ralph wrote on Jun 10, 2007 8:53 PM:To Len and Matthew Ross... The Sprinter was approved by the city of Vista because the NCTD promised sound walls, landscaping and a bike trail. It went over budget and the first items to be cut were soundwalls, landscaping and a bike trail. Vista doesn't want a graffitti trail of urban blight through its new Vista Village Revitalization projects. The NCTD needs to keep its quality-of-life promises to the residents and not pull a bait and switch. My house is fifty feet from the track with no sound wall. How close do you live?

Sorry Clay wrote on Jun 10, 2007 9:31 PM:Since you live in Carlsbad let me help you with the facts about the Chargers. Football stadiums NEVER make money for the host city. Parking anywhere near the proposed stadium CANNOT go subterranean as it is on a creek with tons of groundwater. All this besides the fact that a stadium and 80,000 fans CAN't get to the stadium. There is not enough capacity on I-5, Sprinter and Coaster combined. Perhaps you could put it at the Strawberry Fields near your home? One more little fact: A very popular ball park, Petco, costs City of San Diego $5Million a year from the general fund. Do you see why you need the facts?

NCTD is bad wrote on Jun 10, 2007 9:32 PM:NCTD screwed up all the cities on the line with excess traffic stoppages, noise and ugly, disgusting fencing and no discernable landscaping or other amenities. The folks who run this project could care less about our quality of life..honest. My sympathies to Ralph and his family. What a ream job.

Ron wrote on Jun 10, 2007 9:35 PM:Ya see!I knew eventually he would get it! Peter Benson get's it, finally! Told ya, when the Republican lobbyists moved out, the Democrat lobbyists would move in, and they have in fact doubled! And while were on the topic of war profiteering, why don't you ask Ted Kennedy and John Kerry about Ratheon, their tomohawk & hellfire missiles.

greenhouse dogma wrote on Jun 10, 2007 10:10 PM:We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fearmongering, promotes the nonexistent threat. The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists--people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology. Geologists are particularly skeptical. The Achilles' heel of the computer models, the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering, is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known. Such factors cause huge swings in the Earth's heat balance and interact in ways that are beyond the ability of computer climate models to predict. The first global warming modelers simply threw up their hands at the complexity of the water problem and essentially left out the atmospheric water cycle. Over time a few features of the cycle were patched into the models, all based on unproven guesses at the effect of increased ocean evaporation on clouds, the effect of clouds on reflecting the sun's energy and the effect of cloud warming on rainfall and snow. All of these equations are hopelessly inadequate to describe the water cycle's role. If the public swallows this new greenhouse dogma, it won't just be carbon taxes on an airline ticket. It will be huge new carbon offset charges for the alleged carbon savings.

Get your facts straight wrote on Jun 10, 2007 10:57 PM:Kit, you obviously hate Sanchez, and would probably blame her if it rained! Sanchez was NEVER Sandag rep. Feller was the rep, or don't you remember all the hype when the mayor decided to take over the job instead of Feller? So far, whatever Sanchez DOES get involved in, she gets results, POSITIVE results. Who else on the council has tackled this issue??!! Hint -- no one else has ever stepped up to the plate.

What Sanchez accomplishments? wrote on Jun 11, 2007 12:34 AM:We are still waiting for someone to give us a list of any Sanchez accomplishments. And yes we remember the SANDAG representative flap with Mayor Wood our newly appointed SANDAG representative. Where is Wood on this issue? The Council had not previously ranked sand as a priority with gangs, police safety, and a balanced budget. Council Member Sanchez’s ineffectiveness will be noted by the voters if she runs for office again. Even her two years in a majority position on the Council were wasted on an agenda of vindictiveness.

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 11, 2007 6:20 AM:Note to Ralph --- Your house is 50 feet from the railroad track? And it's their fault there will be noise? The railroad came through Vista in 1890 -- when did you build? I realize there was no Sprinter when you moved in, but the railroad right-of-way was there. Perhaps you figured they would give it up and you would gain another 50 feet of lawn for free. Ha!

As a liberal wrote on Jun 11, 2007 8:13 AM:I almost agree with Peter Benson completely. I am disgusted with the Democratic party's performance in Congress since January, especially their giving Bush his annual blank check for Iraq. As Ralph Nader told us in 2000, there's little difference between the parties. For 6 years we were pretty sure he was wrong, but this Congress is proving Ralph correct, as usual. But I say I "almost" agree with Mr Benson because this Congress is STILL an improvement over its predecessor. Have we forgotten already that prior to January, there wasn't even a DISCUSSION about any matters of principle in Congress. There were no efforts to investigate this imperial administration. So, in a small way, I am glad the Democratic party won the Congress, but will be hard-pressed to decide whether to bother voting in 2008.

Diane wrote on Jun 11, 2007 8:44 AM:Why don't you let them finish the track first before you start complaining about the lack of sound walls, landscaping and bike trail. I've never been in a city such as Vista where people complain so much about improvements. And by the way, if the Sprinter is anything like the San Diego Trolley there won't be any need for any sound walls. Some of you people need to get out and explore the rest of San Diego County and see for yourself how much better life can be when you accomodate the growth in the area. Why would anyone not want to see improvements in the area they live to accomodate the growth or is it better to let the area grow and do nothing to accomodate that growth thereby making the quality of life for yourself and everyone else SUCK? At least the Sprinter will get SOME people out of their cars and off the streets. I have to say that this area of the county has got some of the worst drivers that I've ever seen and they need to be off the streets. Believe me, if it weren't for circumstances beyond my control, I would be living back down in Central San Diego and not in this closed minded whinning part of the county.

Laughing wrote on Jun 11, 2007 9:13 AM:Way to go Granny. The same can be said of fools who build/buy near airports and complain about the noice.

Why? wrote on Jun 11, 2007 9:46 AM:Did they build the Sprinter to Escondido and then stop? The worst traffic is from Escondido going south. We desperately need the trolley to continue from Escondido to Mission Valley, where you can take another trolley to downtown, Santee, Old Town, South bay and El Cajon.

to greenhouse dogma wrote on Jun 11, 2007 10:00 AM:I can share your skepticism about the "fear mongering" GWs. But I am always puzzled by the absence, in arguments like yours, of accusations that the anti-GWs are also fear-mongerers, are also in their position for the money (WAY more than $2 billion, by the way...$2B is pocket change to the energy industries). The sad part of this "debate" is that one side clearly has an enormous vested interest in the status quo. The other side may have a similarly greedy motivation, as the status quo people assert, though I frankly don't see how this can be AS true as you claim (there are millions in grants for research in this, but almost no scientist ever got rich from grant money: look at their salaries sometime). Because of the excessive skepticism of the status quo people, it's become hard to even think clearly about this issue. Which means "mission accomplished" for you.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jun 11, 2007 10:43 AM:This just in: Streams and rivers in America's heartland are being polluted with nitrogen and pesticide run off from new fields of corn. Oh yes Global Warmers, in your rush to bring a new fuel source to market you forgot about the cost...to the environment.

gimmeabreak wrote on Jun 11, 2007 11:03 AM:The answer to Rick Paul's question is "Yes" or "Both."

As a liberal wrote on Jun 11, 2007 11:33 AM:I'm wondering how other disgusted liberals/progessives are thinking about '08. At this moment of personal cynicism, my thoughts are that whether I vote or not will depend more on the Republican candidate than the Democratic one. If Rudy or McCain or Mitt runs, I'd vote for anyone on the other side. Rudy seems to me what you find in the dictionary when you look up the word "sleaze". McCain's voting record is among the most conservative in the Senate. Mitt has already proven himself utterly untrustworthy. All three seem to be unabashed warmongers. Otherwise I'm not sure. Anyone on the left out there have any input to this miserable election decision?

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2007 12:09 PM:In anopther ridiculous political stunt, the Democrats will move today to vote that they disapprove of Attorney General Gonzales. It's nothing more than a gearing up for the 2008 election, to keep pounding, and pounding on the Bush Administration in hopes that they will sway many who aren't really paying attention, or don't understand the way Washington D.C. actually works in the bowels of Washingtonian circles, i.e. destroy, or be destroyed. The fact of the matter is, they have no say over whether the Attorney General leaves or stays, they had their chance at the nomination hearings. Making poitics criminal is the way Washington works. It's always a constant striving for power, taking out enemies before they take you out. I am constantly amazed by those who will claim "at least, this is a step forward", as they seek to excuse "their guys" for exactly what they claimed was criminal under the Republicans. And I am particularly astonished by those who claim that once they get "their guys" in, everything will be fine. We'll have healthcare, solve social security, and every other thing you can imagine under a utopian rule. The bottom line is: The current crop is no better than those they replaced.

Out of whose pocket? wrote on Jun 11, 2007 12:15 PM:Last time I checked, the hospital aboard Camp Pendleton belonged to the Department of the Navy, which is subordinate to the Department of Defense, which is part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. To the extent that you pay federal taxes, you - as a resident of Oceanside - pay part of the civilian nurses' raise, a part that is of such magnitude as to be imperceptible to all but the eyes of God. You may take great comfort in knowing that God, the civilian nurses, and the many wounded Marines they attend are eternally grateful for your contribution, however begrudgingly it may have been given. Regards, Conservative 1.

High crime? Misdemeanor? wrote on Jun 11, 2007 12:42 PM:So today another federal court ruled on Bush's detainee policies, ordering a so-called "enemy combatant" to be released. The judge said, QUOTE:“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country. We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.” ENDQUOTE Bush's legal philosophy is to do whatever he wants until, one by one, a court tells him he can't. Yet another reason to dump Gonzales and for all Americans to be outraged at Bush.

matt wrote on Jun 11, 2007 1:26 PM:the sprinter is great.

Poor Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2007 1:53 PM:Unfortunately Ron doesn't get it. The Repubs and Dems have the same major lobbyists. And what's with this doubling? And Ron, you still agree with the policy, so what on earth are you talking about?

Poor Ron is right wrote on Jun 11, 2007 2:02 PM:The straw men continue to be slayed by our favorite Quixote. Ron says, QUOTE And I am particularly astonished by those who claim that once they get "their guys" in, everything will be fine. ENDQUOTE I would think you would be astonished, Ron, since there is no one I've ever heard claim any such thing. And yet with whom would you argue with such flair if not for the existence of these imaginary opponents? Not everyone sees the world in such rigid black and white ways as you do. Most people who prefer, say, Democrats do not believe "they are All Good and Republicans are All Bad". So your endless efforts to show (and to think your showing is brilliant) that there are bad Democrats, too, fall on the floor, arguments against no one.

to Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2007 2:17 PM:Of course this crop is better than the previous one. This crop is holding Bush Administration officials liable for their crimes. The previous crop just looked the other way while Bush assaulted the Constitution.

Has it occured wrote on Jun 11, 2007 3:37 PM:... to the 2:17 PM partisan that the present Congress-people who are now running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination were all among the "previous crop that looked the other way ...?"

has it occured to you wrote on Jun 11, 2007 3:44 PM:That they could do nothing because the Republicans controlled everything coming out of committee. All the Democrats could do was bring the problems with the Bush administration up in the media. They could do nothing in Congress....until now.

Question for Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2007 4:04 PM:Do you believe there should be no oversight investigation into the myriad alleged offenses of this administration? Or is it a all harm/no foul situation?

Ralph wrote on Jun 11, 2007 4:29 PM:note to Vista Granny. Theres a big difference between the one freight train per week and one Sprinter every fifteen minutes. The easement was always there, but now, they've put in another set of tracks and have raised the entire 'easement' another few feet in the air. It is not as simple as being for or against progress. It is imortant to call the NCTD on it. Do you wish to see the railroad tracks cut through the Vista Village leaving cyclone fencing, graffitti and trash in its wake? We can do better. We can set the tone for downtown Vista for years to come if we landscape the rail 'easement' so that it is seamlessly integrated into the design of the River Walk. In addressing the concerns of residents along the tracks, we also address the concerns of the community at large.

A repeat request from the other day wrote on Jun 11, 2007 4:46 PM:Is it me? posted: Is it me? wrote on Jun 8, 2007 6:46 PM:Maybe I'm wrong, but why are Christians the only people who actually advertise their faith, especially on their cars? I can't remember seeing stick-ons promoting Judaism ("Moses rocks"?), Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or any other faith. It's quite bizarre to me. Are Christians unique in this drive to advertise? Is it that they feel more compelled than people of other faiths to win converts, and do they think signs on their cars will do this? Or are they somehow just proud of themselves for choosing Christ, which would be rather ironic? Can anyone help explain this very weird phenomenon? Someone asked what are they advertising. A good question. Maybe it isn't advertising or bragging, for that matter. So help me: what is it? Why only Christians? Someone might say, "It's because we Christians are so oppressed and dissed that we need to show each other our solidarity". What? As they always tell us, they are the vast, vast majority in this country. Oppressed? How? Back to the question: I'm sure many readers & bloggers have such signs on their vehicles. So share, why do you put them there?

Conservative 1 wrote on Jun 11, 2007 6:18 PM:I also disapprove of Attorney General Alberto González performance, but for entirely different reasons: he allowed Sandy Berger to purloin classified documents from the National Archives and subsequently destroy them with relative impunity. Why? To save the venerable William Jefferson Clinton's legacy, the one fabricated by a disgruntled Richard Clarke after he lost his position as counterterrorism czar. It was incumbent upon Berger to ensure that said documents were not reviewed by the thoroughly compromised 9/11 Commission, lest the truth be known about President Clinton's less-than-robust counterterrorism initiative. It has also taken far too long to act on the bribe-and-kickback scandal that will be the legacy of another William Jefferson, the Democrat from Louisiana. Then there is the matter of the Clinton scandals that the Attorney General will not investigate because of political correctness. To its credit, Judicial Watch has attempted to bring said scandals to light, but, thus far, has had only limited success. Attorney General Gonzáles has not done anything wrong, but - in keeping with the precedent established by Janet Reno - he has not done many things right either. Attorney General Reno, you may recall, made command decisions that resulted in the assassination of an innocent woman and her baby at Ruby Ridge, the pyric death of many women and children at Waco, and the return of Elián González to Cuba, despite his mother’s dying wish that he be rescued and taken to Florida, where he could live freely. Unlike Gonzáles, Reno was directly responsible for the death of many innocent Americans, yet she was never prosecuted or asked to resign.

To Question for Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2007 6:47 PM:Exactly. After being dragged through years of "find anything on the guy and his wife too", and the open-ended, extremely expensive Clinton-hunt, which I'd bet our friends Ron, C1, and the rest fully endorsed, now, somehow, they are not offended by anything Bush does other than (1) fix immigration, and (2) go after even MORE Democrats. These guys are party-slaves and abhor the Constitution. They are without principle other than our side must win, no matter what it takes. Gonzales hasn't done anything wrong? Two courts have already found Bush's policies, devised under the guidance of Gonzales' view of the law, illegal. Illegal! And the investigations are just beginning. I was never a defender of some of Reno's actions. But this is the Constitution we're talking about. See the earlier posting today and read what the court had to say about Gonzales/Bush and their view of the Constitution. Good grief. Are you people Americans or Albanians?

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 11, 2007 8:07 PM:A repeat request from the other day wrote on Jun 11, 2007 4:46 PM: Exercise of free speech. Maybe Christians are interested in meeting other Christians. What is the big deal! I suggest that the next time you see the "advertisement," go up introduce yourself and ask the question.

Fran wrote on Jun 11, 2007 9:54 PM:Question, you are absolutely right. Good comment.

To 'to question' on June 11th at 6:47 P.M. wrote on Jun 12, 2007 12:14 AM:You will, of course, forgive me if I choose not to rely on others' posts as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: I need something a little more in depth than that for confirmation. Our federal courts have made too many bad decisions to accept their version of the provisions of the Constitution, sometimes legislating from the bench by fiat, and, when it comes to the prosecution of a war, the Commander-in-Chief, not the federal judges, has the authority to determine the disposition of enemy combatants. If a U.S. citizen is collaborating with the enemy, he or she should be tried for treason, just like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were in 1953.

to OBSERVATION from repeat request wrote on Jun 12, 2007 5:40 AM:I don't think it's a big deal, only a curiosity. Of course we have free speech...I have no interest in "banning" such whatsoever. My question was simply why. Maybe you're right, that they could be interested in meeting others. But I'm still curious: are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc etc not also interested in meeting others? My original question included puzzlement at why only Christians do this. Anyone have any suggestions?

to 12:14 AM wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:05 AM:So the courts are not the place to decide if something is illegal. Interesting. Only the CiC is the decider. But even your post can't get from beginning to end without running into Bushian problems. As you say, perhaps they should be tried as traitors...Bush says no to that. No lawyers, no charges, no day in court for these people, no place to examine evidence , nothing but a label and a cell and time. The CiC is cop, jailer, judge, jury, and parole board. As some have said here often, should we ever slide into another form of government, it'll be the flag wavers who bring it about.

Merilee wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:27 AM:Christian Bumper Stickers Don't worry so much. You're reading into a very simple situation. Any vehicle on an American street is free to express its religion. There are cars that are Christian, Hindi, Shi'ia, Buddhist and Jewish. I've noticed that many cars are pro-life. Some have really smart kids. Others are zealots for GreenPeace. Possibly you could stop reading bumper stickers and worrying yourself silly. Play a nice soothing CD and remember to exhale. :0)

Alf wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:51 AM:I may dispute the quality of care given by SOME medical personnel but every penny that aids our wounded soldiers will never be contested by me. Every penny or hundred billion dollars that goes toward making those soldiers get wounded, ESPECIALLY in GWB's illegal, immoral, arrogant folly based on lies is quite another matter. Still a Libertarian, Alf.

to Merilee wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:52 AM:As I said before, I'm not worried about it at all. I am completely in favor of free speech, and know that this is an example of it. All I'm asking is why you put the stickers there, and why it is only (or extremely close to only) Christians that do this. Gosh, is there something I'm saying poorly? Why is everyone assuming this is so problematic for me? I'm asking a simple question. If you put a Christian sticker on your car, why do you do it, what's your aim or point? (I'd also like to hear from non-Christians: why DON'T you do it? This doesn't include the Darwin fish, which are a direct answer to the Christian fish, or the Truth eating Darwin fish, the counter-answer)

To repeated request wrote on Jun 12, 2007 2:23 PM:First submitted at 11:15 P.M. I, too, have seen many vehicles bearing Christian decals, but I have also seen a surprising number of vehicles displaying Wikkan decals in recent years, and, though not nearly as numerous, I have occasionally seen those that display an Islamic decal. Perhaps the ratios are correlative to the segments of the population that each religion represents. I realize that Christianity is considered a bane by adherents to Godless liberalism, atheism, many Jews, and practitioners of the religion of peace, but try to think of it as freedom of expression, quite like the founding fathers did when they penned the First Amendment. After all, aren't tolerance and acceptance tenets of the secular progressive philosophy? May the peace of Allah be with you always! Regards, Conservative 1.

to Merilee wrote on Jun 12, 2007 4:14 PM:Wow, who knew that repetition would have so little effect? Now here is Conservative-1 telling us that we have freedom of speech and implying a lack of tolerance, despite all I've said about these. I wondered about it correlating to proportion of the population, but I don't think so...I think the Christian stickers are overrepresented, but I could be wrong. I consider Jesus' teachings to be amazing, but they have little to do with what people who call themselves "Christian" believe or practice. So we have to be more clear about which Christianity is the bane of anyone. Jesus' teachings are certainly not a bane to me; on the contrary. But the Christianity of most self-proclaimers...a bane to much of the world, I'm sad to say, though not the only one by any means.

Diane wrote on Jun 12, 2007 6:13 PM:Ralph....You chose to live by a railroad track and so did everyone else who is living by the track and whinning and complaining about it. Obviously you did not think before you bought or did you THINK that if enough houses were built along the track that someday it would cease being used altogether? Common sense tells me not to live by a railroad track and not because of the noise but because railroad tracks just don't belong in neighborhoods. But, since the track has been there longer than you've been alive you have no one but yourself to blame. It was your choice to live where you live. One thing is for sure, at least we won't have to read your whinning and complaining about the Sprinter keeping you up all night blowing it's whistle since it won't be running during bedtime hours. Bottom line my friend is the poor planning on not just your part for choosing to live 50 ft from the track but the entire community of Vista was poorly planned from the very beginning. God forbid there should ever be a disaster which would require quick exit out of the area because there just isn't any quick, easy way out. And add the poor drivers that make up a large part of the traffic around here, good luck getting out alive.

Diane wrote on Jun 12, 2007 6:16 PM:To NTC is bad....It isn't the fault of NTC for the poor planning in this area. It's been screwed up since day one. The planning department is the problem because they don't plan.