DD Wiz wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:55 PM: The published letter from Lila Harrison says she wants "the U.S. government to listen in on people who are talking to terrorists."
Me too! I just want them to follow the law and get warrants when doing so.
And then I want them to go after the real terrorists, not divert military resources to phony targets so they can invade oil-rich nations and profiteer by gouging innocent American victims.

Expat Doug wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:52 PM:Don't be an old "Groucho", Paul Marx (I'm busting your chops, Paul, don't take yourself so seriously)!

I am as proud of my German ancestry as Paul Marx, but I see myself as just an American who happened to come from German lineage, and not a German American. You see, I do not hold dual citizenship; only American. Perhaps Paul has two alligences.

Mr. Marx was far off the mark with his claims of "Jerry-rigging" being a racist slur against Germans (I can't quite understand his logic, since German is a nationality and not a race, but I'll leave that to Marx to explain).

He was correct however in his ascertion that the use of the term was little more than a "a cute headline about Attorney General Jerry Brown".

But, as a retired sailor, let me shed some light on the origins of the term, "Jerry-rigged". It is a nautical term, who's pronounciation has been bastardized over the years since the age of sail, probably because seaman (as opposed to Officers of the Crown with Royal Warrants)were mostly inarticulate, uneducated, if not illiterate fellows (now before you sailors get your skivvies in a twist, I am not judging the character of ordinary seamen of today or even days gone by. I happen to think sailors are, and always have been noble, but unlike today, sailors of previous centuries were not scholars).

Back in the day, a temporary mast was refered to as a "Jury-mast", possibly from the old French word, "ajurie" meaning to help or assist.

Over the years, the pronounciation morphed to from "Jury" to "Jerry", and improvised rigging (and later any quick fix), became "Jerry-rigging".

Jerry-rig, because of continued use, became acceptable venacular, like many words in our language. And, to this day, 99% of U.S. Navy men--officer and enlisted, alike--use the term.

So, Paul, get over it!

sdraoul wrote on Feb 22, 2008 11:14 PM:Brian Berg is at it again, complaining that the quality of life has improved in Arizona since a new anti-Mexican/illegal law has gone into effect. What drivel. The law is not yet enforced and there is no empirical evidence that illegals from Mexico have stopped entering Arizona. All we have is Berg's report, or just another fairy tale.

Then, there is Mr. Marx who claims to be a German and is offended by a "racist" editorial headline that uses "Jerry-rigged" which he claims is an off shoot of what used to be called "Jerries" during WWII. For "proud German American" Mr. Marx's edification that was the second time we kicked Jerry's butt in less than 25 years.

Wrong Mr. Marx, Germans are not a race (1) and (2) the Attorney General's nickname is Jerry or Gerry, thus the headline writer was right.

The only racist here is you, sir, who thinks Germans are a race when they are not. It was the Nazis who called people a race when in fact they weren't. They did it for racist reasons.

Actually, "jerry-rigged" is a take-off on Jury-rigged. The headline was clever.

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:34 AM:It appears that Dave Perrine just might get his wish that the Clinton dynasty end. (Is one two-term president in a family a dynasty?) Anyway, if Barak Obama doesn’t get beat outright in November then I’m afraid he’ll probably turn out to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Hope and inspiration can make for a good campaign theme. Reagan had it. But Reagan also ran on some very specific plans. Cut taxes, cut Federal regulations, increase military spending, etc.
What are Obama’s? Some vague plan to end the occupation of Iraq without regard to consequence and to make nice with our enemies abroad and Republicans at home. Both of these propositions are fraught with danger. While I applaud his ability to infuse more participation into the electoral process, I’m not sure this is the right time to allow young, first time voters and independents (in terms of the Democratic primaries and caucuses) to chart our course for the future. This situation is precisely what the Super Delegates were put in place to prevent.

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:18 AM:Joseph Grant has it wrong about what the NRA says. The NRA says don’t place restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. The problem with that is that law-abiding gun owners can turn into non-law-abiding gun owners with the flip of a synapse. And when they have access to a gun they tend to kill people. It is true that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, but people with guns seem to do the lion’s share of it. It’s an historical and cultural dilemma that will probably take another 50-100 years to sort out. When the public finally grows weary of all the massacres a constitutional amendment or fives votes on an enlightened Supreme Court will put an end to private gun ownership.

Hung Up My Keys Too wrote on Feb 23, 2008 4:48 AM:I would suggest to Lorraine Graham that several grocery stores in the area offer delivery service. North County, being the home of a large population of seniors, has a lot of services available for senior assistance as well. Best of luck!

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 23, 2008 4:53 AM:I don’t think Lila Harrison goes far enough. I’d kinda like the U.S. government to arrest people who they know are talking to terrorists. And if we know there’s a terrorist on the other end of the line maybe a Predator drone with a Hellfire missile could place the number they have dialed no longer in service.
Too bad we live in the real world. See, the government doesn’t know, therefore the NSA sweeps all overseas communications for any terrorist related activity. Reasonable enough. It’s the domestic calls that present a problem. Maybe I give them too much credit, but I suspect real terrorists in the United States don’t use telephones for communication. So the government has to keep up.
If we allow the government the power to tap our phones without a warrant, why not the power to open our mail, or read our email, or your daughter’s out of control text messaging? It’s that pesky Constitution, and the quaint and imperiled fourth amendment. If a Democratic administration were doing this, Rush and his legions would be screaming to high heaven about individual rights to privacy.

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 23, 2008 5:27 AM:K. Mark Miller is definitely no advanced calculus major. Not even an occasional Discovery Channel watcher. A 5,000-pound satellite traveling at a thousand mph in an unknown trajectory would fall to Earth and burn up faster than he could read this sentence. Now, hitting a 5,000-pound satellite the size of a school bus traveling at 17,500 mph in a very precise orbit 130 miles above the ground with a Jerry-rigged (sorry Paul Marx) missile fired from a ship in the middle of the ocean is fairly impressive. I don’t care who pushed the button.

PureDesperation wrote on Feb 23, 2008 5:54 AM:It's fun to watch-- the pure desperation of the liberal media to get her Viciousness or Hussein Obama in the White house. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, & CSPAN cant even hide their partisanship anymore. Its like holding a T-Bones steak up in front of a labrador retriever. Wulf Blitzer and that cabal of freakazoids are in uncontrollabel drooling mode. And they call themselves jpurnalists?

Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:03 AM:Do you know what this is from K. Mark Miller? It's sour grapes, that's what is is. {and what's with the K.? I thought that went out in the 1800's?}
What we all witnessed when the U.S. military shot down its broken reconnaissance satellite is one part of the legacy of Ronald Wilson Reagan. It was "Star Wars." It was the final straw that broke the back Communist Russia, the evil empire. I can not help but be struck by all the protests, the hyperbole, the hateful rhetoric about Ronald Reagan in 1986, when he first voiced this idea to Mikhail Gorbachev, and then walked out of Reykjavik. The ace-in-the-hole was SDI. Reagan played the poker hand well, when everyone else said he would blow up the world. The left called it "Cowboy Diplomacy", now lately.. where have we all heard that? That's right! Again from the left. On the left, we were told we would just have to learn to live with a nuclear Communist dictatorship, and appease the Soviets. The left was willing to live under MAD, detante, and they promoted a freeze in place on all nuclear weapons, leaving us in the same position of facing nuclear destruction.
Only one question then was, would the Soviets freeze their weaponry? They were cheating on Carter's SALT II, confirming arms control was “fatally flawed" if the otherside was not acting in good faith.

The left was so afraid we might just make them mad at us, and so they would bend over, grab the ankles, and fear monger about how Reagan would destroy us all. I guess it never bothered them that the Communist system was the one that had actually killed millions. It never happened, and Reagan was right. That one act of Reagan actually lead to the first arms reductions, not just limitation to certain types. When all the liberals said it wouldn't work, he'd kill us all, and we should just get used to the idea of living with a nuclear Russia.
Of course, we now know that this freeze movement was began in the fall of 1983 by the KGB, thus launching an all-out "peace offensive"
through a welter of front organizations in the U.S. and Europe. A
nuclear freeze at that moment would have meant permanently freezing
the Soviet advantage in troops and weapons - precisely the Kremlin's
main objective. The nuclear freeze moment was a Soviet initiated and financed attempt to undermine President Reagan's nuclear strategy, which even
then was beginning to drive the Soviet Union into an arms race that it
could not win and would eventually bankrupt them.

THE anti-liberal wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:20 AM:RE: Paul Marx's letter. I'm trying to figure out if he's serious or just playing on how rediculous the left is with their incessant and obsessive misuse of the term "racism"

Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:23 AM:I'm glad Donald Pierce wrote this letter today. It goes to what I've been saying for a very long time. In a Government run system, who gets hurt?
That's right, everyone. Doctors & patients. The sustainable growth rate formula as promoted by our Government, is to limit the payment amounts to doctors and hospitals. Like I've said before, the Medical Industry is a Service Industry, the money is in people, like doctors, nurses, lab techs, and maintenance people.
Limiting payment only encourages even more doctors and hospitals to limit, and then refuse Medicare and military Tricare patients.
But this is the formula folks, this is the Government's best idea of how to control costs, by limiting wages. In fact, it's wage & price controls.
If this is how the system reacts now, how much more so will it under any single payer, or universal system? A lot more, that's right.
And in the long run, it will discourage citizens from becoming doctors, nurses, lab techs, and maintenance people. For the life of me, I just can not understand why those on the left insist this is the correct action, in order to be fair. What is fair about limiting everyone's healthcare to a system where you have a mandated reduction of resources, people, and technology?
How is that fair, to reduce one's medical treatment, to give to another? Just to say that we are fair, and make them equals? If it were based on waiting times, should I have to wait 4 hours, just because my neighbor does? Does that make it fair? Or if my co-pay is less, because I pay a higher monthly insurance bill, should my neighbor receive the same, even though he can not afford the higher payment? Should I be made to price twice, so he can get it for free, while my other family needs go unfurnished? Would that make it fair? We need to encourage a greater supply of medical care through the free market. this will reduce the costs to us all. We need to put back the payments of medical care back into the hands of consumers, thus making the medical industry compete for our dollars. This will bring down the cost for us all. A top down, trickle down medical care system will only do one thing effectively. It will limit the type and kind of medical care we all receive. It will turn us away from being truly individuals, into the masses. A number. Is that what you really want?

Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:48 AM:I'm with Scott Greenwood. I mean.. heck. If Hillary Clinton could sit on a Wal*Mart board, then what's the big deal? Right from one of those who directly benefits from Wal*Mart squeezing cost by demanding efficiency directly helps Scott live on his fixed income. Who knows? He might only have Social Security as his only income? $4 dollar prescriptions? What's not to like?
If you have a problem with Super Wal-Marts, then don't shop there. Good advice. Anyone know what came in and drove out mom-and-pop stores? That's right! Supermarkets. If your old enough to recall, they were saying it was doomsday back then too. I wonder what the buggy whip guy's thought about the car? Or the horseshoers? Or the feed guy? Truly spoken by a guy who is a working class kind of guy. It's competition and it saves the working class money. What is with these progressives? I thought they loved progress? Come to think of it, I believe they hate cars too.

Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:05 AM:Dave Perrine says: "End the Clinton dynasty." I couldn't agree more. The brand of Arkansas politics brought to Washington, was indeed very scary.
And of course, he recites the age old scam of balancing the budget on the backs of our military and intelligence departments, while the total debt grew. Still trying to figuire that out. How do you run a surplus for 3 consecutive years, and still grow the size of the American debt? {head scratching}
I think most can see that she has no more experience than her 24 month old opponent, the obamaman. Unless you consider marriage to a president, as experience.
Now, let's see what kind of experience she does have? She's been a realtor of sorts, a cattle future investor, that's a plus. She is a lawyer, from a very important law firm in Arkansas, so she knows how to get 900 FBI files on her enemies, I mean... opponents.
She has been an employer, well sort of.. no linkage to Craig "the Bouncer" Livingston or Big Tony Marceca.
She's redecorated at least 3 rooms in the White House, so add that.
She's been on both sides of the legal system, so she could be a defendant advocate. She can feel their pain.
Has throughly examined the public school system and decided her child would not attend, so education experience. And she's a fictional author!

Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:10 AM:Just can't get over it, eh? Thomas Cowan? You know.. for the record... Bush anit running for a third term. It's time to stop beatin up on Bush, and look forward to the future. Hey! Here's a novel Idea. Why nt write about all the experience Hillary has?!
Or give us all the accomplishments of obamaman?!
Perhaps that could be a good therapy to get over your BDS. {Bush Derangement Syndrone}

theWolf wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:12 AM:Over for Hillary. Well the feminists will have to wait many years for another chance to elect a woman. Plain fact is, when people get to know her, they do not like her and that is the key factor in getting elected-just like high school elections. And I bet money on her to win! No white male could have beaten her only a challenger that negated her advantage as a woman could do it. Too bad Obama has no real ideas and the problems are mounting.

Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:14 AM:Mark Justice gives me pause. I wonder if he's run this idea around to the obamaman? I mean... Barack is talking about a Global War on Poverty?
Aren't the Iraqi's worth more than $495 billion? Guess not.

OBSRVATION wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:17 AM:GET OVER IT.
A German racial slur The term Jerry was used by the British to describe their adversary, Germany, during WWII. ...

re Brian Berg wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:42 AM: More over-the-top nonsense from nativist Chicken Littles who lie and exaggerate without compunction - "The Mexican government, led by Felipe Calderon, is launching a full-scale assault on the sovereignty of our country and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." People like Berg have no regard for the truth or the democratic process, which requires an honest exchange of opinions and ideas. Shameful hyperbole like this just stirs up more hate and muddies the waters.

Pluto wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:53 AM: Is Lila Harrison kidding? Does she think they just eavesdrop on people talking to terrorists? No, they eavesdrop on millions of Americans! I'm sure they want to get info on terrorists, but they also collect data on millions of law-abiding people who have no connections to terrorists. Like any regime, they try to keep track of everyone who isn't a loyal sheep. Nixon had an enemies list way back when, and lots of patriotic and honorable people were on it. The technology is infinitely better today, and and the list is infinitely longer.

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:56 AM:The news is reporting that rockets or mortars hit U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad. That will surely keep Wulf Blitzer,along with Chris, and K.Olberman drooling in glee for the weekend

Pluto wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:04 AM: Great letter by Robert Upp! The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo also guaranteed the right of people to speak Spanish, but the "what-part-of-illegal-don't-you-understand" people only care about certain laws, which happen to involve poor, powerless, brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people. As Mr. Upp points out, lots of laws are broken with serious consequences, but the Minutemen types are silent about most, including the laws being broken by the White House continuously for 5+ years? Let's enforce the laws against war crimes, illegal spying on citizens, outing CIA agents, etc.

Nick wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:50 AM:What planet is Robert Upp living on? A "few" million dollars for medical and education for the Illegals and thier children? Try "BILLIONS" ! People like you need to pull your head out and wake up. Your as dilusional as "SD Raoul", with all of his screwed up facts trying to LIE to us about how great the ILLEGALS are for our economy and all the work they do that us lazy Americans won't do. You know, EVERY FAST FOOD joint in the Country(the ones the LEGAL teenagers used to do) framing, drywall, roofing, stucco. The only trades you DON"T see them in are the Electrical, Plumbing and HVAC trades. I wonder why that is? Can you say "Skilled" trades ?
Hmmmmmmmmm.....Go figure!

Karl wrote on Feb 23, 2008 8:59 AM:Thomas Cowan (todays letters), there are many legitimate reasons for complaining about George Bush. Being a "recovering Alcoholic" is not one of them. When you bring this assertion to the table you are debasing all recovering alcoholics. In my book being a recovering alcoholic is a good thing as opposed to continuing the alcoholic life style. Please leave this out of your arguements in the future.

Nick wrote on Feb 23, 2008 9:08 AM:More on Santuary Cities:
Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where crime from these lawbreakers is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of gang members from a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have snuck back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, shootings, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should an LAPD officer arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is the officer who will be treated as a criminal by his own department — for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.
The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement is replicated in immigrant-heavy localities across the country — in New York, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston, for example. These so-called "sanctuary policies" generally prohibit a city’s employees, including the police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.
Sanctuary laws are a testament to the political power of immigrant lobbies. So powerful is this demographic clout that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal alien crime wave. "We can’t even talk about it," says a frustrated LAPD captain. "People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics." Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: "I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals]." Neither captain would speak for attribution.

Bill wrote on Feb 23, 2008 9:15 AM:To Hank Jordan in Oceanside: If you're truly interested in who makes up the California Coastal Commission take a look at their website. The names and biographies of the commissioners are right there for all to see. So is the history of how the commission came to be, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and the California Coastal Act. There are no secrets here, and many of the commissioners are land developers in their "other" lives. The information is there for those who want the facts.

Reardon wrote on Feb 23, 2008 9:41 AM:While the NC Times covered the raid over the past few days against repeat illegal alien criminals in Escondido, they couldn't find room for this tid-bit: One car thief, released from prison and deported just six days previously, was found by Escondido police back in Escondido last Wednesday. Another recidivist has been deported SEVEN TIMES SINCE DECEMBER! Can we at least agree that these guys need to go?

US13 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 10:10 AM:sdraoul, you appear to be the social intellect on many issues when you lack the common sense of a naked mole rat. Things in Arizona are getting better due to the recent law which cracks down on illegal aliens. The crackdown was broadly announced and now these aliens are seeking other places of refuge. They only use Arizona as a stepping stone to go elsewhere.

Recently Oklahoma (House Bill 1804, the Taxpayers and Citizens Protection Act), joined Arizona in passing tough measures against illegal aliens and recent reports have put the exodus of illegals at this point are estimated at one-hundred thousand. Twenty five thousand have left the Tulsa area alone. So when you go and attack comments referring to these VERY MUCH needed LAWS, do your homework! The FENCE works, the LAWS work and you need to do your work!

equality and liberty wrote on Feb 23, 2008 10:19 AM:Am I missing something? In the 1960s the Civil Rights movement produced enormous gains in the equality of people. In voting. In where people could eat, drink, sit, ride, and be. This also produced commensurate gains in freedom of those people and many others (who were then free to congregate, date, marry the "freed" people as well as vice versa). Is someone arguing that this COST the local white population their freedom? Does someone want to make that argument? Seems like freedom and equality increased simultaneously, each causing the other.

News flash: conservatives reach for new low! wrote on Feb 23, 2008 10:27 AM:From the AP, QUOTE Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism. ENDQUOTE This might be a new low point for conservative desperation to find anything that sounds smear-ish. But the campaign season is only beginning. Will they find someone willing to say they sold him a blunt? Will they pay a hooker to make some sordid claim? Will they splice a tape into an Obama faux-slip that he is a gay, Muslim, terrorist Martian? Who KNOWS how low they will sink? Sadly, we're gonna find out. Stay tuned!

The right sinks even LOWER! wrote on Feb 23, 2008 10:36 AM:From the Inter Press Service QUOTE WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (IPS) - The U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs came under heavy criticism earlier this month from Muslim and religious freedom advocacy groups after it invited to a conference three self-professed “former terrorists” with strong links to the Christian right.
Collectively known as the “3-X Terrorists”, Walid Shoebat, Kamel Saleem and Zacharia Anani are front line soldiers in the U.S. “culture wars”[...]The men collected 13,000 dollars for their appearance at the 50th annual Academy Assembly [...]
To supporters, the 3-X represent “moderate” voices; they are self-professed Muslim extremists who converted to evangelical Christianity and are now exposing Islam for what it really is. To critics, they are frauds, accused of fabricating much of their past exploits as mass murderers in order to peddle their Islamophobia on the lecture circuit and on cable news networks, including Fox News Corp. and CNN.ENDQUOTE Why settle for swift boating a mere Presidential candidate when you can swift boat an entire religion practiced by a large minority of the world's people? Way to go, Air Force Academy, showing the value of truth and integrity. (I know you think I'm promoting censuring the Academy for bringing these tools, but on the contrary, I salute the Academy for opening up what will be a microscopic examination of what these folks really are, and who hired them. The best way to reach the truth is to put the liars and cheats out in public. Go Falcons!)

GFN wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:15 AM:I must admit I TOTALLY AGREE WITH SDRAOUL'S post AT 11:14 PM as he writes, "Then, there is Mr. Marx who claims to be a German and is offended by a "racist" editorial headline that uses "Jerry-rigged" which he claims is an off shoot of what used to be called "Jerries" during WWII." How terrific that Raoul sees in Mr. Marx the exact same "pity me" tactic that he himself uses to attack anyone who believes illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be solved. Mr. Raoul, you ARE Mr. Marx!

GFN wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:22 AM:Here's another sdraoul contradiction: yesterday he writes, "George Cullins writes from an almost all-white Carlsbad...", like that fact keeps Mr. Cullins knowing anything about illegal immigration! Well, actually SDRAOUL may be right...you see he lives in Del Mar Heights, and there ain't too many illegals who live there either...and raoul doesn't know much about them either!

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:31 AM:The news is reporting that Obama may face grilling on patriotism by conservatives. LOL. What do you mean "may". They need to go for Obamas throat on that issue. As only last week "For the first time he was proud to be an American". He'd be a better candidate for Castro's seat

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:36 AM:>>>The U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs came under heavy criticism earlier this month from Muslim and religious freedom advocacy groups after it invited to a conference three self-professed “former terrorists” with strong links to the Christian right. >>> LOL, in other words CAIR wanted to censor speakers who might tell you the real agenda of the radical Muslims. LOL . Too bad for you liberals. The last thing the liberals want out in the open is the radical Muslim agenda, the radical gay agenda, the Planned Parenthood agenda. Far be it from the right going off, it's really the left going ballistic because the truth might come out. Too bad for the America haters, the truth will be told

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:48 AM:>>>The right sinks even LOWER>>> LOL, liberals want to censor military recruiters from campuses, yet they cheer when Ward Churchill, the radical gays, and Planned Parenthood have free reign on campus. Now, when a group wants to come in and expose the radical Muslim agenda, a vicious censorship battle starts. LOL Hypocrites

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:55 AM:>>Who makes up the Coastal Commission?>> The coastal commission is made up of liberal preservationist thugs, just like the FWS is. They have lost the concept of conservationism, and have turned to the Nazi-like 100% preservationism. Conservationists are not invired to their parties, only the radical green-wacko preservationists are allowed. It's a closed cabal of thugs who rule, not by policy, but by personal agenda. But, they are being closey watched by the conservationists and hopefully their damage can be limited

WeDontWantNoStinkingFence wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:58 AM:Imagine that, an overwhelming plurality of the American voters want the border fence built, and Her Viciousness and Obama spit in their face and declare the fence will come down if they get elected. Dont you just love it when the people vote one way and the politicians tell you to go screw yourself.

Floyd wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:08 PM:Well, if you want to outlaw private gun ownership, we might as well disarm the police as well so we won't have incidents where an off-duty Coronado policeman is stalking a football player, firing his gun into the shrubbery, and claiming that an approaching vehicle is a "dangerous weapon".

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:10 PM:>>>missile fired from a ship in the middle of the ocean is fairly impressive>>> When something happens on the planet like that, and it only pisses off the liberals, the Chinese and the Russians, tell me how that can be a bad thing. It's a beautiful thing.

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:16 PM: The news is reporting that some voting woes blamed on ill-trained poll workers. That is the problem. The more ill-trained they are, the more hoards of illegals will vote, and the criminal Attorney General and Secretary of State of California refuse to do anything about the illegal alien vote

theWolf wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:30 PM:To all liberals: The Dems, lead my Ed Markey, are trying to insert the Feds nose and regulations into internet traffic. Now, I know Markey and my guess is he is looking for $$ for campaigns etc. but this is the same crowd railing against wiretapping terriorist conversations going overseas.Something to look forward to under Prez Obama. No longer a truly free internet.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:37 PM:The posts from "Ron" (6:48am and 7:05am) and "theWolf" (7:12am) are just more tired ol' Clinton bashig.
Sure, I don't like that she was unable to parlay her position on the Wal*Mart board into serious reforms, nor do I agree with the typically conservative shortsightedness of the published letter from Scott Greenwood asserting the harmlessness of Wal-Mart or his benefit to the poor whose poverty it helps create and then feeds off of.
There are a number of specific details I disagree with the Clintons on, but despite all the distractions of the constant witch hunts and attempted character assassinations, they still managed to accomplish more, keep us safer and lead in peace and prosperity than any other president in recent history.
Further, while phony conservative "hero" Ronald Reagan talked big about fiscal responsibility and reducing government, he was all hat and no cattle, exploding the size of the government and multiplying deficits to record levels.
When Clinton left office, he DID what Reagan only talked about -- he had reduced the number of Federal employees to the smallest number since the JFK administration.
That is the real reason Republicans like "Ron" hate them so much: pure jealousy.

To "equality and liberty" wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:58 PM:The social advancements you cite @ 10:19 AM all fall under the heading: “Equality under the law.” No one – except a few red-necks – objects to that concept, nor doubt that it protects individual liberty. What many of us do reject is the concept of material equality that tyrants and demagogues want to foist upon society by promoting class envy. When politicians lament "wage disparity" while advocating inheritance taxes, redistribution schemes and graduated tax rates, that’s all about personal property, not about equality under the law. That is where liberty is lost.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:03 PM:The post from "equality and liberty" (10:19am) eloquently and concisely makes an excellent point with a perfect example of the point I was trying to make in my post late last night at the end of the 2/22 posts.
The posts yesterday from "hardtack" and "theWolf" (if they are separate individuals) tried to cite ideas from an Austrian arch-conservative who, writing in this country for the arch-conservative magazine National Review, advocated MONARCHY. The 1953 book, "Equality OR Liberty" made their point that the two are incompatible but, as I noted yesterday in more detail and "equality AND liberty" noted more succinctly today, not only are they NOT incompatible, they contribute exponentially to each other.
And those who indirectly support the ideas of MONARCHISTS, in a time when Dick Cheney and his concilierge "counsel" David Attington are seriously trying to justify encroaching (eliminating) civil liberties in support of a "unitary presidency," talk of MONARCHY is not only dangerous, it is truly evil and ANTI-AMERICAN.
I wonder if those who want to create another King George (hey, didn't we fight a revolution against that?) would be as supportive of a King Barack or Queen Hillary?

Peter wrote on Feb 23, 2008 1:47 PM:Grant predictably misrepresents and spins commentary supportive of his position against private firearms ownership, but he lacks foundation. For starters, reports of shootings being on the back page is not due to their being commonplace, it has to do with the events not being local, and papers such as the NCT only have the short report provided by the wire services. Therefore, rather than place the reports in the National section the editors choose to place them where they fit. On the occasions of citizen armed defense being reported it also usually ends up on the Back Page. If anything, Grant’s anecdotal evidence hardly rises to the level of condemnation of private gun ownership. If his belief that guns lead to violence was correct then his estimate of the prevalence of gun ownership would suggest a much greater level of violence. Since he opens with a mention of the national leader on gun safety education and firearms training, then closes by attributing an argument to gun people that I have not heard any gun people make he hopes to characterize gun people as the fringe. What he fails to realize is what the owners of all those guns have understood for a long time, that if the need for self defense arises a gun is one of the best tools to have. Attempts by either governments or business entities to prohibit firearms in certain places, only makes them the favored places of someone wanting to harm large numbers of people. Private gun ownership is not the problem, the scale of human violence in the times before the development of firearms cannot be overlooked. An effective means of self defense has actually meant those most at risk are in a much better position to protect themselves. However, there are places like California where various laws placed on the books in the name of gun safety have driven the cost of gun ownership out of the reach of those most likely to live in high crime areas, and in the areas with the least law enforcement coverage.

0412 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:13 PM:PureDesperation wrote on Feb 23, 2008 5:54 AM:Hey buddy. Don't you have a channel changer on your little ole remote?

Rockets wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:23 PM:Ron wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:03 AM LOL. The Russians still have thousands of missles and hundreds of nuclear bombs. All they have to do is redirect them back to western targets. In the meantime, what do you think the Chinese have been up to-playing checkers?

0412 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:27 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:10 PM LOL. Ueash Chuckie. Me and my five liberals had to field some disturbing telephone calls from Russia and Chine today (Bush monitored). But we calmed them down. Drank some Kool Aid and gave a toast to our buddies in the liberal media. Great Day. LOL

Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:32 PM:This is how Bush's tax cuts helped the "rich". A buddy of mine just showed me his tax return. I knew he worked 12-16 hour days on a contract for just short of 9 months and landed it. His boss gave him a $102,000 bonus. For his work, he jumped up to the 33% bracket fed and maximum state bracket. He lost $5630 in personal sales cost deductions, lost just over $7600 in medical cost deductions because of his wifes pregnancy problems with their new baby(yea, this govt is serious about medical cost), lost $5,712 in the exemption deduction for him, his wife and his child, lost $3619 of his overall mortgage interest deduction and paid $8273 in additional alternative minimum tax. With the lost deductions, it puts him back into the Clinton tax brackets. So, to say the rich pay no taxes, or the tax cuts were for the rich is ludicrous. The man was right when he said: After I saw my taxes, the incentive was just ripped right out of me. Can you imagine a liberal working 12-16 hour days for 9 months. He'd have an army of ACLU lawyers on the case

0412 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:34 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 11:31 AM Don't get it do you Chuck. Me and my five liberals working behind the scene have destroyed the controlling influence of the conservatives in the Republican party. The Repugs will move to the Center and Obama will move in the White House. There will be real parties then, Get down, get down.
Brought to you by the liberal media.

How's that again, Floyd? wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:37 PM:>>and claiming that an approaching vehicle is a "dangerous weapon">> Perhaps you should ask that Border Patrol agent that was run over and killed last month. Oh, wait, you can't.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:39 PM:The post from "To 'equality and liberty'" (12:58pm), now abadoning any unique screen identity (shame perhaps?), clarifies his definition of "equality" -- that it does not refer to equality under the law, which he recognizes as necessary for liberty, but something closer to what I have referred to before as, "equality of outcomes" which I also reject.
I support equality of OPPORTUNITY, NOT OUTCOMES.
However, in providing examples of this, some of his examples are non sequitr; they do not exemplify what the evil "equality of OUTCOME" they are supposed to.
He cites "wage disparity", which is about opportunity, not outcomes, if those who disproportionately control the labor market do not negotiate equitably with those who create wealth for them, and the workers who create that wealth do not have equal access to the opportunity of entry to or advancement to higher levels of OPPORTUNITY.
He cites "inheritance taxes," which actually promote equality of opportunity, since those who receive inheritances do so not out of any achievement based on their own opportunity and, in any case, have huge thresholds of primary exemptions and extremely low rates.
He cites "redistribution schemes" with no specific examples, though the only one I can think of redistribute wealth created by workers disproportionately to administrative personnel and investers disproportionate to their contribution to that wealth when all are part of the productive and creative team that generates such wealth. While there can and should be incentives for advancement, it is appropriate public policy to prevent labor from being disproportionately taken advantage of.
He cites "graduated tax rates" but does not explain how this is at all appropriate, since everyone pays exactly the same rate on the portions of income in equivalent layers. I note he is silent, however, on the fact that those who receive BILLIONS in UNEARNED income are taxed at a far lower capital gains tax rate. Hmmmm, wonder why. Must be that monarchy thing.

Chris to US13 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:45 PM:You know I spent a lot of time in history and you don't have a clue and you will never have one because you think you know it all. I used to be like you but in my 40's I started to find out what was going on. You will never do that. I know I am wasting my time with you because you only look to the lies comming from out government and the liars or the sheep that inhabit the pulpit. I said what I had to say and will not write these long blogs like DD and Nick do in order to try to convince you. Until you have the guts to ask why you will always be a mislead sheep.

0412 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:54 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:56 AM Me and my five liberals keep hoping that the surge keeps on working.

Chris wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:58 PM:My did any of you see the news about the banks. I turns out that some of the major banks, who are the epotmie of capitalism, are crying to the government to bail them out of the mess they are in because of their corruption. What about this Ron?

0412 wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:04 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:16 PM: Don't you worry Chuckie. Me and my five liberal have rented buses to bring all the
Mexicans we can recruit to polling stations in California. We gonna vote early and vote often. You betcha. LOL Bit, I do wonder. All the Mexican Americans who voted for Bush in the first election. Were they Americans or also hordes of illegals that voted due to ill trained poll workers? Makes you wonder don't it?

sdraoul wrote on Feb 23, 2008 3:13 PM:Nick and his "billions" spent on illegals; US13 and GFN are all in the same boat. You make wild charges without any evidence. Nick, point us to official exependitures by all state, local and federal agencies that we can add up for ourselves tos ee how much is spent on illegals. Of course, you can't produce any such evidence other than from antri-illegal and anti-Mexican racists groups like the center for Immigration studies or FAIR.

Get a life, Nick and get some evidence.

As to US13 and GFN, you do make my Saturday. If either of you or your congressman want to debate me on the subject of illegal aliens, fine, make the arrangements with any non-partisan civic group and I'll come aremed with facst and youc an come with your unsubstantiated views and I'll wipe the floor with you or anyone on this subject.

The only fact you people can allege is that some people have crossed the border illegally or that almost half of illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas. Other than those two facts, you can't prove anything about illegals in the US.

That includes their numbers, the 14th Amendment, their protection from illegal law enforcement by the Constitution, etc. et al.