrote: “As long as you agree with them, your [sic] included, once you don't, they question your heritage. Politics of personal destruction at work here.” Hmmm … I’ve observed many protests by the San Diego Minutemen. I’ve never spoken to them about my views or theirs, and certainly I’ve never called them names or used the R-word. But because I'm fair-skinned and have blue eyes, Minutemen supporters have denounced me, variously, as “a traitor to America,” “a traitor to [my] race,” “a commie,” “an Aryan” (go figure), and even “a skank.” Please explain to me how these comments are neither personal nor racially divisive.

to to big oil wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:41 PM:I agree with you completely about the effects of things like gas taxes on the poor. You know, people complain about taxes all the time. Our taxes pay for health care, for welfare, for bureaucracies, etc. But I never hear anyone complaining that so much of the tax dollar goes to military-related spending. Our military budget equals that of the entire world put together. Yet the Pentagon and private military contractors are famous for overcharging and scamming the public trust. Still, few complaints. Why is that?

to El Guero wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:55 PM:they don't have a valid, legal argument to debate. Thats why they go right to the race card, or the personal attack. And I just love this one... "Were all immigrants." Really?,... my birth certificate says I was born in California. I'm no immigrant, I'm a native. I legally applied, then got a valid social security card, not someone else's number. But you see, these facts make no difference to these people, but they don't respect the law.

If the rest of the world wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:57 PM:had their own armies, then we wouldn't have to spend so much defending Europe. That's why "they" don't spend as much, they have us, as rent-a-cop's. But without the pay....

To To To big oil wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:02 PM:Would you care to back that up with facts? Why not pick just a smattering of nations? Let's say England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, China and Japan. Tell us the total of their budgets and compare that with our defense budget. Factor in 9/11 and after you have done your mathematical computations, you will understand why there are so few complaints.

Reason to be concerned wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:13 PM:As if I needed any more reasons NOT to vote for Hillary, she is starting to preach, again, in an attempt to revive her long dead "Universal Health Care". That big loud sucking sound that you hear is what her plan approaching your wallet sounds like.

to 4:57 and 5:02 wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:54 PM:So here are two differing opinions about military spending. One of us certainly should look up defense and related spending of other nations: I have read often, and in many different sources, of "ours equals all of theirs put together" but you're right, we should check it out. Why, 4:57, are we so willing, do you suppose, to be the world's "rent-a-cops"? Is it generosity? You say we do it on the cheap, but believe me, our military suppliers are doing just fine! Who on the planet is doing better, other than the oil barons and Bill Gates? As a good conservative, I think we should stop doling out this military welfare to the rest of the world. Let's cut our defense spending by, say, 2/3 and let all those other freeloader socialist countries defend themselves. We could balance our budget and have a bundle to spare for so many needed programs here at home. We could even finally get to helping all those folks in New Orleans. And we wouldn't have to saddle our grandkids with an impossible debt. And people would stop whining about tax cuts, which we could then easily afford. Any other true conservatives with me?

defense spending wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:58 PM:According to Wikipedia, the total defense spending in the world is a little over 900 Billion in US dollars; the US defense spending is more than 500 Billion. There you have it. Wars-R-Us. We have the greatest death machine the world has ever known. And yet...we don't feel safe. Whut's up wid dat?

to big oil wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:59 PM:re your 4:41pm post. Your not going to get an argument from me on that one. Sure, I would love to see smarter spending when it comes to our military tax dollars. And cut out some spending for the military? Sure, as long as it's smart and in the proper areas. Overcharging the military is criminal, and if proven, should be prosecuted fully. It's absolutely disgusting that any company would knowingly try to overcharge and overbill. Perhaps the new Democratic Congress will actually start to (hopefully) investigate these allegations instead of something so weak as the gas price gouging myth. And don't forget 4:57pm blogger's point about most countries in the world not having standing armies. It is a salient point.

To el_patron wrote on Mar 26, 2007 6:45 PM:Republicans don't have a monopoly on vile outlooks. Your last sentence proves it.

Mike America wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:19 PM:To Clauudia Spencer. I'm much too busy these days to monitor everyone here, at the rallies and protests, Hollywood wack jobs, not to mention what our illustrious leaders have to say. However,I have read some of the things you've said as well as the infamous Tina Jillings; Claudia......you go girl. And you would be doing yourself a great justice by not responding to her tawdry remarks and allegations. Let her and her anarchist friends live in the dirt and mud, you've proven you're better than them.

El Mestizo wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:20 PM:To el güero: You are a racist.

Interesting wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:43 PM:Did anyone read the news / see the video of left-wing anti-war protester defacating on the American flag? Look it up. It happened. Pretty disgusting. Awfully sad. Even worse will be the silence from all left wing blogs. But...don't question their patriotism!

Defense Budget wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:47 PM:If we want to cut federal spending let’s start by cutting out all the un-Constitutional stuff first. That should cut the bloated budget by about 75 percent.

Daren wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:34 PM:We abviously have another ignorant person regarding the benefits of the Chargers and a new stadium. The last time the Super Bowl was held in San Diego, the city made about $300 million in revenues. That event was a financial windfall for that city. The NFL has made no effort to hide the fact they want to hold the SB in Souther California on a regular basis. Former Commissioner Tagliabue even talked about holding it here every 4 years. Additionally, the Padres play 81 games at Petco, not 50. Every MLB team plays 81 games at home.

nice while it lasted wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:42 PM:I'm sure I'm not alone when I say how NICE it was to read the comments here without an enormous chunk of "World according to Ronny." So Ron, now that you have come back from actually getting out of the house for once, please spare us the enormous blocks of text. If you actually want us to read your multiple points, make them in small pieces that won't make our eyes go blurry. If you don't care if it's read, still forget those massive chunks, just find a good therapist. I'm sure the moderators would appreciate it - I hear they applied for better visual insurance after your diatribes :P

To What's Up wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:54 PM:One more thing: all of our military personnel are volunteers, which means we have to pay them a lot more than conscripts, which make up the bulk of other nations' defense forces. It is true that they take advantage of us. Canada, for example, could disband the few units it has remaining and be perfectly safe with the U.S. as its only neighbor. Mexico uses its military to keep its populace from overthrowing its corrupt government, to assist drug smugglers and illegal aliens in crossing our border, and to seal off its southern border with Guatemala. Mexico may decide to reduce its troop strength after the NAFTA corridor between Mexico and Canada opens. As the world's only superpower, we can never let down our guard. No other nation would be able - or willing - to defend us.

To What's Up wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:20 PM:Here is what’s up with that: 1) The nuclear threat: China, North Korea and Iran; 2) The terrorist threat: Al Qaeda is not a country but a worldwide organization of Muslim zealots that can strike virtually anywhere at anytime. There are 1.3 billion Muslims and if only 10 percent of them become jihaddists, there will be 130 million of them; if only 1 percent, we are still talking about 13 million. The United States has less than 2 million men and women in uniform. 3) Oil: everybody needs it. Except for England, our European allies have none. In the Orient, our allies Japan and North Korea have none. We have to import 2/3 of our oil. We have to keep the sea lanes open for maritime trade or those oil imports could be jeopardized, as they were during the Iran-Iraq War. If we pull out of Iraq before it has a stable government, the entire Middle East – and with it 2/3 of the world’s petroleum reserves – will fall into enemy hands. Those enemies would have no qualms about using oil as a weapon. 4) Political correctness: By convention, we do not allow ourselves to use racial profiling when trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. That means that we will – of our own volition – suffer an inordinate number of casualties when the enemy begins to attack us anew. Do you still think it would be a good idea to cut the military budget by two-thirds to increase spending for social programs?

Nicer still wrote on Mar 27, 2007 12:14 AM:Keep 'em comin' Ron. And spare none of those little tidbits and juicy details. These libs need all the help they can get, especially since C1 left town.

Nicole wrote on Mar 27, 2007 5:28 AM:Why is everyone all up in arms about the letter writtenby Tina Jillings. I read a similar letter in Sunday's NCT from Cindy Garcia. Nobody wrote hateful comments regarding that letter. So let me get this straight its okay for Cindy Garcia to say basically the same thing Tina Jillings said but for some reason Tina Jillings is attacked. Now that sounds personal to me. To El Guero I am against illegal immigration I have attended some of the minutemen protests but I do know why the people who say that movement is racists is because the things that are said at those protests. I have heard comments such as wetbacks oh no I mean scratch backs and the protester even added an explaination. Come on the issue of immigration is not a racist issue but when derogatory, racist, stereotypical titles are placed on peole well then it becomes racists. I will tell you that I stopped attending the protests because I was offended by the name calling. I heard some pretty raw stuff there. I heard some ugly things being said about many people including Tina Jillings. I disagree with illegal immigration but not enough to go to the extreme and hurt people. I disagree with illegal behavior by anyone and that includes Jeff Schwilk. If he is responsible for the vandalism at the migrant camp then I think he should pay the price for his crime. Illegal is illegal no matter who is breaking the law or which law is being broken. I have decided to allow Congress to their job and not be part of hate and fear. Also to Mike America believe me I have been seen and heard alot and unfortunately Claudia Spencer has played in the dirt and mud is she is really no different or better than anyone when it comes to this issue. To both of these women I say Congratulations for standing your ground and trying to make a difference and fighting for what you believe in.

Alf wrote on Mar 27, 2007 5:58 AM:In the last 25 years the Chargers have made it to the SuperBowl once, that's ONE time, folks and even then something happened and they played like a high school 3rd string team. They have made it to the play-offs how many times? A $300 million "windfall" after building them a stadium and having the owners ream the City of San Diego any way they could, including now, with their "We're leaving because we don't have the stadium we want." crap. Does Oceanside have the resources, on a consistant basis, to deal with the crudola that the owners pull?