MIKE THE MARINE..... wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:17 PM:Nadine,there is an old adage,when you're in a hole stop digging...you have ever right to fight the football team of San Diego...your website has accountability ...are you having misgivings?...Don't be demonized!!

el_patron wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:18 PM:Observer_1, you got time to spiel out that erroneous tale of jobs in America? You promised me answers on earlier comments that I think are false. About the oil. And nothing from Corsi, he's not a qualified person. But then, implicit in my challenge, neither are you. Answer up, or are you gonna' dodge your own statements?

el_patron wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:19 PM:Hmmm, I wonder if wRONg is going to repeat hisself, for the third day in a row? I hope not.

el_patron wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:20 PM:chuckles, your last 3 posts you have been arguing with Newt Gingrich. One of your own, except smarter.

el_patron wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:21 PM:Sorry for all the venom, but these guys need to be called out. They spout foolishness and destructive erroroneous stuff that shouldn't be tolerated. Make them back up their baloney.

el_patron wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:25 PM:Wow, Fred Schuster has commies under his bed! In the closet! What a laugh! Except he probably parades his goofiness down to the ballot box.

GFN wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:38 PM:To JVC, from yesterday's post: You ask in your 6:07 PM post,"EXCUSE ME GFN, ARE YOU SAYING WE ARE NOW A COLOR BLIND SOCIETY ?" I must say, I do not know who the "we" you are referring to "is". If you mean you and I, then I believe "we" are, because I believe I am, and I am darn sure "you" are, because I know you are smart enough to comprehend what I wrote at 10:34 am and 1:37 pm yesterday. If you have a real question, or a comment, please state it in small letters...I do have reading glasses now, and I find your questions compelling. Thanks.

GFN wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:43 PM:Richard McKenzie: I too agree with you about our Congressman Issa. He is an ambitious man who will do anything to get along without showing the conviction to say something is wrong. I concur with the words of Pat Tillman's father to Mr. Issa, "Get away from me."

el_patron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:05 AM:Mitchell Cwiek, that is exactly how I feel about bush and the current Republicans. You nailed it! Sacrifice? bush has told us repeatedly to go shopping.

Politics forever wrote on Aug 6, 2007 1:50 AM:A tragic death in Iraq. A possible cover-up either to protect the service or the memory of a great man. And Richard McKenzie distorts the issue to attack Congressman Issa. Congress had nothing to do about this. Mr Tillman's remark was intended against the government and not personal. His attack is unfair, mean spirited and reflective of his hatred. Shame. Lets give the Tillmans the truth and find out why Pat was killed by his own unit.

To the editor - Please consider wrote on Aug 6, 2007 4:21 AM:Here's a suggestion at making this a better site. How about having all who want to post, register for the priviledge, with a nominal fee. Registration would ensure only the person making the post is authorized, and prevent "clones". Limit the number and lengths of posts each day by each registered user. Charging will require providing credit card information to prevent a single person from registering several times to by-pass the limitations on submission rules. This process might make this a better place than the current Ron/Alf/Reardon/Concerned-1/fill-in-the-blank/ personal blog sight that just turns into page after page of arguments about who is the smarter guy.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 5:34 AM:I wonder why the Attorney General is restricting the use of electronic voting machines in California, but refuses to enforce the Constitution and get the illegals off the voting roles to insure clean elections?? Does the law mean nothing to California's top law enforcement officer.? Why hasn't he been fired, jailed and stripped of his pension?

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 5:56 AM:I'm glad to see Richard McKenzie, in his letter to the editor, takes a newfound interest in Tillman's death, 2 years later. Instead of letting the military give him a medal and tell his family that their son died a hero, like Eisenhower and MacArthur did a thousand times, America haters like McKenzie prefer to bash the military and remind the Tillman's again that the big, bad hateful, US Army killed their boy and he didn't die a hero. The fact is McKenzie doesn't give a crap about Tillman. He never heard of Tillman before the incident, and just parrots on to Kennedy's and Pelosi's daily talking points to spew his America hate. I wonder why McKenzie didn't ask the Tillman's to donate their sons veterans benefits to the DNC?

Vista Granny wrote on Aug 6, 2007 6:39 AM:Let's see now. Someone who wishes to remain completely anonymous asks the editors to charge folks to post here and to censor what's said as well, no doubt. Then, Chuck has decided that someone writing about Pat Tillman's death hates America and is a Democrat to boot. Wow! What a way to start the day.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 6:49 AM:Now we have 2, count 'em 2, far-reaching, un-Constitutional decrees by "King GWB” about which to be very afraid, nay, terrified. The url for "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" is http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html and the url for "NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51" is http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html . Both of these go so far outside the Constitution that it is not to be believed, yet in "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", GWB has the unmitigated gall to state "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America" as his opening. In the hardcopy of the NCT today is an opinion by John Diaz entitled “In Bush we trust - or else“, the url for the original article in the San Francisco Chronicle is - http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/05/EDJFRB8AF1.DTL . The problem is that if your neighbor, a member of the humanitarian "Doctors Without Borders", gets his or her assets "frozen" and YOU HELP YOUR NEIGHBOR IN ANY WAY (if you give them money or food or shelter), YOU CAN ALSO HAVE YOUR ASSETS FROZEN AS WELL, AND SO ON, AND SO ON. Does anyone else see the totalitarian, the dictatorial or the flat-out un-Constitutional aspect of this? Please, read the article, completely, and then please offer your opinion. Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 7:34 AM:>>>" Here's a suggestion at making this a better site. How about having all who want to post, register for the priviledge, with a nominal fee>>>>> LOL, now the [poster] wants to tax postings. Is there anything the liberals don't want to tax. Instead of ignoring, or just not reading posts that arent pro-liberal, this gum flapper wants to tax people who don't have the individuals point of view. It's just like the fairness doctrine---as long as you're fair to liberalism, marxism and socialism, you can say or post whatever you want.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:09 AM:I agree with the "Raspberry" today about "The Uncivil and Unwanted Award" and confess that I have been goaded to become uncivil by those who repeat the conservative/Republican/pro-war rhetoric of "if you do not agree with and spout the exact thing in which I believe, you are a traitor or treasonous or "liberal" who sips starbucks and eats croissants while not only not caring about America, but actually hating America". What does not and can not happen is any meaningful debate due to the venom issued forth by a few who apparently know of no other way to express themselves other than with insult. Henceforth, any venom from me will be directed at the issue and the person behind the issue and NOT the bloggers here. I trust that if the uncivil are ignored, they will either become more civil or disappear. Regards, Alf.

Right Wing Hypocracy Exposed... wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:10 AM:Fred Shuster's letter offers conclusive proof that the term "the looney left" was coined by those who are "right, out of their minds".

TheWolf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:17 AM:Alf, I read the CGO 51 directive and it is not anything I am worried about-in fact it is amazing to see the government focused on how to continue after a catastrophic event.How you can assert that it outside the constitution is absurd. Plus, you assert that the US does not have the right to stop anyone or any government from our goal of stabilizing Iraq. Sorry pal, whose side are you on? Iran's? Al Qeida? You are not a libertarian, you are a reactionary with a bit of learning.

YeaThoseEvilTeams wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:17 AM:Yes, those evil football and baseball teams!! Maybe it's time to consider what downtown would look like if those evil capitalists like the San Diego Padres, the Marriot, the Hyatt and Ernie Hahn didn't step up to the plate. It would look just like the blight the great visionaries like Butterfly Frye and Napolean Aguirre dream of. But then again, we can just imagine how many more butterflies and snail darters there would be in Mission Valley, if Qualcomm Stadium wasn't built, along with that whole re-development, and the tens of thousands that would have never been employed.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:38 AM:>>>>What does not and can not happen is any meaningful debate>>>> Liberals aren't interested in meaningful debate on Iraq. They've already decided that they don't want the spread of Islamo-Facism to be stopped or even disrupted under any circumstances. Hell, they don't even want to allow Bush to spy on the terrorist electronically. They've already decided that when Bush says yes, they automatically parrot "No", merely for the sake of politics. They refuse to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, yet Chemical Ali was hung for gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds. 80% of Americans said NO to amnesty, yet 90% of the liberals in Congress voted for it, under the cover of night. The typical liberal mantra was even revealed in media a few days back when a Congressman let it slip "There is no doubt that any US success in Iraq greatly hurts our cause, so it needs to be suppressed" Their is no debate in statements like that, just obstruction.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:43 AM:>>>>Sorry for all the venom, but these guys need to be called out>>>> What's wrong with venom?? I just wish you had some for the terrorists instead of saving it all for Bush, but that is way too much to ask. Will we hear anything from you about the 40 women and children vaporized by a car bomber today?? The answer is no. You will just fling whatever talking points Pelosi orders to be flung today.

to Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:47 AM:You just dont get it, ever! No one is blaming the military for Tillman's death, even under friendly fire. They are blaming the people, yes, all the Republicans who covered up the way he died so as not to stir up the passions of the people during an unpopular war. Bush and conservatives covered this event up. More and more lies to cover an unjust war.

Silly Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:52 AM:Taxes are levied by Government, not business owners (i.e., NCT); and what makes you think the poster calling for improvements isn't a Conservative and not a liberal? Or, do you just not want your hobby of seeing your name in print on the web curtailed?

Come on Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:52 AM:Chuck always wants to talk about Democratic tax increases. But lets look at the proof. Conservatives have created the biggest government ever. The have destroyed the surplus that Clinton left, increasing the deficit to highs that have never been heard of. But at the same time, funny, Corporations are making unheard of profits. Republicans may not want to increase taxes, but what they do is reduce them so that our children, years from now will suffer. They are like credit card abusers. Run up the bill and let someone else pay it when they cant. Great thinking Chucko.....my conservo poster boy

to The Wolf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:55 AM:I find those that sit back, without questioning the government to be the ones not patriotic. They are the slackers. They are the ones that let this worthless President of ours run wild destroying our Civil Liberties. So I find that you "The Wolf" the one that aids and abets our enemies by sitting on your hands.

be afraid-be very afraid wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:01 AM:Both Henry Sanford and Mitchell Cwiek are buying into the maniacal fear-mongering of our Pres, G.W. "Boo!" Bush. Sanford bleats "We now likely are facing the greatest threat in the nation's history by an insidious, mortal enemy." Cwiek repeats the canard that "Jihad" will do away with our "freedoms". No one seems to notice that our own government is the one removing our freedoms one at a time in the name of "safety", while at the same time trying to scare us to death with the Muslim boogeyman. The real story of course is the occupation of the Iraqi oil fields, which the Iraqis obviously have problems with and which the rest of the Mideast legitimately views as a US war against Islam. But as long as Bush can keep us scared, we will be at war. God bless America.

Yes Chucko wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:11 AM:We heard about the car bomb in Iraq. Did you Chuck? But you have no understanding of why it happened. Over the weekend the #2 in charge of our military in Iraq stated that the Shia militia is involved in most of the killing. Not the Sunni, not Al Queada. Shite militia. Chuck wants us to believe they are all Al Qeada. This is a religious was, insurgents using their only weapon. Terror. Not terrorists waiting to fly to America. So Chuck, stop reading the conservative fear into things and start thinking.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:14 AM:Well, "TheWolf", did you not see that anyone (GWB) could use (2)(b) of NSPD 51 under just about any circumstances. Your zeal for security seems to be blinding you to the broader implications of NSPD 51, which are that the executive branch can declare itself the ultimate power not subject to the checks and balances written into the Constitution. What I assert is that the unchecked "are you now or have you ever been" attitude of "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" can cause people whose job it is to provide relief, like Doctors Without Borders or the American Red Cross (traditionally an organization exempt from political control), to be thwarted AND by the wording, also seize property of anyone even offering food to those whose assets were frozen or confiscated, the confiscation of which is in dierct opposition to the wording and intent of the 5th Amendment. "Stability" in Iraq at the expense of violating the 5th Amendment of the Constitution is unacceptable. So far GWB has attacked Habeas Corpus, the 4th Ammendment, the 14th Amendment and has now attacked the 5th Amendment. I could swear that GBW took an Oath of Office that states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". Whether you view things as I do, the pattern of going outside the powers afforded to GWB by the Constitution and the Legislative Branch should trouble almost any sane person. Does his willful disregard for Habeas Corpus, the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments sound like he is preserving, protecting or defending the Constitution of the United States? Regards, Alf.

go Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:14 AM:I wonder what talking points Limbaugh ordered today.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:26 AM:>>> I trust that if the uncivil are ignored, they will either become more civil or disappear. Regards, Alf. ">>>>> Translated, you will either click your heels and salute "Heil Hitlery" or we will ignore you. I guess that is preferable to what Pelosi, Hitlery, Kennedy, Schumer, Murtha, & Turbin want to do by instituting the fairness doctrine. Because after all-- with liberals there can only be onepoint of view-theirs.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:27 AM:Actually, "TheWolf", and anyone else who cares to read this, I am more concerned with the United States of America, its Constitution, the rights of American citizens, American Soldiers that are being killed every day because GWB sent them to Iraq and the implications of these things that GWB spits out at the Constitution than I am about the country named Iraq. FIRST, we get our own house in order, THEN we help others. The instructions for oxygen masks on planes say that the adult puts on his or her mask FIRST AND THEN puts a mask on the child, the same logical and rational reasoning applies in both cases. Think. Regards, Alf.

Mike America to Chris wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:37 AM:Today another Islamic fanatic detonated a bomb in a densely poulated area of Baghadad, 28 pepole were killed, mostly women and children. Did you get that at Daily Kos or MoveOn, how bout Air Hate America? Allow me to answer your question to Chuck yesterday @ 1:42 pm; all of them Chris, killem all, let Allah sort'em out, they've been killing each other for centuries anyway!

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:39 AM:In the news today, Bush said that he can remove the AlQaeda leaders with the right intelligence. And that is precisely why the liberals fight tooth and nail to be sure Bush won't have access to the right intelligence, because as the liberal Congressman said: "Any success Bush has in Iraq is certainly hurtful to our cause"

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:42 AM:I see that "To the editor - Please consider" @4:21 AM is trying to pull a McCain–Feingold right here on this board. Hmmmmm... now I always thought you guys believed in more speech not less, but I guess for a price, you'll consider shutting down speech you don't agree with, eh comrade? Kinda pulling a Hugo, without the charge? Well, here's a suggestion for you, my dear friend... try using logic to debate. Try using facts when you discuss. And post more often. Hitler found when you told the lie long enough, igorant people often believed it. And one more thing... If the Times were to institute some kind of fee for using the board, what's to stop me and my buddies, named by you, from getting together and funding a 527? For every time you seek to shut down free speech, we will always find a way around your sillyness. Limiting the number or lengths of posts each day by every registered user will not provide the forum you believe your idea will have. It will, in fact, give the more affluent more opportunity. And as you and your ilk have argued, simply being rich does not make you smarter? Or does it? I tend to think it does, but that's an argument for another day. Cheers!

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:48 AM:"""trying to scare us to death with the Muslim boogeyman""" Was that boogeymen who blew up the 40 women & children today? Was it boogeymen in the British subways and airports, and Spanish train stations. Is it Muslim boogeymen who are killing in Somalia, the Congo, Nigeria, etc. It is Muslim boogeymen that attacked in Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Chechnya, Thailand & the Phillipines. Gee, it seems all of the hot spots around the globe involve Muslims, and your type sits there and cheers as college campuses outlaw Christian gatherings and install baths to clean the feet of Muslims. Why don't you go bury your head a little deeper, and drink more of Nancy Legosi's KoolAid

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:51 AM:According the the newly expanded Children's Health Insurance plan... a plan to insure children who's parents make around $80K a year (I'm still not getting how they qualify as poverty?), on the backs of smokers. A new tax of .61 cents a pack will fund the program, one catch though. In order to pay completely for this expansion, they will need almost 22 million new smokers every year, and each year thereafter. So, we're gonna need some volunteers to start smoking, so children won't die. Remember, it's for the children. Now, we know.. you may die from lung cancer without healthcare, but it's for the children, and their parent's who will make nearly $80K year. They can't afford it, they have a car payment or gym membership or something that's making it hard for them to come up with the money for buying their own children health insurance... so we're asking 22 million of you to volunteer to start smoking, and keep smoking, so the revenue keeps coming into the government, so we compassionate liberals can buy the children of these $80K a year parents health insurance. If you don't start smoking this year, don't worry, we need 22 million new smokers every year, so you can start next as well. But we do need your help, it's a tough assignment, but as Americans were asking you to "be in this together with us" as you start smoking and paying the taxes. We will be here, counting the cash, letting you know, exactly how your doing to keep children of $80K a year parents from dying. God Bless you volunteers, and God Bless the United States of America!

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:51 AM:Well... just as I predicted, the Dem's have caved into the "reality" of warrantless taps. I knew they couldn't continue this lie of "listening to Americans" baloney for too long. You see, since the United States has the most technologically advanced telecommunications systems in the world, you can call from Jordan to Iran with the call being routed through the united States. How many millions, if not billions of calls happen everyday? I don't know, but if were receiving 15 million shipping containers each and everyday, you just gotta believe it's huge. Getting a judge's approval before each and every single phone call just wouldn't work, it can't. The Democrat Intelligence Chairman said we were missing nearly 80% of all calls, and that was not acceptable. I agree, being 80% blind is not acceptable. Thank God they have finally seen the light, and have changed their minds. Even if it's only for political reasons.

voteoutrepublicans wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:01 AM:Lets talk Conservos, about the hundreds of thousands of weapons that the Pentagon says are missing in Iraq. 30% of weapons given to Iraqi security forces are not there anymore. Most all of these weapons were distributed from 2004-2006. Today the Pentagon admits they have killed American soldiers. Republicans want to blame Iran for suppling weapons to insurgents and wanting to strike them, yet our incompetence has been far far more responsible. Why do these, so-called supports of our military, sit now on their hands and say nothing. Where is their outcry? Where is their call for the firing of those who allowed this to happen. Why are they silent? It's just another Pat Tillman type scenerio. The war is in a quagmire, and they don't want to hype it more with bad press. They want you to know that some troops passed out candy bars to the kids in Iraq instead. So Ron, Chuck, Mike America, where's the outcry. Just having these weapons wondering the world has made America and Americans far less safe. Bush wants more money for the war. So we can supply more to the other side?

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:04 AM:Alf, my dear friend. Each branch is responsible for their own continuity plan. The President's plan can not over ride theirs, they are separate, thus their plans are separate. If Bush was over riding them, or "stepping on their toes", they would have reacted to it. Don't you recall when the Justice Dept. wanted to search William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana's office, and Hastert, the Republican House Speaker at the time, prevented the search for Constitutional reasons of separation? This is Bush's, why haven't you looked into the Congress's? They have one, you know? Look up Order Code RL31594, Feb. 3rd, 2004. Maybe that will calm you down. and one more thing... do you think Halliburton is building concentration camps around the US?

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:29 AM:Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 8:38 AM: You stated a quote. Please reference the source and the author.

JSUT CURIOUS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:34 AM:Chuck you wrote, "Tillman. He never heard of Tillman before the incident, and just parrots on to Kennedy's and Pelosi's daily talking points to spew his America hate." Now let us see the evidence that Kennedy's and Pelosi's talking points regarding this matter and show where anything he said was spewing American hate!

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:36 AM:>>>>You just dont get it, ever! No one is blaming the military for Tillman's death, even under friendly fire>>>>>> Well, maybe you didn't see the posters comments that Tillman was "murdered". That sure sounds like blame to me?

Chuck's the man! wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:53 AM:he might single handedly end the conservative run in North County. Being such an embarrassment to his conservative ideology and pals he might expose enough to force em out of the area. Go CHUCK GOOOOO!!!!!! Go Chuck Go!!! Wind him up and watch him spin!!! Go Chuck GO!!!!!!! Louder, faster, meaner!!!! GO CHUCK GO!!!!!!

Honestly now.. wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:55 AM:Chuck can't be real. He's the liberal Marky Marx, right? He's just too good to be true. Funny how some of the members of the conservative think tank support him, though. Go Chuck! No Power to the peeps!!

OBSERVATION wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:16 AM:Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 9:39 AM What a load. Congress does not have access to intelligence directly. Bush and his administration are the ones who have control of and access to intelligence. I sure hope that he gets the correct intelligence because we all know what he did with the last batch. Quite blaming the liberals for the failures of GWB. Liberals have no power. They do not control the Democratic party as evidenced since the Democrats became the majority in Congress.

Jules wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:25 AM:Chuckles, there is plenty of blame to go around.But what are you doing to make life better for American people? No one is against wiretapping as long as it is done leagally, what part of illegal do YOU not understand? You want debate then say something sensible to debate you on. Your absolute hatred for your neighbors shows your lack of forward thinking, until you can sit down and write something without the name calling and the outright lies maybe someone might take you seriously but I dont think that will ever happen.As far as WMD's go you know as well as anybody that is not exactly what was presented to our congress or the American public we heard of smoking guns, and mushroom clouds and a direct and immidiate threat of nuclear arms aimed directly at us, we know know that to be a lie. You can keep perpetuating the lies and the longer you do or this administration does the more you will be tuned out as a far right loonie too.

Ragnar wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:25 AM:I rarely contribute to this blog, but when I read a self-proclaimed “Libertarian” make a statement like, “have you ever claimed your mortgage interest, your children as dependents, a medical deduction or any other deduction on your tax return? If so, then you are or were ‘on the dole’” ( Alf ... Aug 5, 2007 5:18 AM), it jumped off the monitor at me. How does one make that statement without first accepting the premise that tax deductions and tax cuts are a benefit from the government (i.e. a “dole”). Alf, “a libertarian,” went on to say (Aug 5, 2007 10:18 AM ): “It is a statement of fact of the hypocrocy (sic) of the conservative name-calling.” Leaving the reader to assume that Alf’s “fact of hypocrisy” refers as well to anyone who takes a tax deductions (i.e. keeps what is already theirs) while they disparage the “dole.” How does one form that hypocrisy theory without first accepting the liberal premise that tax deductions and tax cuts are a benefit from the government. Liberals characteristically view tax cuts and deductions as a “gift” or “handout” from government; libertarians characteristically view them as merely permission from government to keep what is already theirs. Those are the facts as I see them ... suggest Alf check his premises. Ragnar, a libertarian.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:41 AM:>>>>You stated a quote. Please reference the source and the author>>> I saw this on the internet, you can copy in into Google to source it. Even I can't make up stuff this good. It goes to the very character if liberals. "Clyburn stated that success in Iraq would be very bad for his party"

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:41 AM:Hey, I know you libs are really, really, really upset over the tragic death of Pat Tillman. And as always, those who have short circuited the investigation into to his death, friendly or not.. will eventually get theirs. Have some patience. Stop using this brave man's death as another nail in the Bush coffin, and try to be a bit more compassionate to the Tillman family. They are the true victims here, and if your really interested in victims, and victimology of the left, act like it once in awhile.

Just Curious wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:53 AM:Chuck: Where is the requested quote and info made about 10:30 AM this morning? Are you out to lunch?

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:55 AM:I see my dear friend; "voteoutrepublicans" @10:01 AM is now concerned about how I should be concerned about "missing weaponry" in Iraq. You mean in addition to the $9 billion that is missing? You mean, in addition to the $12 trillion missing from Social Security? You mean, in addition to the $19 billion missing at the IRS? The Treasury @ $23 billion? I could go on... but you picked on the military for one reason, and one reason only. You Loathe the Military! Yes, I'm upset at our goverment for losing our weapons, just as I'm upset over the losing of trillions of my hard earned tax dollars. Aren't you? Of course not! Why the government always needs more money for "the poor" or "the children." All these agencies can't sem to balance a budget, neither can the Congress, they just whip out the credit card and keep on spending. And as long as their spending on these kinds of programs, your fat, dumb and happy... in that the "rich" are being punished for being rich. In your little world, wise spending, staying within your means... No, No, No... because the children of parents making $80K a year are dying everyday without health insurance. On this, you'll gladly break out the Chinese credit card. I have one suggestion for you. Let's stop using the credit card altogether? Let's stop placing this already huge burden on the back's of our children, and grandchildren. Don't you think we've really overspent for the daily needs of Americans? One half of this budget is spent to provide housing, food, and other things most average Americans don't use their credit cards for. Why should this government be allowed? Oh, and now... your going to tell me how this bridge is Bush's fault. drivel on....

el_patron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:55 AM:Today is the six year anniversary of when bush ignored the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) that headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". There had been intelligence about airplanes, buildings, defensive practice at the previous G8 meeting, on and on. bush and condi couldn't connect two dots if thet were laying next to each other. The dots, chuck, not bush and condi. he's a eunuch and she's a lesbian, so it's the dots, chuckles. This is the start of a long incompetent slide that has America in much more danger today than that day 6 years ago when bush slacked off.

AT THE MOVIES wrote on Aug 6, 2007 11:57 AM:I think they made one of those nightmare movies about Chuck. Wasn't it called,"Chuckie?"

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:08 PM:voteoutrepublicans wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:01 AM Kinda wondering by giving out weapons to our enemies will embolden them?

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:14 PM:"Ron", while Order Code RL31594 is a contingency plan, I urge you to look harder at the NSPD 51 more carefully: It is not a plan, it is a DIRECTIVE, in other words GWB is ORDERING that his edict be followed. (2)(e) states, i part, "coordinated by the President". (6) states "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government ...". Now this Directive contains broad generalizations and also specific language that, in one section effectively usurp the power of the other 2 branches (if you don't count "the Cheney Branch"), while in other sections gives a nod to the autonomy of the other 2 branches. Which is it? Given the track record of GWB and my suspicions which are justified by GWB's complete disregard for the words and intent of the Fifth Amendment in his "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", my bet is on his usurping of the power of the other 2 Branches. I do not trust GWB at all, under any circumstances. Regards, Alf.

To Ragnar wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:18 PM:Now you're catching on. Alf is as much a legitimate Libertarian as Chuck, Ron, Reardon, and the other usual suspects are legitimate Conservatives. Anyone can be anything they want here, and these crumudgeons play the game better than most.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:32 PM:I do not make assumptions, "Ragnar". The fact is that the government takes our money out of our paychecks before we have a chance to see it. The fact is that it is up to the individual to try to get back that which is not owed for government function as defined by the Constitution. It is the government that then declares that the poor get welfare, the middle class gets their mortgage deduction and business gets their write-offs. ANYONE complaining about ANY of those as being "on the dole" must, therefore accept that ALL other deductions are also "the dole", OR NONE OF THEM ARE. It's like Paris Hilton calling Lindsay Lohan a drunk slut while proclaiming her own virtue or vice versa. My point is that the one-sided "conservative" (if you will) taunt or insult of "you're on the dole" to some, also applies to everyone or it applies to no one. They can't have it both ways. Do you understand my position? Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:36 PM:>>Chuck: Where is the requested quote and info made about 10:30 AM this morning? Are you out to lunch? ">>>>I posted it at 11:41

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:43 PM:To the person "To Ragnar", if you look up the platform of the Libertarian Party, you will not see anything that I have written that contradicts it. You will see me use examples of incorrect assumptions to make a point, but extremely little in my philosophy differs from that platform. Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:46 PM:>>>> I think they made one of those nightmare movies about Chuck. Wasn't it called,"Chuckie?" ">>>> Yea, Chuckie is my hero. Can I come over for dinner?

Vietnam Vet wrote on Aug 6, 2007 12:55 PM:In Vietnam when a superior was impossible and hated, he was "fragged". Killed by his own men. I do not know what they call it in Iraq but it looks like Tillman was in the Iraq version of fragging. How Issa has anything to do with this is beyond me. They should have left him die a hero.

Uh Oh! wrote on Aug 6, 2007 1:15 PM:In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, the proportion of those who said the additional troops are "making the situation better" rose to 31% from 22% a month ago. Those who said it was "not making much difference" dropped to 41% from 51%.....I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Reid's or Schumer's office right about now. Yyyyuuup.

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 1:28 PM:I see my friend, "el_patron" @11:55 AM needs another history lesson. The chore, has again fallen on my shoulders, as he's not getting his "facts" in proper order from the Daily Kos. "The Plan" to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings was hatched way back in 1995. One of the co-conspirator's of the first Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef, told us this. The money that funded Oplan Bojinka came from Osama bin Laden and Hambali, and from front organizations operated by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, bin Laden's brother-in-law. Wali Khan Amin Shah, an Afghan, was the financier of the plot. He funded the plot by laundering money through his girlfriend and other Manila (Philippines)women, several of whom were bar hostesses and one of whom was an employee at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. The word Bojinka means "loud bang" or "explosion" in Serbo-Croatian. In Croatian, "boènica" translates into English as "boom". Oplan Bojinka co-plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have encountered the Serbo-Croatian language when he fought for and financially supported Muslim fighters in Bosnia. The Bojinka Plot was a planned large-scale terrorist attack on airliners in 1995. The first references were to a plot to destroy 11 airliners on January 21 and January 22, 1995, as recited to the FBI after his capture. This potential existed since 1995, everyone knew about it, we had another failure in intelligence because of "The Wall" created by Jamie Gorelick who was Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno. A 1995 Department of Justice memorandum written by Gorelick states that the procedures her memorandum put in place "go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." The wall intentionally exceeded the requirements of FISA and the then-existing federal case law. This "Wall" was the whole reasoning behind re-structuring our Intell services, as you may recall. There was no opportunity to "connect dot's" as these agencies were not allowed to talk, or exchange intell information with each other. But... I guess you forgot all that, eh? Comrade?

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 1:39 PM:Oh Jules...@11:25 AM, I do believe the "cracks" in your past arguments are beginning to show. As I recall, you savaged me for supporting the President's right to "listen in" to foreign calls, and you insisted he was breaking the law by not seeking warrants. Helps to know, most of the calls throughout the world are routed through US telecom exchanges, doesn't it. Helps you to understand now why the Bush Adiminstration went to these companies "on the sly" and asked them to information, huh? Don't give us... nobody was against it "as long as it was legal" baloney now. It was legal then, and it's still legal. The Democrat's (thank God) have seen the light, and they too are on-board with tapping, just as I predicted to you quite a ways back. But then, you took issue with me, now... your on board? You know, it's funny.. how your argument has changed. When the Dem's say it's ok, then it's ok? When Bush say's it's legal, it's not? I kept trying to tell you, Clinton allowed warrantless property searches, and you savaged me for bringing him up. Well, he did these with both a House and a Senate controlled by Republicans. Go figuire? If it were illegal for him to do so, those guys would have savaged him. I'm glad your finally on board with those of us who want to defend this country. It's about time. Better late, than never.

Jules wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:08 PM:Ron wish I had the time to find all of the "cracks" in your previous posts, however I have to make a living, eat and sleep. Going through your thousands upon thousands of extremly lenghty posts would take me years. I have never once said I know it all nor I have all the answers and when proven wrong I have no problem admitting it. It was always a question of legality for me. You seem to have no problem whatsoever letting Bush and Co take away your rights but get off my butt because I DO have a problem with it. You are just too old and set in your ways to ever change so why bother posting anything to you. Even old dogs can learn new tricks, too bad that doesnt apply to Conservative Republicans.

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:14 PM:CHUCK: 2;30 pm and Chuck has not given us the references for his quotes yet. You also referenced Kennedy and Pelosi talking points. Can't find them either?

Concrened-1 wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:27 PM:Just a little clarification for To the Editor. Actually what you are describing is a "forum." This is a blog. You will find many forums online, however, forums usually dispell a free form of discussion. I totally prefer the blog format, even if the occasional troll chooses to hijack one of our names. And, as long as I'm at it, those trolls invariably come from one side of the political contingent.

el_patron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:28 PM:Ron, none of that is news to me, and it wasn't news to bush or condi. They just blew it because their policy was "anything but VClinton." If Clinton thought terrorism was important, then bush, as a matter of his stupid mind, would not pay attention. It is his dropped duty, and incompetent follow-through, that has gotten us to where we are.

Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:37 PM: >>>CHUCK: 2;30 pm and Chuck has not given us the references for his quotes yet.>>>> You need a new pair of glasses. I can lead to you water, but I cant make you drink, because you're too deep in Nancy Legosi's Kool-Aid

Just Stopping By wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:54 PM:This is the dumbest blog I have seen yet. Anything to say besides name calling?

to el_patron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:57 PM:Come on, el_patWronG. You say "if Clinton thought terrorism was important...". Clinton did NOT think it important in his 8 years. Even though he had reminder after reminder with 1st WTC, Kobar Towers, Cole bombing, and let's not forget Able Danger.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:57 PM:If the Constitution says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause", then regardless of how GWB or the Legislature tries to gut it, for so long as those words are there, unmodified, GWB is violating those words and his Oath of Office. Warrant-less wiretapping of ANY CITIZEN is not permitted under our current Constitution. If GWB or the Legislature wants warrant-less searches, amend the 4th Amendment and then have at it. But they will not do that. Regards, Alf.

Jules to just stopping by wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:14 PM:You are right, when I began posting here there actually was discussion and some give and take. Unfortunatly some people stopped reading the entire posts of others and cherry picked what they wanted to see, then maybe stop contimplate and then respond. The personal attacks began when posters decided to not actually answer a direct question or thier reasons behind it, but to lump all groups into dividing lines. I unfortunatly being a human find myself sucked into the same attitude, however I try to keep it as civil as possible. I find myself not only disgusted with the rights hatred towards anyone or anything liberal, but also with myself for falling into the trap. This is obviously a very right sided arena and you have to have some tough skin to try to make a point with those who choose to read only what they want to hear.

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:26 PM:Chuck wrote on Aug 6, 2007 2:37 PM: Just as I thought. You do not have their reference points and you do not have any reference for your earlier quote. I can easily research as the next fella. But, I do not intend to do your work for you.

Lets all be... wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:31 PM:Chuck tomorrow, Ron on Wednesday, Alf on Thursday, Concerned-1 on Friday..these guys hate that! C all ya Chucks, tomorrow! Regards, your friend(s) Chuck/Ron/Alf/Concerned-1

Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:42 PM:Then my dear friend Alf @ @2:57 PM, YOU have a problem with the WHOLE government, and not Bush. Remember where this Patriot Act began? In Congress, voted for twice by both the House and the Senate. You see, in the real world (that would be the world where Congress writes ALL the laws, writes ALL the taxing authority, and writes ALL civil rights legislation) in that world, we knowledgable people, the well informed, and educated; understand that the President, including this one, can not do anything without permission. It's called the Constitution. It requires a multiple step process, wherein all parties agree. The House writes a law, the Senate writes a law. Should they differ, they go and conference, and come to an agreement. Then they both go back and vote again on the modified legislation. Then, and only then is that modified, conferenced legislation passed onto the President where he can elect to sign it into law, or veto it, thus putting back into the Congress for re-evalution. This is the way the government works, in the real world. In the tin-foil, kool-aid drinking world, where Bush is Hitler, and Cheney is Joseph Goebbels, you then can you see a coming dictatorship, and facism on the rise.

Concerned-1 wrote on Aug 6, 2007 3:54 PM:I see the trolls have arrived. Time to go.

hey Ron wrote on Aug 6, 2007 4:01 PM:do you think Chuck is for real? If so is he a tin foil hat wearer? Kool aid drinker? You acknowledge that there are people like that on your side, right? I will concede that there are some on the left, absolutely. Can you? Yes or no on Chuck. Do you think he is for real? Tell us what YOU think, Ron. Don't just regurgitate what someone else thinks. WHAT DO YOU THINK?!?!?

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 4:09 PM:The tally so far of GWB's efforts: 3,662 American Soldiers DEAD with 14 American Soldiers awaiting DoD confirmation, 3,676 American Soldiers DEAD. The 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments VIOLATED as well as Habeas Corpus VIOLATED. He sure has lived up to the oath he swore to, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". My question is - Which Constitutionally guaranteed right, which Amendment, will GWB assault and VIOLATE next? My bet is on the 1st Amendment or the 22nd Amendment. Any takers? Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 6, 2007 4:34 PM:"Ron", if "the President, including this one, can not do anything without permission", how is he holding U.S. citizens without habeas corpus? How is he issuing his 5th Amendment violating "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq"? His definition of and his requirements for determining what constitutes "threatening stabilization efforts" are so broad and nebulous as to make virtually anything he does not like qualify. It appears that YOU look at his words on paper and believe that GWB will act prudently, nobly and honorably, while I look at the same words with the cynicism of one who does not, can not and will not trust him to act in the best interest of America and see how prone to misuse and abuse those words really are. Ask anyone with any law school under their belt (something I do NOT have), how open-ended and full of loop-holes in favor of GWB or his successors those directives, signings and executive orders really are. In my book they make swiss cheese seem solid. What GWB, with his directives, signings and executive orders is doing is eviscerating the Constitution, not preserving, protecting or defending it. Regards, Alf.

TROLLS wrote on Aug 6, 2007 7:29 PM:Where did everybody go?

Linda W, wrote on Aug 6, 2007 10:24 PM:Impeach, stop the war in Iraq. Stop the illegal alien invasion. There will be a huge rally/march/protest in Washington DC on Sept 15th, 2007. We have large groups going from all over California. Drive, fly, train or on charted buses. Make our voices heard.

beginers credit wrote on Dec 10, 2007 8:58 PM:Sometimes I feel like I am not smart enough to understand all those ?terms and conditions?. How can you be sure that a bunch of professionals won?t trick you? So when I needed a credit card last time I just used free credit care professional consulting service at best 0% balance transfer rewards card