jvc wrote on Oct 7, 2007 11:29 PM:To GFN: are you not aware that gambling is a vice and is corrupting our morals!-

el_patron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:22 AM:A letter the other day said that bush had some victory in NKorea that had eluded Clinton. That is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Clinton had an agreement with the NKs that had their nuclear plant shut down and monitored. bush came in, reneged on the deal for oil and support, refused to sign a non-aggression treaty, and just plain broke the treaty. NK then secretly started a uranium program, since bush was now bloviating about an "axis of evil". The uranium project was not part of the deal, but certainly wasn't in the spirit of the understanding. But that breaking of spirit was after bush's breaking of fact. Then NK stripped the shut down plant of probably a 100 pounds of plutonium. The bomb they exploded was of unknown technology, and it was surprisingly small. Now, we have to negotiate with a nuclear power. The deal hyped as bush's success, is very similar to Clinton's, except for a couple of points : 1. We will get the nuclear plant deconstructed instead of shut down. 2. They have a nuclear arsenal, and the expertise, that they keep. 3. We don't know about that plutonium. *** The result is overall worse than what we had 10 years ago with Clinton.-

El Guero wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:52 AM:Hear, hear, Herb Pairitz, you couldn't be more right.-

Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 5:49 AM:>>San Diego responsible for landslides>> Yea, sure they are. Some idiot builds on a hillside of unstable ground, then puts in a pool, and overwaters the lawn and then wonders why he has a problem. The same scenario played itself out in Oceanside and LaCosta. Those people knew what kind of ground they were buying into and they did it anyway.-

No Fan wrote on Oct 8, 2007 6:25 AM:I'm no fan of Brian Bilbray, but Patricia Walker's letter is an insult to our intelligence. The rules of engagement may "seem to be" one thing to her, but they "seem to be" something quite different to the Iraqis, whose country it is. Write another letter when you can tell us what the rules of engagement actually are.-

Pluto wrote on Oct 8, 2007 6:36 AM:It's almost funny to see Bush-war defender Bill Reynolds accuse MoveOn of a misleading ad. Bush has appointed General after General to support his lies, starting with Colin Powell. When their claims prove to be false they retire, and are replaced by yet another "highly respected" General. Petraeus is just another soldier to be sacrificed by our liar-in-chief. Happily, he just lost his credibility, not his life or limb.-

Pluto wrote on Oct 8, 2007 6:43 AM:William Elder's choice of metaphors seems to be a clue to the subconscious fears that drive his "old school . . opposition to pro-gay issues". Don't worry, Mr. Elder, nobody is trying to stuff anything down your throat.-

Pluto @ 636 is right wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:28 AM:Bush and Cheney don't expect people to respect high-ranking military officers; they only insist that people respect the one that is agreeing with them. Other formerly respected Generals like Powell and Shinseki are tossed under the bus by the same ones who are demanding respect. The latest example: General Petraeus was the person chosen to "announce" that the Iranian ambassador to Iraq is "really" a part of the "terrorist" Iranian Guard. Cheney knows that if he himself, or Bush, went to the public with this, they'd get laughed at, having used up whatever credibility they had long ago. So the General says so. Sorry, we're still laughing. Cheney is desperate to find a pitch that sells an attack on Iran. Maliki won't buy it. Neither should we.-

Good News wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:45 AM:I have good news for Herbert Pairitz. Not everybody who takes positions on issues is jockying for the next election. Some of us take positions which we think are best for the country, the world. I support immigrants, for example, because they are most victimized by global economic forces which hurt us all. They leave their homeland and families and make a dangerous, uncertain journey only because of extreme desperation. I support Latinos because they are and have been discriminated against by the economic system (cheap labor)and by a false and backward ideology of white, nativist supremacy. Most important, I support the truth in it's battle with self-serving myths and lies. Sustaining life for all on this planet is too important and complex to be reduced to a petty contest between two corrupt parties.-

Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:05 AM:>>> Bush and Cheney don't expect people to respect high-ranking military officers; they only insist that people respect the one that is agreeing with them.>>> And when some bearded nutcase in a dirty nightshirt blows himself up in a mall near you, you'll all of the sudden, have a new respect for the US Soldier-

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:57 AM:If you just wait long enough, eventually the lack of facts, the lack of knowledge, and an ideology emerges. I don't know what kind of education Chris received, but Chris... come on. He actually makes the statement, "...I think people are finally realizing that WW11 had nothing to do with our freedom. I am not saying that we should not have entered it but I am saying that if we hadn't the Japanese or Germans would not have come over here." You just can't be for real. Can you? This statement is as bad as: "The moon is made of green cheese", "There was a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll", and "Abortion does not complicate future pregnancy." Dude, I suggest you seriously sit down, and do some proper research, instead of reading from the World Worker's Daily.-

To Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:58 AM:It seems as though you are obsessed with someone 'blowing up a mall'. You seem to be disappointed that it has not happened and in all likelihood will not happen. You are like Chicken (hawk) Little, and the sky will not fall.-

to Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:23 AM:Don't kid yourself. The "bearded nutcases", as you call them, are responding to U.S. presence in their part of the world. They aren't irrational, you are. Bush has put us in a lose-lose situation where the actions of our soldiers (no fault of their own) are creating more enemies. They are in the Middle East protecting oil and Empire. In order to protect us, they'd have to come home.-

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:26 AM:You know... el_patron, if you actually had some information, you'd be dangerous. Do you know anything about North Korea at all? This is the same illogic by the left, that constantly creates more problems, and goes nowhere. North Korea's national policy is "Military First", or Songun. Their political system is of "Military First Economic Construction", which is their economic system. This is a country we know has sent nuclear materials to Syria, which the Israelis recently blew up. This is a country who's second method of funding their regime is couterfeiting American money. And this whole doctrine is a part of Kimilsungism, the North Korean term for Kim Il-sung's family regime. It's very similar to Stalin and Stalinism, where comrades die in the streets, in order to preserve the military first aspect of the doctrine. In short, it's a cult, of sorts. Man... do some reading. It's like I said the otherday, Bush has put this aside for the moment, just as Clinton put it aside for the moment. Bribery will only provide a temporary solution to this problem. It is preferable to both Russia and China to have North Korea to create problems for us. North Korea dare not bite the hands that feed it, and border on two sides. Instead, they are allowed to pursue nuclear proliferation by China and Russia because in the long term, it helps those two countries keep us off target, which should be them.-

To Good News wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:32 AM:You stated "I support immigrants, for example, because they are most victimized by global economic forces which hurt us all. They leave their homeland and families and make a dangerous, uncertain journey only because of extreme desperation. I support Latinos because they are and have been discriminated against by the economic system (cheap labor)and by a false and backward ideology of white, nativist supremacy. Most important, I support the truth in it's battle with self-serving myths and lies." You left out the word "illegal" and many, of that type, who come want nothing to do with you or me except for our money. They show little regard for our rules or our country. If they want to expose themselves to the dangers of illegally crossing our borders instead of working to fix their own problems at home, that is their business. It is also my business to see to it that the government start to crack down of the scofflaws who hire them and don't do anything to support their existence here.-

Chuck is off base...what else is new wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:40 AM:We have an enormous amount of respect for the US soldier, Chuck. Not so much for the agreeable General du jour that Bush/Cheney uses as a mouthpiece. Can you tell the difference? Oh! This just in: Britain is planning to cut their troop size in Iraq in half in the coming months. Chuck: are they cutting and running? Have they joined the filthy ilk?-

Mike America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:51 AM:Hey Good News; you could have omited "country" and ended your diatribe there. But what the hell is "false and backward ideology of white, nativist supremecy?-

Mary wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:51 AM:Patricia Walker is right we need a different Congressman in the 50th CD - but voters had their change in '06 - and they elected a 'good old boy'. Now Bilbray is in for life.-

Chris wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:12 AM:I noticed that the letters for 10-6 and 10-7 are missing. I hope it wasn't something we bloggers did. I should have just ignored the blogs from...-

OBSERVATON wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:14 AM:Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:05 AM Same ole answer that you have given previously. The one who has to develop respect for the US soldier is GWB.-

iRONic wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:15 AM:So a new british think tank has come out with a report on how well the war on terror is going. Obviously leftist and liberal leaning, when you consider the word "think" is used. But this report states what most of us already know; it's not going well. Actually it's gotten worse. So it begs the question; do people who think it's going well or continue to support this debacle do so willingly and knowingly? And if so doesn't that mean they then support the escalation of said terror? What with the words of chuck and wRONg it all but looks crystal clear that that is exactly what they are doing. And if conservative ideology has proven anything over the last few years it has proven to be the exact opposite of what they say. So when a guy like chuck says that liberals hate the bible and any moral code and have their heads in the sand regarding the war on terror, it's obvious that he means just the opposite. He wants this thing to get worse. He wants an escalation. For he knows it will lead to more destruction, which is really all he wants to see. Any progress, by definition is progressive, and hence can not be supported by his conservative ideology. No wonder he continues say the ridiculous things he does. Purely desperation.-

To Mary wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:25 AM:He was elected because the alternatives were even worse.

Chris wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:36 AM:I have a question for all of you who criticize the emegrants because they are ILLEGAL. How legal was the Mexican American war. My position is that we LEGAL residents have no right to talk about LEGAL or ILLEGAL because when it suits our purpose we ourselves don't pay any attention to whether something is LEGAL or ILLEGAL.

theWolf wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:39 AM:The scarer tactics from the anti-nuke folks is laughable but dangerous. Most Americans today have not a clue about science and are therefore afraid of nuclear power. If they thought about it, driving a car with 20 gallons of highly explosive gas at 80 miles an hour is a much higher risk than nuclear power

Here's one problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:45 AM:the yahoos that post here have a fundamental error that often is at the heart of many of their mistakes in philosophy: if we are military fighting, we are accomplishing something. They seem to believe this almost beyond question. You see this assumption in so many of their posts that you can't count them. It is beyond their abilities to comprehend that invading a country might be doing us harm. Iraq simply MUST be going well because we are there fighting and dying. Same with Afghanistan. Military action is always, in their view, worth doing because it can NEVER be harmful to us. It can never create more terrorists. It can never turn whole populations against the ideals of democracy. This is why, I believe, it is just about impossible to argue with them...that assumption blocks their minds from innumerable facts. When such facts are presented, they must accuse the presenter of lying, of being an Islamofascist, or some equivalent...it's the only way they can hold onto their most beloved belief that American military intervention is always, 100%, a good thing. Sick.

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:52 AM:As always... Good News @7:45 AM has it wrong. While America may have some problems of it's own, clearly immigrants, and particularly, illegal immigrants are coming to America for one reason, and one reason only, a better life. It is obvious to me, and any other open minded person that what they flee in their homelands, must be more oppressive than what they face once here. Otherwise, they would turn around and leave. Many do very well, from one generation to the next while being illegal, and yet... People like this troller would have you believe America is the most oppressive state, occupied by mainly a white, nativist supremacy. Sir, with all due respect. It is not America that is oppressing these people, it is Mexico. This simpleton ideology of blame America first is a bunch of pap, as demonstrated by the millions of people breaking down the borders to get in here. It just isn't even arguable to reasonable people why they come, they want to be a part, even if it's temporary, to better themselves, their families, their children, and yet... they still are able to sent massive amounts of money back to the Mexican homeland, supporting left behind family members. Annually, they send about $20 billion a year. Hardly, an oppressed people.

To Mike America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:02 AM:Good questions. The ideology of white supremacy is what the KKK used when lynching and persecuting Blacks. The ideology of nativist supremacy is what Minutemen and others use to pretend they are better than Mexican immigrants. Nativist ideology is an old (and backward) tradition in the U.S., and was featured in the movie Gangs of New York. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:26 AM:Ya know, Chris... you have got to get some better talking points, ok? If your position is.. that America wrongly, immorally, and criminally attacked Mexico, and seized it's land illegally, then there's only one way to settle up. Right? You give it back. That would mean, my friend... your house sits on Mexican land, therefore... everyday you stay in your house, without their permission is a criminal act. If it's the moral thing to do, move out of your house today, and hand it over to an illegal. Simple. Ridiculous, of course. But what do you expect? One other thought here... but. Who had the land, before the Mexicans? And di they steal it from them? And how far back to you really want to go with this ridiculous thought process?

Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:28 AM:>>>He (Chris)actually makes the statement, "...I think people are finally realizing that WW11 had nothing to do with our freedom>>> What do you expect. He's like a parrot. He parrots whatever the public schools tell him to believ and follows Nancy Legosi's talking points to the letter. Polly wanna cracker

OBSERVATION wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:32 AM: Here's one problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:45 AM Chuck and Ron will say that you are not supporting the troops.

to to Mary @ 1025 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:34 AM:Well, yes and no. The majority of voters in this part of the country need only be told that someone is pro-military intervention and anti-Mexican and whoever says it will be elected. So, yes, he was superior to any candidate who doesn't endorse these two things. In the opinion of too many San Diegans. Astounding how easy it is to push a couple of buttons and win almost unlimited power. (I add the "almost" as a tribute to the Duke.)

El Guero wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:40 AM:Quick, where's Chris's pacifier? Did it fall out again?

Mike America to chris wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:41 AM:My God you get worse (more ludicrous) by the hour....please continue, your hilarious

to Ron on Korea wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:46 AM:I find your reply to Chris interesting. You show that the regime is bad. I think we were all aware of this. But you never addressed Chris' actual point about what Clinton did and what Bush did. I know you feel that bribing another "bad" nation is a bad idea, that you prefer to attack and bomb them into regime change. Because no military action taken by the US can ever be morally or in any way wrong. But how do you wash your hands of the civilians that we kill along the way? Do you humbly decide that their deaths were worth it to the survivors? How do you decide that you get to decide such things? Does God tell you?

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:52 AM: Chris -- PLEASE! Just once, could you not reflexively blame the U.S. for EVERYTHING. It could become a genetic proclivity that may be given to your children. There is a moral equivalency in your blood...cop violence against cop killers is equal to cop killers against cops, a head slap is equal to a beheading, and the US is worse than all regardless of how badly "all" may behave. The problem is not limited to you -- but you post the obvious examples more often. Get a grip!

To Chris wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:53 AM:To the victors go the spoils... How do you think that the Mexicans held the land they had before we took it? Did the natives will it to them? Do you know why they speak Spanish?

Here's a second problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:56 AM:People like "Here's one problem" keep talking and asserting without thinking or knowing.

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:18 PM:Chris, and many others, continue to overlay today?s culture and moral understandings over historical events. The 1840s were far different from today. America was in an expansionist mode, wars for territory were the standard operating procedure across the world -- and James K. Polk was representing the mood of the day. Polk had no knowledge that Chris et. al. would disapprove of his actions -- nor would he care because his representation was of Americans of his day who elected him. There are NO historical positions past 10 years that can be understood by overlaying today's thought processes. As one older than dirt, I can attest from my own experience that today's hatred of the dropping of the atomic bomb does not even partially approximate the euphoria we felt in this nation when they were dropped! It is just some people's desire to be a wet blanket by proclaiming, "He owned slaves," at a Jefferson Celebration, without any understanding of the culture of the day. The pyramids were built with slave labor also -- in fact most of the ancient world we so admire architecturally was built by slave labor! It was the norm of the day. Get over it!-

Eternal vigilance wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:27 PM:As long as someone thinks that his country's military can do no wrong, and as long as he supports any President who uses that military, he will allow that President to use him to do absolutely anything the President wishes...he gives complete carte blanche to the President. In effect, that stance makes the President into a Dictator, because it's not permitted to question the Commander-in-Chief. This is how so many leaders who are dictators were originally elected democratically. We need to be eternally vigilant of our own Government's actions, particularly their military action, and all the more so now that we've seen (in Vietnam and Iraq) that such action can be based on untruths. If that's not supporting the troops, so be it. In the old neighborhood, the capo used henchmen that had been good neighbors. Was opposing the capo's criminal activity unsupportive to the henchmen? I guess so.

To Miss America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:40 PM:Not the least bit surprised to see that you don't know the difference between you're and your either. That's a perfect trifecta with Ron and Chuck. What is it between right wingers and horrible writing abilities? It all goes back to the Red State-Blue State intelligence comparison. Oh wait, that's right you do things like that on purpose to trick us liberals; I forgot.-

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:44 PM:My dear Dominionist fearing friend.... "to Ron on Korea" @11:46 AM, >>>You show that the regime is bad. I think we were all aware of this.>>> I don't really think you do. Otherwise, you'd be for the fall of this military dictatorship, it's only reason for existence is to keep Kimilsungism the prevailing doctrine.-

Here's one problem to 11:56 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:49 PM:Thanks for demonstrating my point. But just to be sure, can you tell us what military actions the US has taken that have been morally and strategically wrong? That did us and others in the world harm? Since, as you say, I am wrong, then you must have examples of such. Ball's in your court.-

Chris wrote on Oct 8, 2007 12:50 PM:As is typical you dance all around my point wich is that all these people who criticize the ILLEGAL aliens are the same one's that when asked about the ILLEGALITY of things we have done and continue to do say that the law should not be obeyed because we are the sole judge of what needs to be done for our benefit so don't bother us with this stuff about Legal or ILLEGAL. The point of my comment was to point out that the ILLEGAL aliens are doing the same thing we are doing by deciding to ignore OUR laws because it is to their benefit. It was not aimed specifically at the Mexican-American war.

Mike America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:27 PM:Please direct your attention to the heckler at 11:02 am. We don't have an immigration issue or problem in this country, we have a problem of open borders, where anyone with the desire to do so can enter our country illegally. This concept is inexplicable to liberals such as chris and this self loathing liberal instigator who refuse to differentiate between immigrant and illegal alien. Without an intelligent argument to promote thier agenda (open borders...kumbaya) they habitually scream racism, which seems to work pretty well on our pusillanimous politicians. No sir, you didn't clear up a thing, you've only identified youself as a member of the extreme fringe and minority of pathetic people known as radical liberals.

Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:50 PM: The news is reporting thatIraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater. Do you notice that Iraq politicos are as obstructive to our aid and mission as Nancy Legosi, Harry Reid, Hillary, CNN, etc. I think its high time the money stops flowing to Iraq. Let the Marines kill the terrorists and stop modernizing their infrastructure. Take enough oil to repay us for what we've done and make it a strictly killing operation.

Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:54 PM:>>>The ideology of nativist supremacy is what Minutemen and others use to pretend they are better than Mexican>> The minutemen are trying to protect the border. They are preventing illegals and scum terrorists from crossing, at least in their sector. They are providing a lawful service to this nation. Its only types of people like you that make it a race issue.

Here's a third problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:57 PM:Everytime someone like Here's one problem points out that something is wrong, someone like Here's a second problem comes along and laments the fact that someone is saying something is wRONg and not doing anything about it. This is where that person is wRONg. You see, by pointing out that there is a problem you have started the process of bringing a resolution to said problem. Keeping your head in the sand doesn't help the problem. It's what this administration has done since day 1. Someone standing up and pointing out the problem is a start. But I know this falls on deaf ears. It's part of the conservative playbook to say that anyone who thinks differently doesn't have anything to offer. We get it. You're wRONg of course, but we get where your coming from. A position of FEAR. This is the fundamental belief structure of the conservative.

up Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:33 PM:Chuck wrote: "Take enough oil to repay us for what we've done and make it a strictly killing operation. " When someone uses such tough talk it makes real men wonder what they are compensating for. I mean seriously is it any wonder that the conservative ideology has fallen so far out of the mainstream? It's clear that this ideology wants another attack so that more of our rights can be stripped away and we can be told more of what to do, how to act, what to say, and most importantly what to believe. And the sheep says baaaaa..-

nw here wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:33 PM:to Reardon: While I agree with you that history is difficult to understand in retrospect I just wanted to note that there was an active anti-war sentiment opposed to Polks invading Mexico and it included Lincoln. Jefferson himself was torn by what he knew was the hypocrisy of declaring all men equal while at the same time owning slaves and is said to have suffered migraine headaches over it. And finally, the pyramids were not built by slaves but by freemen donating years of time to the pharoh. But slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years and is even ok'd by the bible.

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:54 PM:To new Here: As I said, Polk represented 'the mood of the day" -- which is why he was elected -- there has always been an anti-war element (large or small) to every war (large or small.) Some anti-war stance is philosophical, some political. (Democrats tend to support Democrat Presidents who go to war and oppose Republican President's wars -- and visa versa.) Most of the Founding Fathers had doubts about the morality of slavery because those times were transitionary for slavery...but 200 years previously it had been the absolute "norm" and it had been the norm throughout all of prior history. Newspapers, a rather recent even historically, are the first draft of history and more accurate than history books which are revisionist as seen years later. It can be shown easily that support for the Iraq war was strong in the beginning -- and in fact was always strong for the war -- just not for whatever it is that it is called today. I stand corrected on the pyramids but still contend that most of older civilization were built on slave labor. Some things we hold deal today will be frowned upon in 100 years, and we will be held in contempt for in 500 years.

Economist wrote on Oct 8, 2007 2:59 PM:"(open borders...kumbaya)" A true 'Free Market' (conservative concept) would have open borders.

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:07 PM:Being vigilant is important. I agree. Are you as vigilant when it comes to the government taxing and spending money on self-empowering programs?

Here is the fourth problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:13 PM:When someone like "third" comes along, they seem to be implying that "one" actually has something constructive to offer and has any real knowledge of that which the complain. The idea that because it was stated by "one," it must be true is a bad place to start preaching about heads in the sand.

to Mike America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:20 PM:you doth protest too much about the race issue when it comes to the immigration issue. Illegal, sorry. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? Both, I'd suspect. It's like that guy who cut down the Mexican Flag that was flying over the American flag. He was literally foaming at the mouth. And yet wasn't it illegal what he did? Destruction of private property? Is it really about what is legal and illegal? Racism brings out that kind of hate and anger. Racism, not patriotism. I totally agree that the illegal immigration issue is a big problem for this country, but to say that there is no element of race involved with most of the invective is both naive and innaccurate. Whether intentional or not, it's faulty intelligence. But to be expected from self loathing conservatives suffering from DCS-delusional conservative syndrome.

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:20 PM:"Economist" -- I'll believe you believe in "open borders" when you do not protect the "borders" of your land and of your home. When your neighbor can build his garage on your land without your permission and when you publish in the Blog your home address with permission for all comers to "share" your home and food -- I'll take you seriously.

OBSERVATON wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:28 PM:Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:50 PM Kinda interesting that the Iraqi politicians are obstructive to the USA per Chuck. Golly gee whiz. I thought sovereignty was given back to them by GWB. So, its' their country, their government and their people. But, you are right, how dare the indigenous people tell the occupiers to leave.

the typical Ronian misunderstanding wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:33 PM:I think we DO all agree that the leadership of North Korea is bad. Does it follow from this that we need to militarily remove him from office? Is that what you want the US to become? Whenever there is a "bad" leader, start the bombing and invasion? I sure don't, and by saying this it doesn't mean that I am a supporter of that regime. I know that Ron has not been in combat and has completely dodged the queries here about why he doesn't sign up for a Blackwater company. He seems not to get, at least in his blogging persona, that war is really, really awful. It always causes violent unanticipated consequences. It is always deadly to civilians. It brings out much bravery in the troops (on all sides) but also the worst in these same people. Heroism and cowardice. Lifetimes of suffering for too many to count. But for Ron, no matter: if there's something in the world that he doesn't like...war is the only answer. The greatest Christian minds in the last 1500 years have talked about when war is justified, and just about all have concluded: only as a last resort. For Ron, no other resort will do. The other resorts are bribery, kumbaya, etc. Again, Ron rejects Christianity's morality in the name of his holy ego. Enough, already! If you love the war-answer to everything, sign up...don't just promote the deaths of others.

To "to Mike America" wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:36 PM:Mexicans are NOT a race. South Americans are NOT a race. Europeans are NOT a race. Playing the race card means you are playing the wrong game. Illegal is illegal. Is that simple enough for you? And those who hire are also breaking the law and hurting everyone associated with the act. The hirer gains and everyone else (including the illegal employee) is being taken advantage of.

To Chuck wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:40 PM:So now Chuck says the Iraqi government too is filthy liberals (liberal = anyone who doesn't subscribe to Chuck's opinions). I thought the whole reason we were there, once army-less, WMD-less, terror-tied-less Saddam went down, was to establish a secure democratic government. I thought we claimed those purple thumbs signified heroism. Chuck tosses em all under the bus. Let's just kill the terrorists (and who are they? can we tell?), take some oil, and leave. Do the other conservatives agree with Chuck? Sounds to me like he's cutting and running, except for a few gleeful assassinations of people who might be bad. Chuck: better go back and read your ten commandments again, then start cleansing yourself before claiming to have the right answers to how to run the world. Read the New Testament as well, about turning the cheek, about loving the enemy, about doing unto others. I don't know if I've seen a more irrationally violent murderous voice on these blogs than yours. Talk to a minister, son. You could use some help setting things right with yourself.

Peter wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:42 PM:Chris, it is you that dances around issues. You stated that you had one question, and it was in reference to the Mexican American War. By the way, even your favorite source (Wikipedia) clearly identifies Mexico as the aggressor. As another poster mentioned there are historical context which you are overlooking. Furthermore, equating the violation of our borders by illegal immigrants with the execution of policy by the Executive branch with the backing of the Legislative branch are not the same. That after action has been taken the support has eroded does not make the action illegal, it makes it unpopular.

Here's one problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:45 PM:I wasn't merely complaining, I was offering a productive suggestion. Fairly simple, if you dare. Question authority. Use whatever moral standards you truly value, be they Christian, Commandments, Buddhist, or common sense. Admit that it is possible, just possible, that the American military can be used for immoral or illegal or unjustified purposes. The second step is to ask yourself what makes military intervention justified or not. The third step is to then ask whether Iraq is an example of this. Then be an American citizen of quality and state your opinion based on these considerations. To simply insist that all military interventions that we perpetrate are, by definition of propaganda "good", you are admitting that you would follow any American leader and support any action that s/he took, as long as the military was involved. That is exactly what a cowering follower of a dictator does.

Jules wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:02 PM:If someone finally agreed that all the worlds problems are because of liberal democrats will you finally shut up? Of course it is completly irrational but I would be willing to do so if you stop writing your blathering garbage.

Chris to Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:13 PM:The problem is that what we did in the Mexican American war we are doing today. The only difference is that back then we took huge sections of land and occupied it. Today we go and kill and butcher the populace ether with our military or our own terrorist like we did then and then set up our own puppet regiem to do our bidding. So then we get to make money because our puppets rape their people in order to buy our weapons. So the U.S. gets the countries natural resorses and most of the money goes to pay off our puppet while the people get nothing. The populace lives in poverty and under a dictatorship and can do nothing about it because our puppet has all the modern weapons money can buy to keep the people down and is able to pay off the leaders of the military. A good example is Israel who continues to steal more palestinian land while the palestinian people live in refugee camps. Iran was another example under the Shaw. So we get the benefit of the spoils while not having to physically occupy and run the state. The U.S has assasinated leaders and brought forth coups and millions have died. Iraq is just another example of the Mexican American war revisited.

Economist wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:17 PM:One more to Reardon. It's apples and cumquats to try to compare open borders with property ownership. But I suspect you know this and were just being lazy.

Nick wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:46 PM:Anybody know where Sat & Sundays letters went? Just disappeared.

Nick wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:52 PM:"Chris", the land wasn't the Palestinians to beging with, so how is it that Israel is stealing it? Come on now genius, I always thought you were the huge history guy. Maybe you should try digging a little deeper. The land you claim we stole form Mexico, was stolen from the Natives by the Spaniards, so what's your point. As usual, you just state a bunch of distorted history facts that only serve to show your hatred for your own Country. At least your consistent, wrong and twisted, but consistent!-

To Here's one problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 3:45 PM: wrote on Oct 8, 2007 4:56 PM:This is becoming cyclical. The second problem is that you are making assumptions that are not correct. You can state any number of "solutions" but when they are based on non-factual information, they are useless.

to Fourth Problem wrote on Oct 8, 2007 5:01 PM:you are the problem. to suggest that one has nothing constructive to offer when one points out that things aren't going well is the very definition of keeping your head in the sand. Or defined as such: conservatism. You are proposing to stick with the status quo as long as it fits your ideology. "Honey we're lost, do you think we should stop and ask for directions?" "Shut up, we're making good time, why don't you ever offer anything constructive?" You do your side proud. A true compassionate conservative.-

Mike America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 5:16 PM:Dear monitor; you guys aren't the slightest bit reticent in editing out the names or adjectives I use to describe certain groups and people here, or delete comments in thier entirety. In the future, feel free to check my spelling and grammar, then perhaps the Remington Raider (12:40pm) who corrects my spelling and grammar will be free to comment on the context. Thanks

Ron wrote on Oct 8, 2007 5:17 PM:You know, it a cheap man's philosophy, and an easy excercise to state one's moral opposition to war. To say there should be no war, is a very easy task, in fact, it's a brainless one. Unfortunately, this is not the world in which we live, nor has it ever been. To have a philosophy of no war, at any time, is a fool's game. Most of what I see is a continuation of European avant-garde cultural movements, i.e. Vanguard groups, spawned from the Communist Party. Generally, their mindset is anti-capitalist, and their mantra is that all wars engaged by capitalist countries are agressive by nature, due to the economic system. This old red tripe has been spouted by anti-American types to bolster their positions, and undermine the capitalist position. However, it should be seen for what it is: propoganda. All countries seek to bring resources unavailable to their own country back to the homeland, including socialist, and communist countries. All nations understand that economic power, is real power, and to deny another nation of certain resources, helps their position of power in the world. This world is ruled by the agressive use of force, and either you are agressive in your securing of resources, or you lose. That is why, currently, you see China and Russia moving to secure even larger oil reserves around the world, while at the same time, critizing the US. How can it be, that one system does exactly what they claim they other is doing, yet they are not greedy? They are not evil? They are not war mongers? War does not have to be fought with men on a battlefield, to necessarily be considered a war. I guess it would be nice to have a neat little package of theories, to make myself feel better, but I'd rather live in the real world. Try your pacifism on an American street with a mugger. Really put your theory to the test. I'm just guessing here, but I think you'll be very sorry to attempt to negociate.

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 6:11 PM:Chris: If a little excess anti-American analysis is good, I suppose a lot of excess anti-American excess is better to you. You take a kernel of truth and make it "America." Israel is a product of the U.N. -- and yes, Israel is supported by our policy, and by our money. EVERY nation acts in its enlightened best interest and where those interests coincide, it is good. (I can assure you that even Israel knows when those interests do not coincide, Israel then acts in ITS best interest!) Every nation -- and most people -- act in their enlightened best interest. I believe, along with Alan Greenspan, that Saddam was a threat to the world economy, and that he needed to be replaced for EVERYONE's best interest. (Including yours -- many things are done in an individual's name without their permission. That is what governments do!) Meanwhile there is hardly a subject on which you cannot find an incident in our 200+ year past, which cannot be twisted, interpreted, or expanded to fit your hatred for all things American. Any person in any nation could do more of a job at this because all nations are flawed � ours simply less so. I hope as a husband you are not quite so insistent in remembering all the past flaws of your spouse, or divorce is assured. ...

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 6:22 PM:To Economist: As an engineer, I find a 100% correlation between illegal immigration crossing geographical borders, and the geographical borders of your land and home. If you cannot see the correlation -- all geographical borders -- then that is a problem with your soft "science."

Another Grandma, wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:06 PM:To JVC, I like to gamble occasionally and my morals are just fine thank you.

To Chuck@1:54pm wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:15 PM:The Minutemen are not preventing anybody from crossing the border. All they do is harass honest, hard working day laborers, and the good people at St. Peter's Catholic Church.

to 12:49pm wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:23 PM:Two easy, recent examples of "military actions the US has taken that have been morally and strategically wrong" are Vietnam and Iraq.

Chris to Peter wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:36 PM:As usual you just left out one important fact. The Mexican government claimed the Nueces river as it's boarder with Texas. Polk sent Zachary Taylor all the way to the Rio Grand. Taylor ignored Mexico's demands to withdraw to the Nueces and he built a fort on the Rio Grand. Then on April 24 in 1846 the Mexicans attacked a patrol of Americans. The frustrating thing is that you concervatives allways leave something out of the story and I certainly get tired of having to set the record straight. Anyway this gave Polk the excuse to start a war. Shades of 9-11 and maybe pearl harbor. AS for the so-called historical context that is nonsense. Look at my blog for 4:13.-

Linda W, wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:40 PM:There is absolutely no correlation of the KKK to illegal alien lawbreakers. None! No one is lynching illegals or locking them up here on the plantation. On the contrary we just want the illegal aliens to go home. We don't want people breaking into our Country. Mexico is the Country that should be condemned by our Government and made to secure their border. Mexico should also fix their Country so their people have the chance for a better life. We cannot take in all the poor people of the world, Dar fur for one has more need than Mexico. Mexico is a very wealthy Country and could take care of their own people if they wanted to. Of course it is easier for them to push their uneducated poor to America.-

To Economist, wrote on Oct 8, 2007 7:57 PM:How can you own a house on land that belongs to Mexico? RD

R.D. wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:04 PM:We liberals who do not support open borders will have a choice in the next election. We might have a Democratic candidate who wants to build the fence and secure our borders and is not for amnesty. Also this candidate will stand for womens right, gay rights and workers rights. He will give Bilbray a run for his money. He will certainly get the support of Independents.

OBSERVATION wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:28 PM:Mike America wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:27 PM Chris never identified himself as a liberal or a member of any political party. It may be your opinion that he is a liberal. But, that is not a fact. Quit labeling everyone who disagrees with you or conservatism as being a liberal. Because- it just ain't so.

Here's One Problem to 4:56 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:56 PM:Huh? I don't understand your remark, sorry. I am not sure I'm making an assumption. I feel like I am observing the behavior of some people who seem to be unwilling or unable to question the good sense or morality of any US military endeavor. Whenever they are challenged about a military action's morality (was it justified? is it about protecting the US or the freedom of Americans?) they seem unable to answer in a way that respects the facts or truth of the situation. Or, they become true militarists, seeming to simply glory in any blood shed. They attack anyone who questions a military person, even if the questioner is himself a decorated military person. Their behavior appears quite rigid, illogical, and perhaps a little sick sometimes. So I encourage questioning leaders' reasons for warring. That's not cyclical, assumptive, or radical. It's what an informed citizen in a democracy is supposed to do. It's what the Founders did with respect to their authority, England. It's a core American value, deeply embedded in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. To behave otherwise, to support the military adventures without question or independent thought is, IMHO, not the behavior of a real American citizen. It's more like a follower of a dictatorial regime. I hope this explanation helps.-

Reardon wrote on Oct 8, 2007 10:55 PM:To Economist: I find a 100% correlation between illegal immigration crossing geographical borders, and the geographical borders of your land and home. If you cannot see the correlation -- all geographical borders -- then that is a problem with your soft "science."-

Chris to Reardon wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:30 AM:A lot of what you say is true but quite frankly I am sick and tired of you and others just blowing off what we have done and continue to do. Your attitude is that I should just blow off what we are doing also. Greenspan has no credibility. You say Hussein was a threat to world economy. That is a plain lie. So how many more people do you want to masacre in order to make everything right with the world? But then you America first people will come up with all kinds of fairy tales in order to justify our crimminal actions. Yes I know that all nations are out for themselves but the U.S. has so much power ecomonically and militarily that the death and destruction done by us is second to none. Just look at what we are doing in Iraq. So I will continue to speak out about what we are doing and unlike you I will not just blow off what we do-

Chris to Nick wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:34 AM:Who was living in Palestine before the influx of the Eastern European Jews. It was the palestinians and Jews who have lived there since antiquity. So come on genious and tell me who you think was living there.

Chris wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:59 AM:You know the one thing that annoys me is that I have put a lot of time and effort and money into history and things that are going on. But we continue to get people out here that don't want to be bothered by doing such stuff. The only history they think they know is what they get on the History channel or just various lies told by our lying politicians. When someone mentinons something that I am not sure of I try to find out what that is all about but these concervatives out here won't do that. They will just call you names and criticize you for not talking about the crimminal acts of other countries. That of course is their excuse to justify our attrocities. I get a little tired of trying to teach a history class out here to people that don't want to bother doing it themselves and if what I say is against what they want to believe then they do everything they can do to discredit the messenger. The one thing too that they don't have a clue to is that many of the bad things other coutries do is supported by our lying politicians so these America first people point the finger at these other countries and think about what good people we are because they don't know or care that we are involved because then that would ruin their whole day.

Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:22 PM:"Chris" - To paraphrase George Santayana - Those who do not remember the REAL past, and learn from it, are doomed to repeat those same stupid mistakes. The lessons that history teaches are only as good as the "history" that one knows, don't you think? Regards, Alf.

Chris to Alf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:52 PM:The problem is that there is so much information out there. But people just listen to the spin misters who censor stuff they don't want out there. You will never get true history from the television or our leaders. So I agree that the problem is that people base their oppinions on history that they think they know.

TheWolf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:54 PM:It is evident to me that Chris is who he is because he feels the US should hold itself to a higher standard than "might makes right". Chris, we do try to live up to that higher standard but like all people, we fall short of perfection. That is axiomatic when humans are involved. Yet, I will submit we do a better job then 99% of governments in using our power benignly. You have to grow up in your thinking and be more kind to your fellow citizens. There are evil people in the world and they are trying to kill you and me.

Chris to The Wolf wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:35 PM:I will try to make this simple. If we would just mind our own business and stop trying to run the world these people who are trying to kill Americans would no longer hate us and try to kill us. I know that our government tells us that they hate us because we are a Christian Nation, have democracy, have so much wealth etc. No it is because we are and have been messing with them. Don't you think the Palestinians know that the Apache helecopters have the U.S. stamped all over them. The same with the F-16s and tanks and the bulldozers that demolish their houses. I know you don't want to believe it because you have been led to believe that we have a tiger by the tail and can't let go or it would eat us but that is a baldface lie. We just interfered in Hatii by removing it's ELECTED president in Feburary of 2004. Our government has been stirring the pot since the founding of this country and with the technology available we can no longer hide our involvment. If we stop stirring the pot and bring the troops home and stop building bases all over the world then we would not have any problems. Yes there will still be so-called terrorist in the world, insurections and the like but we would be out of it.

TheWolf wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:59 PM:Simple is as simple does Chris. I give up if you think we can live in isolation from the rest of the world, don't drive a car as you will be using a petroleum product...