Chris wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:01 PM:This just shows how cluless these conservatives are. Edward Cooper blames Clinton for starting to tax social security payouts to seniors. No it was the icon of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who started taxing social securtiy although Clinto did raise the amount to be paid by higher income people. I am so tired of people that know not of what they speak. Then Cooper say's that Bush tried to shore up the trust fund that's been looted by the Democrats. What rubbish. What do you think is funding the war. The fact is that Bush's deficits far exceed those of Clinton. That is why our social security trust fund is being looted. I believe that Cooper is right as far as raising the retirement age in order to get the full amount of social secutity payout. These conservatives are absolutely clueless.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:02 PM: The published letter from J. Howard Crews is EXCELLENT! What part of ILLEGAL don't the Republicans understand. I'm sure the Republicans will be thrilled to support expanded "presidential" (I mean "royal") powers when King Barack or Queen Hillary sits upon the throne they have created.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:03 PM: The published letter from Edward Cooper has a lot of nerve to complain about fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats. According the the Office of Management and Budget, the only OFFICIAL "scorekeeper," the only presidents who had a combined total overall budget SURPLUS since 1960 are LBJ and Clinton, with Clinton doing it the last four years straight, with each year's surplus bigger than the year before.
In contrast, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II each brought deficits that set new records, and in each case, which were more than all the previous deficits of all the previous presidents COMBINED! Especially in the case of the current fiscal disaster, that is quite an achievement, since it has to include the deficits of his father and Reagan!
But we see the problem in Cooper's last sentence: he is too worried about having the government butt its nose into people's private relationships and medical choices to care about the economy, other than complaining about the Democrats who actually clean up the Republican borrow-and-spend irresponsbility.

Jack_D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 10:32 PM:Edward Cooper's article is preposterous. The Democrats have raided the trust fund for "social programs"? Name one program that is diverting money from Social Security. How about the $500 billion Medicare prescription bill or a $500 billion war? Oh, wait, those were passed by Republicans. Also, what do same-sex unions have to do with the work force. Not following that argument.

Chris to Jack D wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:21 PM:I guess that Cooper's thought on abortions and same-sex unions have to deal with less children. Abortions kills would be workers and same-sex unions don't produce workers.

BA wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:30 PM:"Americans must object to our troops being tried for battlefield actions"

Yeah, imagine holding them reponsible!
Next thing you know they can't shoot innocent people!
It's the liberals fault.

BILL 1 wrote on Feb 28, 2008 11:44 PM:RE: Mexico just doesn't care; Deport,deport,deport to mexico or any other country an illegal is loyal to, because until All go through the same process and wait the same as millions before them and All thie income is taxed and tracked the same as all other law abiding CITIZENS they do not belong, have constitutional rights and should not have any of the same priviledges that I do, they are here on my dime and to me that is stealing so you can add that to trespassing and all the other nice crimes the worst of them commit!

Watch your gluteus maximus .. wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:01 AM: . Well there is a 3-letter word which the NC Times editor censors. Not a 4-letter word, mind you. It is the 3-letter word for gluteus maximus (the major muscle mass upon which we sit), and the editor considers it obscene. It was taken out of my blog TWICE (4:54 PM)? So-o-o-o-o to implement the editor?s criterion, the old Cajun saying would have to be QUOTE: When you?re up to your gluteus maximum in alligators, you forget that your original intention was to drain the swamp. END QUOTE. I never heard a Cajun speak like that. Hm-m-m-m-m. What was the noble animal upon which Mary, the expectant mother of Jesus, rode upon into Bethlehem? I?m not speaking of Mary?s gluteus maximus, either, but the noble animal, which is considered an obscene name by the Times censor. And, oh yes -- what is the symbol of the Democratic Party? Not a nasty 3-letter word, mind you -- it is the genus species Equus asinus (spelled with one s only ). And the name of such a prudish editor? ...

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:01 AM:On a previous day I was explaining something about SMOG in response to a comment by DD Wiz and a question by Just Curious. I made four factual comments that would clarify an issue under discussion. This involves (1) Photochemical Smog. (2) Smog made from soot and smoke in cities. (3) Particulates. (4) Background of cleaning up pollutants from auto exhaust. Then DD Wiz made a very negative comment on January 26 at 9:12 AM about my posts grouping all four together. This issue is still relevant. Senators Boxer and Feinstein are still making themselves look stupid in hearings now before a senate committee about the EPA denying California a waiver to regulate tailpipe emmission of CO2. I will repeat here: DD used there and other expressions against my comments.
(1) "…so ridiculous they don’t merit a response…"
(2) "Any citation from reputable peer-reviewed" blah blah "to support his crackpot theories."
(3) "Any explanation of why he knows more than all the experts who are in virtual unanimity" (blah blah peer-reviewed) "in disagreeing with him."
I have no idea what part of my comments he is referring too. I want DD to be specific IF any part of my posts is in error or else concede I am correct. As far as I know what I have posted is and has been generally accepted as fact for decades and is not in dispute. In order to make this comment not too long, I will submit two in a few minutes, and the other two later.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:09 AM:This is a specific follow on to my post a few minutes ago in which I objected to DD Wiz comments against a prior post similar to this one. I want something specific here.
Most relevant to Autos and California is "PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG" In the late 1940's there was something in the air around Los Angeles and near by towns that LOOKED LIKE FOG but it smarted the eyes, caused health problems to people and animals and considerable damage to citrus trees, caused some lawns and shrubs to die. Many days one could not even see the nearby mountains. For several years it was not well known what caused it. It was figured out that it was "photochemical smog." The requirements for it to form are sunshine and relatively still air plus the existence of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (written NO with x as the subscript for how many atoms of oxygen combined with each atom of Nitrogen. The NOX from cars was formed in the engine from the burning of gasoline at a high temperature. Both exist in various chemical forms and come from variety of sources. When they are present in the required ratios the action of the sunshine causes them to react chemically forming "photochemical smog". A lot of it was from automobiles, and a lot was from factories, power plants, and
other sources. How do I know the above? I lived in the Los Angeles, Alhambra, and Pasadena area 1936 to 1952. The rest is now history. Check most any dictionary, encyclopedia, auto repair book, environmentally sensitive high school and college textbooks, etc. Most smoke coming from tailpipes is from burning lubrication oil that got into the cylinders, not from gasoline. What looks like smoke on a cold morning until the engine is warmed up is the water vapor formed by the combustion of gasoline, condensed by the cold air until the engine, manifold, catalytic converter if any, muffler, and tailpipe get warmed up. Then the same amount of water comes out but it is so hot it stays evaporated. How do I know this? In high school chemistry class we learn that burning gasoline make CO2 and water. Approximately one gallon of water per gallon of gasoline. Same thing is taught in College chemistry.
Totally separate is what looks like thick white smoke that comes out the tailpipe when a head gasket or cracked head leaks coolant antifreeze and water into the cylinder. That is not smoke from combustion; it is overheated antifreeze and water vapor. How do I know that? It is common knowledge among auto mechanics and do it your self at home car fixers. I had repaired it myself on two different cars, and identified their problem for several other persons and sent them to their auto mechanic.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:12 AM:This is a specific follow on to my post a few minutes ago in which I objected to DD Wiz
Calling this comment "ridiculous", a "crackpot theory", and "all the experts disagree with you" on Jan 26 at 9:12 AM How about it DD. You surely did not mean to insult this explanation of smog did you? I stated Jan 26 at 3:28 AM there was another kind of "smog" besides photochemical smog. I remember vaguely from the news at that time, but this should be in any good dictionary or encyclopedia now. This kind of smog got so bad at times in England by the mid 1900’s that nearly 4,000 persons died from it in London in December 1952. It was formed in industrial areas. Soot and smoke act as condensation nuclei for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide. (CO) making something that looks like fog but is very harmful. Several years later England passed a Clean Air act and started the long process of cleaning up the sources. London was just an example. This was happening in many other locations too. Source: Most any college textbook on chemistry or any large encyclopedia. This industrial smog may be occurring even now in some emerging countries although there is a lot more knowledge about it now.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:23 AM:The news is reporting that Iraq's presidency is endorsing the execution of 'Chemical Ali'. You know, the scientist who baked up the chemical weapons of mass destruction that you liberals say Saddam never had, bur somehow killed ... thousands of Kurds

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:30 AM:>>I'm periodically dismayed to read on these pages that some still believe being gay is a choice when it has been well established that our sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is involuntary and fixed>>> If it's genetic,you'd the gene would have worked its way out of the population over these millions oy years, because it isnt being passed on to offspring, no matter how much they try?

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:54 AM:I'm all in favor of turning over the Gulf of Mexico and the ANWR over to the natives Indians. That way, they can tell the liberals to go shove it, and go into full drilling mode to save this economy. Alternative sources to support the US economy wont be available for 20 years.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:58 AM:Out of one side of the mouth of liberals comes the charge that Bush is using terrorism for the fear factor, and out of the other side of their mouths, they gum flap that global warming will sink all of the worlds islands

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:49 AM:I see the Queen allowed her grandson to go off and fight terrorism in Afghanistan, and as soon as the liberal media found out, they couldnt announce it to the terrorists fast enough. It's kinda like liberals here- As soon as we find a method to spy on terrorists here, liberals either announce it to Al Jazzera, or run to the courts to shut it down. I wish the Hillary the Spineless and Hussein the Chicken would see the same value in fighting terrorism instead of surrendering to it and allowing radical Islam to spread throughout the globe.

Hey Doug wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:58 AM:Why don't you write a letter to all of our upper class or maybe just Bill Gates and tell him to as you say "show some effort in making things better." I don't know where you get your information because honestly I am more concerned about what is happening here in the United States. Really do you think violent street crime is any less damaging than the white collar we face here in the United States? Crime is crime and we have our fair share here at all levels and I think the old adage of those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:05 AM:I heard another whiney teachers union memeber bemoaning about California's budget cuts and it's effect on the schools. She boldly proclaims: "we can't take chances with our kids" Just what does she think the public schools are doing when they fully support SB777, and allow the Planned Parenhood cabal to run their agenda in the schools behind the parents back. They replace books like Tom Sawyer with books like "Johnny has 2 daddies". They teach the proper method of fitting a condom on a cucumber instead of how to solve algebraic equations, etc, etc. I actually like hearing those whiney commercials, as I think to myself, the schools get what they deserve and reap what they sow.

Expat Doug wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:09 AM:Here's my bet.

On the day following the death of the greatest conservative mind of all times (Wm. F. Buckley), not a word will be spoken about him by the cast of intellectual midgets who frequent this room and view themselves as members of right wing think tanks.

Rest in Peace, Bill Buckley--from a liberal who will always admire the real, honorable conservatives of days gone by, who somehow were replaced with venomous hate mongers who can only claim to be what men like you actually were.

Invasive species wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:27 AM:Very funny Bob. Esther Sanchez must be thrilled with your grade school mentality.

Sharks wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:06 AM:I've read about the recent shark attacks off Ft Lauderdale. Scientists have wondered why there have been no attacks off of Boca and Palm Beach. It was determined that those sharks have the same number of teeth as the residents.

Old White Man wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:25 AM:Our President standing there and is unaware that economists are predicting that gasoline may go to $4.00 a gallon, "Really? I hadn't heard that." he says. God, you Liberals make me sick, you're ruining this country!

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 AM:Edward Coopers letter today is correct: "Democrats will ride us to the poor farm."
While I have my own disagreements with George Bush on several policies, in the Democrat scheme of things, it would have been a lot worse.
Take for example, The new Medi-Care drug benefit. Bush, in my opinion, wanted to "out Democrat.. the Democrats" in typical NeoCon style. In his version of "compassionate Conservatism", he thought, like FDR, that he could create a Government welfare constiuency that would pay off in Republican voters for years, perhaps even decades to come. This is the Genius of FDR, and his New Deal programs. They were designed to create voting blocks who were direct receipiants of Government welfare. Happy to continue to receive this welfare, these voters continued to vote Democrat. The only difference between Bush and the Democrats, Democrats say, is he did not spend enough. Whether your talking "No Child" or this "Drug Benefit", every single complaint by Democrats was over "lack of funding."
Obviously, they wanted to spend more, and that would have driven the debt & deficits even farther.
When Obamaman spoketh the other night, I was using my calculator, and for every dollar he said he'd save, he spent another $3.00. So much for good accounting. In the end, it is obvious to anyone who is clear thinking. When Democrats run out of tax money for spending, they will go looking for more.
If you think the supposed surpluses run by both LBJ & Clinton were "real", I suggest strongly he see how they were done. Even before the time of LBJ, our Federal Government has been raiding the Social Security system for income to spend today. During Clinton's term, the borrowing from Social Security was 33% of the National Government's entire income. That borrowing obviously has consequences. Is it any wonder why now the Democrats want to raise the cap on Social Security? The tax rate changes in 1986 to pre-pay for all the boomers who would retire, are all spent. For those who don't know how this works, simply, your SS taxes come out, go to the SS administration to pay current receipiants, the surplus in the Social Security Administration, then is siphoned off into the General Federal Budget to be spent today, on things like SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Sure, you get the benefit today, but in order for future retirees to collect, the money must be put back. It is not being put back, yet. The Congress issues Treasury Bills, or IOU's, to the Social Security Administration, to be collected on in the future. The question is obvious, where does Congress get that money? That's right, from you, me, and our neighbors. Most Americans already pay at least 12.4% of their entire life's wages into this system, so.. unwilling to ask us to pay a 18-24% tax rate, they want to lift the cap on those above the $97K level. You see, it's a Ponzi scheme, with the very first receipiant paying only $22 into the system, yet receiving $22,000 in benefits. Sounds' like cattle futures, huh? LOL
The point simply, not one... NOT ONE Administration has operated as if Social Security was not part of the Nation's budget. They borrowed it, knowing that our children would be on the hook for whatever they did. Like I said yesterday, it would be like using your child's college fund to pay for health insurance today. Yeah, you'll get the coverage today, but your kid's college career will be in jepardy, until you find "additional money" to put it back. They are finding the additional money, by breaking the cap that has existed since the inception of the program. They are breaking new ground folks.

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:45 AM:If it's natural, do it

I'm periodically dismayed to read on these pages that some still believe that loving children is a choice when it has been well established that our sexual orientation, whatever it may be, is involuntary and fixed. While virtually no reputable, professional scientific organizations agree on this. Neither did they agree back in the 50's & 60's, when "being gay" was considered mentally ill. The only choices older men and younger women make are the same ones the rest of us make -- the many decisions relating to our day-to-day behavior.

We human beings, gay or straight, may periodically seek gratification, support or fulfillment in relationships with those to whom we are attracted and have affection for. Or we may choose to remain unattached and celibate. What we are not very likely to do is to consistently behave in a way to deny our basic nature, which includes our sexual orientation. That would probably be unhealthy.

Thus, just as we never chose to be right- or left-handed, we didn't choose our sexual orientation. And just as I wouldn't advise people to abandon their natural handedness, I happily allow gay people to do what's natural for them, including marrying each other, if we would allow ALL others to equally seek the love of their life. Whether that be younger women, older men, poligamy, animals. Hey, if it's NATURAL, the sky's the limit, right? And who are you to tell me who I can love, and who I can't? Your violating my right to pursue my happiness.
I don't really believe any of that, but it's a great argument, Yes?

Ms M wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:55 AM:Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:49 AM...um Chuck I think it was Drudge who FIRST dropped a dime on the queens grandson LOL try again. It's going to be a looooooooong day - lies and ugliness so early in the morning. Take a chill pill and enjoy another beautiful SD day dude!

Two posts, three "errors" for Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:03 AM:I've only read two of Chuck's posts today so far, the ones at 3:23 and 3:58, and in those two tiny posts, three blunders. 1) No one on earth ever said Saddam never HAD WMDs, he just didn't have them when Bush and Powell said he did, to "justify" an invasion; 2) and 3) The difference between global warming fear and terror fear is that the first is true and the other false. Rather large difference, I'd say. Chuck wouldn't. Maybe tomorrow Chuck will post something honest.

to Expat Doug wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:06 AM:Right on, in your kind words about Bill Buckley. The yahoos here would hate Buckley. He had long, reasoned conversations with people. He expressed the conservative viewpoint honestly, clearly, creatively and did it all without shouting or telling his opponent to shut up. If "Firing Line" were on today, our posters would be screaming to turn it off. Anything that has long, interesting sentences and no shouting of insults just has to be liberal propaganda.

greeneyes wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:09 AM:Re: Mexico doesn't care. You're right Mexico doesn't care about their people. They've had water issues as long as I can remember-1960's. The old rich just stay rich and the poor just stay poor. I've heard the same old speech from the politicos for years.

Profiles in courage wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:17 AM:Isn't it inspiring to see national leaders, just like in the old days, there at the front with the troops. Prince Harry in Afghanistan. Bush and Cheney in Baghdad. What? Bush and Cheney rarely went NEAR Iraq? And when they did, there was no advanced notice, and they stayed behind the wall of the green zone, and the visit was as short as possible? Oh, never mind.

What he said wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:23 AM:Here's a bit of what Obama said about invading Iraq in October, 2002, QUOTE: After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. ENDQUOTE Obama had it right, he nailed it. This alone would be reason to vote for him over the perpetual war-mongering of the right, of McCain. Dumb wars. Rash wars. Wars that are not justified by dint of threat or last resort. Wars against "enemies" that have no armies. Wars for the sake of votes. As opposed to wars against those that attacked us, in places that are difficult to fight, that don't bring in the votes that "Missions Accomplished" bring in from the ingnorant and easily mislead. We are not compelled to repeat disaster. We have a choice.

Ms M wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:44 AM:Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 AM in the Democrat scheme of things, it would have been a lot worse.... Well time will tell if that is true come 2009. If history repeats itself, Dems. will clean up the mess that this current repub. adm. has created and we will once again have a surplus.

Mazz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:48 AM:Actually, MsM, You are wrong. It was an Austrailian Tabloid magazine, "New Idea" that broke the story...
and I quote: "Australians angrily condemned the decision of a weekly women's magazine to break the news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan.
The story was published in Australian tabloid magazine New Idea last month but not followed up by other media.
In an article on its website dated January 7, the magazine - nicknamed in Australia 'No Idea' - reported that Harry had seen front line action in Afghanistan despite opposition from the British government and members of the Royal family.
New Idea said it could "exclusively reveal" that the "maverick prince" had already seen front-line action.
The story was then picked up by a German newspaper and, yesterday, the US-based Drudge Report website, triggering world wide interest."
Liberals hate facts.

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:53 AM:If it's natural, do it? Some people may have natural desires for children and animals, too. Do we celebrate their natural orientation and allow them to marry also? Throughout human history, some have been gay. Whether we believe this to be by choice or by some genetic combination, marriage has always been accepted as a man-woman union. Why must that definition be changed now? Someone explain this, because Rocky did not.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:59 AM: The posts from "Snowbird-2" (1:01am, 1:09am, and 1:12am), going back to our exchange of over a month ago (1/16 - his of 3:28am et seq and mine of 9:12am), show how long it has taken him to finally figure out a response.
I regret, however, that the passage of time seems to have distorted his memory, because he misses the point I have consistently made.
I do not deny that there are many forms of pollution, any more than I do not deny (and in fact have consistently referred to) that there are many natural factors which contribute to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that we have seen throughout the entire geologic record. It would be silly to think that just because humans begin to introduce new factors, that all the old ones suddenly stop. It would be equally untenable to assume that you can create little (and sometimes big) CO2 producing machines in the billions, spread throughout all the continents of the world and think it isn't going to have a substantial impact, especially when that is supported by extensive PEER-REVIEWED evidence to show that CO2 levels, and corresponding effects on global mean temperature, far exceed anything ever produced in the known geologic record of those natural cycles.
The point is not to deny that other kinds of pollution exist, any more than to deny that there are other (natural) contributing factors to cycles of cooling and warming. All forms of pollution are problematic. But the fact that other forms exist being used to infer that, therefore, we can ignore the effects caused by non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, is unfounded.
So yes, if there are to be claims that these separate (and yes, important) issues are to be used to minimize and dismiss the importance of human-caused CO2 production as an additional contributing factor throwing off the natural cycles, and if those claims contradict those of PEER-REVIEWED science then, yes, "Snowbird-2" does need to justify those with the same level of qualified scientific support as that which he seeks to debunk.
And again, I ask, why is "Snowbird-2" so determined to go against the scientific consensus?
Why is he so motivated to attack and undermine those who are trying to create a world that is cleaner and more energy independent?
The only ones whose determination to undermine science and a clean environment that I can understand are those who have a direct financial conflict of interest, however, "Snowbird-2" has denied any such interest and I take him at his word.
My real question to "Snowbird-2" would be WHY he is so determined to fight science and promote non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS at the expense of cleaner, more energy-independent alternatives?

Randy wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:00 AM:I do not think it is unreasonable for the Drudge Report to keep Prince Harry's location secret so he can live out his dream. His military service is greater than any recent American President!

esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:31 AM:I fully support torture to get info from the enemy. I also like torture as a form of retribution. Obama and Hillary (in fact all libs) are gutless and will surrender, not exit Iraq, but surrender to them once they get the Office. Remember, a vote for the Dems is a vote against America. Liberals are dangerous to our way of life and they must not be brought to power.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:53 AM:At the end of this section, there is a brief statement summarizing a couple of the most basic rules of this forum.
Then there is a link that goes to a more detailed listing of rules, at:
http://www.nctimes.com/blogpolicy/
The second sentence of the third rule states:
"No comments that aren't relevant to the story."
I am wondering, have the blogeditors ever actually read these rules?
When I post, I ALWAYS begin each post identifying the exact published letter or previous accepted post that I am responding to. Yet I frequently note that the blogeditors repeatedly accept and include posts that are on completely unrelated topics. This is explicitly against your stated rules.
How to users of this forum no which of its own rules the NCT web comments pages takes seriously, and which it does not?

To esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:53 AM:"esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:31 AM:I fully support torture to get info from the enemy. I also like torture as a form of retribution. Obama and Hillary (in fact all libs) are gutless and will surrender, not exit Iraq, but surrender to them once they get the Office. Remember, a vote for the Dems is a vote against America. Liberals are dangerous to our way of life and they must not be brought to power." *gasp* *snort* *guffaw* esteban, please stop! Yer killin' me here! I see you unraveling more every day. I know the death of the old ways is hard for you to swallow, but please try to hold on. Your entertainment value is priceless.

Dave wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:03 AM:Rocky If it natrual, Keep me out of it. I don't want to hear about gay rights any more than i would want to see prostitutes on the street corner.
Being gay may be involuntary. Why do you need to have a parade about it?
I seek gratification with may partner in a fulfilling relationship. I'm to much of a gentleman to tell you about it.

esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:12 AM:To "to esteban"...Thanks. That's why I'm here.

thanks for clarifying, esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:17 AM:It's nice to finally hear you say it straight out: you like torture as a form of retribution. No excuses about "getting the critical information that could save lives". Not for you. Torturing people, getting the ok to do it, feels good. When people here remind us of how the Japanese were prosecuted by the US for waterboarding our GIs, some Bushies claimed that was different. The Japanese weren't trying to get crucial information, they were doing it for pleasure. Like esteban wants to. Esteban, honestly, why in the world do you not sign up at Blackwater or some such? I cannot understand what stops you. That job, which pays phenomenally, is everything good you want. Why sit around here like a hypocrite chicken-hawk on the sidelines? The game needs you in there!

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:22 AM:>>Being gay may be involuntary. Why do you need to have a parade about it? >> If being gay was involuntary, the gene would have alreaqdy worked its way out of the gene pool over these millions of years, because it isnt being reproduced in the normal manner

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:26 AM:>>Bush and Cheney rarely went NEAR Iraq? And when they did, there was no advanced notice>>> I didnt see Eisenhower in a fox hole in the Ardennes, either, did you?

to Dave wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:27 AM:Turn on the tv sometime, or go to the movies. Heterosexual intimacy 24/7. You want a straight parade? Go to any prom, among many other examples. The things we take for granted are invisible to us. One thing to thank the gay rights movement for is showing us many things about our straight selves, not all of them admirable. Keep the letters coming, Rocky!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:28 AM: The posts from "Snowbird-2" (1:01am, 1:09am, and 1:12am), harkening back to our exchange of over a month ago (1/16 - his of 3:28am et seq and mine of 9:12am)...
I do not deny that there are many forms of pollution, any more than I do not deny (and in fact have consistently referred to) that there are many natural factors which contribute to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that we have seen throughout the entire geologic record. It would be silly to think that just because humans begin to introduce new factors, that all the old ones suddenly stop. It would be equally untenable to assume that you can create little (and sometimes big) CO2 producing machines in the billions, spread throughout all the continents of the world and think it isn't going to have a substantial impact, especially when that is supported by extensive PEER-REVIEWED evidence to show that CO2 levels, and corresponding effects on global mean temperature, far exceed anything ever produced in the known geologic record of those natural cycles.
The point is not to deny that other kinds of pollution exist, any more than to deny that there are other (natural) contributing factors to cycles of cooling and warming. All forms of pollution are problematic. But the fact that other forms exist being used to infer that, therefore, we can ignore the effects caused by non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, is unfounded.
So yes, if there are to be claims that these separate (and yes, important) issues are to be used to minimize and dismiss the importance of human-caused CO2 production as an additional contributing factor throwing off the natural cycles, and if those claims contradict those of PEER-REVIEWED science then, yes, "Snowbird-2" does need to justify those with the same level of qualified scientific support as that which he seeks to debunk.
And again, I ask, why is "Snowbird-2" so determined to go against the scientific consensus?
Why is he so motivated to attack and undermine those who are trying to create a world that is cleaner and more energy independent?
The only ones whose determination to undermine science and a clean environment that I can understand are those who have a direct financial conflict of interest, however, "Snowbird-2" has denied any such interest and I take him at his word.
My real question to "Snowbird-2" would be WHY he is so determined to fight science and promote non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS at the expense of cleaner, more energy-independent alternatives? Even in the unlikely (and so far unsubstantiated) event that his challenge to climate change were to prove true, what would be the worst case scenario from acting on the current consensus? The WORST that would happen would be cleaner air and energy independence!

two more for Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:31 AM:Look around Chuck. There are many species (start with bees and ants and work forward) that have asexual individuals. Their genes are doing just fine. Your ignorance of biology matches that of your other "interests". The question to ask might be: if there is a gay gene, how would it have been selected for, since it obviously has been. Another question might be: can something be biologically determined and not be purely genetic? D'oy. Second, as I recall, Ike was on the airfields in Britain, which were at risk. I also seem to recall that prior to his being a general, Ike had a rather full military career. So the question remains: where were Bush and Cheney, now or ever? Profiles in courage, indeed.

CLOSET HIDING wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:33 AM:Dave says he is too much of a gentleman to be open about his relationship.
Does he have pictures of his "partner" on his office desk?
Does he hold hands in public?
Did he have a big wedding and invite lots of people?
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but a lot of straight people who do all these things complain if gays do exactly the same thing.
Seems to me all gays want is equal rights. Nothing special. Just equal.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:41 AM:>>>Seems to me all gays want is equal rights. Nothing special. Just equal>> I've never heard of straight pride week, or heard of parades where straights ride on a parade floats, dancing in leather bikiki thongs for entertainment. That isnt equal, thats jamming it down your throat

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:42 AM:So much for the "sacred cow" of not a Wiz @9:53 AM. The Infamous Peer-Review.... And exactly what I've been saying about this so-called "Holier than Thou" peer-review standard you keep propping up. I quote:
"Peer review is not considered a failure in cases of deliberate fraud by authors. Letters-to-the-editor that correct major errors in articles are a common indication of peer review failures. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters." end quote
Not a wiz notes: i.e. a listing of rules, "No comments that aren't relevant to the story."
And then he/she whines:
"I am wondering, have the blog editors ever actually read these rules?"
Further, I quote: "The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. Neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure." Like I said, don't doubt me... google "peer-review" and read for yourself.

Asteroid wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:46 AM:esteban for president. Get your tux pressed, I'm writting you in bro!

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:51 AM: >>So the question remains: where were Bush and Cheney, now or ever? Profiles in courage, indeed.>>> My point is that the Commander in Chief and dont go to the front lines. Bush & Cheney have gone to Iraq infinitely more times than Nancy Legosi & Harry Reid, and further Bush & Cheney go to support the troops, not to bash them on CNN's Larry GarlicBreath's show as soon as they get back like Piglosi and Murtha do. Certainly, Washington was on the front lines and possible Grant? But even Teddy's great cavalry charge was preceeding by Black Jack Pershing's attack with his regiment of blacks (hence, Black Jack)to clear the way. And, As for the queens grandson, we all say "Well Done Harry" , and I wonder if Hussein and Chris will call Harry a murderer

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:57 AM:Interesting thoughts there by "two more for Chuck" @10:31 AM, who then re-posted as CLOSET HIDING @10:33 AM, same troller, different name. But, I digress...
To what he/she proposed:
QUOTE: "The question to ask might be: if there is a gay gene...?" END QUOTE.
I too have asked this question, in regards to our perceptions regarding what is normal, should be considered normal, and what we might allow.
So, what about this Gay gene? Does it exist? And if it does, what's to preclude us from the theory, that if a "gay" gene does, in fact, exist. Does that not give us a reason to consider and believe, that there might be "other" genes controlling other types of sexual behavior? You know, there was a time in this country, when "being gay" was considered being mentally ill. It was not until the early 70's, I believe it was, when doctors changed their minds about being gay. Some like to refer to this as "enlightenment." Maybe, maybe...
But if we are just now enlightened that "being gay" is normal, why do we frown on other's who might be practising exactly what they are programmed by their own genes to do? Sexually speaking? Sure, for you or I, it may not be "our cup of tea", but who are we to prevent them from living fulfilling lives of their own?
Seems to me that gays, and "other sexually driven" behaviors want is equal rights. Nothing special. Just equal.

cHUCK wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:57 AM:>> Your ignorance of biology>> My ignorance of biology would never include the comparison of the reproductive of ants and bees, to be on the level of a human. And I believe that statement has been PEER REVIEWED

9dfet wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:59 AM:Dave wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:03 AM:Rocky If it natrual, Keep me out of it. I don't want to hear about gay rights any more than i would want to see prostitutes on the street corner.
Being gay may be involuntary. Why do you need to have a parade about it?
I seek gratification with may partner in a fulfilling relationship. I'm to much of a gentleman to tell you about it.

Gay Marriage wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:04 AM:If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:53 AM:If it's natural, do it? Some people may have natural desires for children and animals, too. Do we celebrate their natural orientation and allow them to marry also? Throughout human history, some have been gay. Whether we believe this to be by choice or by some genetic combination, marriage has always been accepted as a man-woman union. Why must that definition be changed now? Someone explain this, because Rocky did not."

The concept of gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.”

The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342 (remember, the Church and the State were synonymous back then). But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions even after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

So, why now all religious fervor against legally recognizing Gay marriage? By now, it should be obvious that it was the Church, not the State that co-opted what was, up to that time, largely a civil institution for its own benefit and selfish preservation.

In fact, in North America, despite the repeated protestations of the Church, the institution of marriage has remained largely State-sponsored. After all, even when a “person of the cloth” performs a marriage ceremony, don’t' they still conclude the proceedings by saying, “…by the power vested in me by the State of…….”?

And, as expected, the latest public furor against legalizing marriages between consenting homosexual adults has once again been orchestrated by a well-organized (but historically ignorant) combination of Roman Catholic and fundamentalist, evangelical “Christian” RELIGIOUS institutions who still seem hell-bent on turning their narrow religious beliefs about marriage into public policy.

These fundamentalist zealots apparently don't realize (nor do they apparently care) it was RELIGION that, for thousands of years has tried repeatedly to co-opt what originally was (and largely remains) a STATE-sponsored institution and not the other way around.

Thankfully, once again, this latest effort by the religious wing-nuts to continue controlling people's personal lives and fortunes are now failing…miserably. Just like the statues outlawing interracial unions and the use of birth control were struck down, more and more countries (like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Spain) and a growing list of US States (most recently, New Hampshire) are now striking down laws aimed at denying homosexuals their God-given rights and are adopting some form of homosexual marriage.

The bottom line here is that it's none of the Church's damn business…and it never SHOULD HAVE BEEN its business….if two consenting adults (homosexual or otherwise) now choose to marry and have that union officially called a "marriage" in the eyes of the State.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:08 AM:>>"other" genes controlling other types of sexual behavior?>>> Can't you just see what's coming- All the jailed sexual perverts will be looking for that magic gene and a flaming liberal judge that will free them from the clink, only to prey on the kiddies some more

Two more from Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:13 AM:Chuck, are you saying you're unaware of pageants in which women strut before men in bathing suits? Unaware of prom and homecoming parades with the king and queen being hailed? LIke I said earlier, for many of us, the out-gay behavior is interesting for showing us what we straights do but don't notice that we do. Except Chuck, who seems to insist that entertainment from the Dating Game to Miss America to burlesque all don't exist. Second, your ignorance of biology is only displayed more exuberantly when you seem to all but deny that ants and bees have genes like humans do. Funny how among a certain kind of person who combines ignorance with arrogance, bragging to show how ignorant they REALLY are feels like showing off. It's like they're saying, "Think that last remark was idiotic? Well how about THIS one!" Reminds me of the old festivals in Europe where they'd crown a King of Fools annually. I have a nomination. LOL

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:17 AM:>>The bottom line here is that it's none of the Church's damn business>> The bottom line is that it is the Church's business. The concept of propagation is of great importance to the church, where marriage is concerned. No matter how much gays try, and try and try, that just wont happen. So have your civil union and do what you need to do, but just dont jam it down our throats under the name of marriage

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:23 AM:>>The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives>>> I wonder if they were cute or really butt ugly, and if they made a mean bacon and egg breakfast?

Natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:26 AM:Natural and ducky are two different things. Humans, being mammals, tend to naturally be polygynous: in most mammals, and in just about every human group, males tend not to be faithful to a monogamous relationship. So cheating for a male is natural, but we've decided to condemn it (and therefore lie about it). The gay situation is different, IMHO. I simply cannot, for the life of me, come up with a rational reason to condemn homosexual behavior as long as it is between consenting adults and nothing like battery occurs. The best opponents can come up with boils down to "I don't like it." In a free society, that's not a good enough reason, period. I also agree with the earlier post which emphasizes the mixup of church and state in marriage. I believe that because religious freedom is so important, anyone who wants a religious ceremony of marriage and whatever that entails for that religion should be able to do so. This should have absolutely nothing to do with the legal status of marriage, which is a matter for the state. In that realm, there is no rational reason to deny a gay couple from having what any hetero couple has. Anything else is discrimination. None of this has anything to do with sex with children, animals, or trees. Being an adult is the rule for just about everything in our society. Drinking, voting, signing contracts, confidentiality, you name it, all depend on becoming an adult. Come up with a reason why consenting adults doing non-criminal acts should be condemned. This is particularly shocking coming from the folks who insist that government should leave them alone to do what they wish. Give it up, already. It's none of your business. Sheeesh!

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:30 AM:How far are we willing to take this? Is it OK for Rocky to marry his brother or male first cousin? Most societies place restrictions on closely biologically related persons marrying, but if they aren't procreating, what would be the harm? Wouldn't it be odd to see twin brothers getting married?

Also to esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:33 AM:From the hyperbolic to the merely irritating, The esteban and Chuck show is the most entertainment I've had since Laugh-In.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:34 AM:>>Second, your ignorance of biology is only displayed more exuberantly when you seem to all but deny that ants and bees have genes like humans do.>> I dont recall sayin that, but you'll type whatever you need in order to further your agenda. I shant banty words with a fool, especially one that is too fearful to put his name on his words.

James wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:35 AM:To Gay Marraige: Should there be any restriction on who one can marry. Should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His mother? His son? Should a man be allowed to marry two woman? Four? Sixteen and three men? Should there be any limitations on age? Species? Or is it his God given right to marry whomever he pleases?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:38 AM: The post from "If it's natural" (8:53am) replies to the published letter from Rocky Velgos by comparing relationships between consenting, reasonably co-equal adults with "relationships" of an intimate nature between an adult and a child or an animal, neither of which has any genuine capacity for either valid consent (legal or otherwise) or for any semblance of an interaction founded on co-equal sharing. How exactly are these comparable?
He further asks, "marriage has always been accepted as a man-woman union. Why must that definition be changed now?
I disagree with his assessment of the history of marriage. If I correctly read the writings of the Bible, Koran and all other historical documentation, for most of history marriage was NOT between one man and one woman. It was between one man and multiple women, who were treated as his chattel property. Is this what "natural" wants us to backtrack towards?

Chris wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:40 AM:So Mexico doesn't care about it's people. So what's the difference between Mexico and the liars and thieves that run the U.S.

One more from Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:42 AM:Chuck tries to perpetuate the myth that liberals oppose all wars on terrorists by saying that people like Obama would call Prince Harry a killer. But Harry is in Afghanistan, Chuck. If you look at a post above, you'll see an exerpt from a speech by Obama in October 2002. In it, he clearly states his complete support for a war against those who attacked us. You know, in Afghanistan? You know, the one Bush cut and ran from? You never fail, Chuck. I second the nomination. LOL

OVERPOPULATION wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:42 AM:
Chuck at 11:17 says that propagation is of great importance to the church.
Obviously he has never heard of overpopulation. As usual, the "church" gets it wrong.
Also he mentions having stuff jammed down our throats.
Actually, no one is jamming anything down his throat.
Only asking that he allow them the same freedom from being jammed.

James and Chuck should talk wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:48 AM:I don't know about the incest examples. I do know that adulthood is required for all kinds of legal decision-making in our society, so unless we change that, marrying kids is out. But polygamy is an interesting case if the parties are adults. Why DO we bar this? And the punch line of the discussion is that when people HAVE wanted to be polygamous, they have usually claimed to do so on the grounds that their religion, of all things, encourages it. So all of you who claim the church should have the power to dictate the marriage rules, I think you have a problem with church-encouraged polygamy. It's like the founders intended: we need freedom FROM other religions as much as we need freedom to practice our own.

O'side Res wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:48 AM:Dear Bob Sheard, I like the airport but you can still ban the other non native species.

0412 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:49 AM:Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:41 AM: Maybe next year. Drop by for your fitting.

Pinky wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:52 AM:"Chris wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:40 AM:So Mexico doesn't care about it's people. So what's the difference between Mexico and the liars and thieves that run the U.S." I was thinking the exact same thing. Thanks for saying it.

Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:55 AM:So you say that instead of running my mouth off, do something. What's the difference between me and you. When are you going to do something? Maybe even with your, supposed, surgeries you could stand over a person and dump the water on them.

Clarification for Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:58 AM:The topic was genetic transmission of traits. My post said start with ants and bees and work up from there. In other words, look anywhere that genes are transmitted. You said ants and bees have nothing to do with the human level. Even when we're talking about genes, Chuck? Really? So tell us: how IS asexuality inherited among ants and bees? They are sexual reproducers, you must know. And doesn't that say something about how it might be POSSIBLE for a gay gene, if there was such a thing, to be passed on? Comprende?

RobertM wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:00 PM:To Chis: If there is no difference, why are people from Mexico coming to the US by the millions and it isn't happening the other way around as well?

Jerry wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:03 PM:To DD Wiz: Yesterday you called sunshine "God's Gift." Can you cite a PEER REVIEWED scientific analysis to back up that claim?

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:05 PM:You know what's really funny. The lib's want to argue for a Gay person's right to marry. Fine. The problem is, they open the whole can. If you allow one group, then by default you must allow each & every single person to define for themselves, what they describe as "their marriage." Otherwise, you would be prohibting, and thus violating those "other's" who may also have some potential gene programmed to define their own sexual proclevities.
And why leave it at genes? I mean... if the argument is: What business does the State have in preventing me from marrying who or what I want, aren't they violating my rights too? Now, I know... some are saying, "Ron, you go too far." Am I really? If you want to change the entire paradigm, then completely change it. Make it completely open to whatever each individual wants to define as his/her marriage. Otherwise, if you only allow gays to marry, aren't doing exactly what you say religious folk do? By defining marriage as YOU define, and not as they define it? That's really the question to ask.

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:10 PM:And one more thing...
You know, back in our history, we used to allow marriage by very young people. So, what has changed? The fact that we now have moved the age forward? That we define "adults" as being 18? What right do you have to define it? Because we vote as a State? That The society can define what makes a "proper marriage?"
And there you have it. We have decided, by majority, that marriage shall be defined as "one man & one woman." If you say the majority does not have the right to do that, then please tell me what majority can tell a 14 year old girl whether she's ready?

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:15 PM:In response to James at 11:35AM: I'm wondering the same thing. Most societies place restrictions on close biologically related people marrying. Should these restrictions apply to gay marriage? Should two brothers be allowed to marry? Two sisters? Twin sisters?

the laws of nature wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:29 PM:Our founding fathers did not want a state religion.

Religion means man and woman. Religion teaches hate, be fearful of a man man or woman woman situation.

Religion means horrific wars. Remember the crusades and the nazis.

Religion means fantastic gold filled churches. Outside the church buildings there is poverty that is ignored.

Religion means kill USA and any other populations that do not believe in the muslim way.

It is important that religion is not part of government.

It is important that government is not preaching, controlling, or intruding beyond the Constitution.

esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:42 PM:This Blackwater thing does sound pretty cool.... Maybe i will sign up. I got nothing else to do. Do you think they'll mind my goiter?

To if it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:42 PM:Do you have any ideas why society does not allow marriage between biological siblings? If you don't it's time to go back to high school biology. Now, how does that apply to gay people?

USA & Nazi gun control wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:46 PM:The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

USA GUN LAW IS BASED ON NAZI GUN LAW

(this is 1 of many websites; some compare USA to nazi, line by line.)

Many of us living today were not yet born during the reign of terror of Adolph Hitler and his German Nazi party. Yet, every one of us have been told about the horrors and inhuman crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against select groups of people throughout all of Europe. We refer to Hitler and the Nazis as a group of criminals who took over a legitimate government and turned it into a killing machine. We heave a sigh of relief and thank God that kind of thing could never happen here in America.

Germany's Nazis were criminals .... mass murderers. About 12,000,000 civilians were murdered by the Nazis, among them thousands of women and children. Jews and Gypsies were targeted by the Nazis for total extermination. Some died from gassing in concentration camps. Some died from starvation in ghettos. Some were lined up in front of open graves and shot.

In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany's freely elected government enacted a "Law on Firearms and Ammunition." This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities. Anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to get a "Firearms Acquisition Permit." If you needed ammunition, you had to get an "Ammunition Acquisition Permit." When you wanted to go hunting, you had to get an "Annual Hunting Permit." Every firearm that changed hands professionally had to have a serial number and the maker's or dealers name stamped into the metal. "Proof of need" was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license. Truncheons and stabbing weapons were subject to the same licensing requirements as firearms, in terms of their manufacture and sale.

As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits. Under the law, their privately created law, the Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared.

By the end of 1931, a rising tide of violence, mainly between Nazi and Communist street fighters, moved the authorities to tighten restrictions. Under new regulations, the police could order everyone's firearms and ammunition ... even items not normally used as weapons ... to be put into police custody,

"If the maintenance of public security and order require it." ...

The Nazis came to power legally. They were voted into power. In elections held on March 5, 1933, the Nazis fell short of 50 percent of the vote. Hitler, afraid the public might oust him, didn't plan to hold more elections. On March 23, 1933, parliament voted to give him emergency powers under the Constitution. There were no more elections in Germany until after World War II. The Nazis were far from being popular with the German people. The Nazis knew that many Germans opposed them. The Nazis used the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition to disarm their opponents and to prevent any armed resistance. The Nazis, at most, were a minority of the German population, not the majority. The Nazis operated within the Law. But in Germany, as here, a small private elite group wrote and defined the Law. WHEN YOU CREATE THE LAW, YOU CAN DEFINE THE LAW. IT CAN BE AS LEGAL TO ABOLISH LAWS AS IT IS TO INSTITUTE THEM. Hitler not only came to power legally, but instituted dictatorship legally.

On taking power in 1933, the Nazis did not immediately begin killing Jews. In April 1933, the Nazis enacted a law that kept Jews out of the civil service, universities, and most professions. In September 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were enacted: Jews lost their civil rights. In November 1938, the Nazi SS troops were unleashed against Germany's Jews. Jewish property was confiscated.

On March 18 1938, the Nazis enacted a new, tougher, gun control law. The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) ensured that only Nazis and their friends could own or carry weapons, especially handguns. Licenses to sell, own, or carry firearms were required, except for exempted Nazi organizations and officials. Private persons were not exempt, but a Nazi Party Membership Card was proof of political reliability. The Nazi Weapons Law stated that no Jew could be involved in any business involving firearms. On November 11 1938, one day after the SS were unleashed against the Jews, new regulations under the Nazi Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons.

Gun control in Nazi Germany was not difficult to enforce. Being a police state, (operating under the police power, not law) to get a "Firearm Acquisition License", one had to prove one's identity ---- the national identity card) --- and one's political loyalty (nazi party membership card). With strong police state controls over people, (loss of civil rights) gun control was easily enforced. A disarmed population is helpless. Bureaucrats and obedient civil servants "just doing their job", helped the Nazis carry out their plans. Without the help of those good people who were just doing what they were told, the Nazis could never have murdered as many people as they did.

The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 is the blueprint for "Gun Control" in America today. America could not make Nazi style gun control work without the documents that Nazi style gun control needs. THE NAZI STYLE GUN CONTROL LAWS WERE ENACTED BY THE FEDERAL CONGRESS AS THE U.S. GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968. Under this Act: every law abiding firearm owner had to prove that he/she was law abiding; firearms dealers had to record purchases and sales of firearms on behalf of the federal government. Federal and/or state bureaucrats (un-elected civil servants) got the new and broad power to decide who, among law abiding persons, may own and/or carry firearms and under what conditions what type of firearms may lawfully be owned. The vague concept of "sporting purpose" as a way of classifying firearms was introduced. Transactions in ammunition had to be recorded (this is no longer so). Ammunitions that were "legal" were subject to control by bureaucrats.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:47 PM: The post from "Jerry" (12:03pm) asks me: "To DD Wiz: Yesterday you called sunshine "God's Gift." Can you cite a PEER REVIEWED scientific analysis to back up that claim?"
You got me, fair and square.
See what happens when a NON-PEER-REVIEWED amateur such as myself (a barely-literate third-grade dropout with no qualifications) tries to spout off about scientific stuff that is way beyond our (nonexistent) scientific credentials and methodologies?
I apologize.
Now I hope everyone else who bases their statements on NON-peer-reviewed sources will do the same.

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:55 PM:DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 11:38 AM: "for most of history marriage was NOT between one man and one woman." I never said it was. I used the term "man-woman union". Shall I have used the term "male-female union" instead? This more general term could include one man and multiple wives. It does not include one man and multiple husbands, or one man and one husband.

Chris to RobertM wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:01 PM:You miss the point. The point is that it was said that the Mexican government doesn't care about it's citizens and I pointed out that our government doesn't care about it's citizens. This has nothing to do with weather or not it is better here than in Mexico. Let's just stick to the point that a person is making.

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:08 PM:To DD Wiz (11:38 AM). I do not advocate BACKTRACKING to mixed-sex polygamy. However, same-sex polygamy has never fit into any historical definition of marriage. Going forward, how would same-sex polygamy fit in with your PROGRESSIVE views?

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:11 PM:If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 12:15 PM: "Should two brothers be allowed to marry? Two sisters? Twin sisters?" Here's another one: how about triplets?

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:12 PM:>>>Should two brothers be allowed to marry? Two sisters? Twin sisters?>>> The stae answered your question. All they have to do is sign their SB777 declaration, and its off to the races with whomever and whatever, and if you don't like, you're a hate crime criminal

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:33 PM:>>Religion means fantastic gold filled churches. Outside the church buildings there is poverty that is ignored>> Oh, does it. Could it be that gold was donated by those who believe in that church, and vulchers like you want a piece of it?? And as far as the poverty goes, why do you enlighten us as to the thousands of cases of the poor who asked the church for help and the church told them to "get lost'. And then, why dont you explain to us why the liberals nixed the "faith based initiatives of Bush to help the poor and needy

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:47 PM: The post from "If it's natural" (1:11pm) asking about sisters, brothers, triplets highlights perfectly the silliness of having the church or the state stick its nose into the private relationship choices of consenting adults.
Thank you for presenting these excellent examples!
Now let's all mind our own business
As for the post from "Ron" at 12:10 referring to 14-year olds (this is from the same guy who on 11/30 at 1:26pm stated "it is also possible for men to love children" and when criticized, reiterated the same date at 5:02pm "sooner or later we could get to point where men who love children will no longer be seen as social outcasts"), he keeps bringing up this thing about men with children, but still does not address the distinction between ADULT CONSENT and some semblance of co-equal sharing in a mature relationship, which simply does not apply to adults and children, and I find thoughts of such to be quite out of place in a society that respects the rights of children to be children.

glass house wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:47 PM:Doug Bell wastes a whole letter talking about those nasty criminals in Mexico. Hasn't he been watching the violence all over our own nation lately? School shootings for instance are getting way out of hand. The very latest news is that 1 in 100 Americans are in jail right now, the most of the entire world. And don't forget that we use just about all the drugs the world can make. And we sell the most military weapons of any nation on earth. Get real Doug.

hardtack wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:58 PM:As regards the post @ 12:01 AM: It does seem inconsistent that the blog police would censor the common three-letter word for gluteus maximus, while routinely allowing a much more offensive – even libelous – three-letter word. I refer to the word “lie” and it’s derivatives, which some people on this venue use with the regularity of a kindergarten mantra.

Oh, Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:10 PM:There you go inventing slippery slopes again, and wanting to argue imagined hypotheticals. To me it's simple. Given that in the USA individual freedom is guaranteed. Given that in the USA discrimination is forbidden. Given that in the USA these ideas apply to adults. Then consenting adults should be permitted to have the same rights regardless of their orientation. This would be true whether homosexuality were a choice or not. It comes with being an adult citizen. The burden for showing why these people should NOT have the same rights as others falls upon those who would deny their rights. The default situation in the US support marriage for homosexuals. So tell us why they should NOT have those rights. You can't say "well then we might as well give people the right to marry kids or animals". No, we have heterosexual marriage without anyone considering the right to marry a child of the opposite sex, that doesn't seem to be a problem at all for straight people. Animals? So, as in the south in the 18th & 19th C, you're saying that some people are really closer to being non-human? Would you like to say to a judge and jury that gay people shouldn't marry because they are not as human as heterosexual people? Would you like to say that your Bible forbids it? Can you show where the Bible talks about lesbian relationships? Can you talk about the other things that you are fine with that the Bible condemns? Can you talk about the implication that anyone's Bible should take the place of US law? Tell me, Ron or anyone, what justification is there, in the eyes of the state and its laws, for denying two consenting adults of the same sex the same rights as two consenting adults of opposite sex? I'm listening.

ORACLE = wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:12 PM:= Disaster in the markets today. The DOW lost 315 points, the NASDAQ 60 points (over 2.5%), compounding yesterday�s sharp sell off. Most notable was the huge sell off of world giant insurance company AIG. Investors are seeking a flight to quality, but there is no quality except in commodities, such as gold, silver and oil, which are already at breathtaking levels. What�s a poor guy to do? Most don�t even know the Titanic is sinking yet.
Gold rose another $7.50 today, silver is nudging $20 (meteoric rise), and oil refuses to go below $100 bbl. So is it just the dollar and equities that are plunging? No. Other major currencies are staying solid, crawling ever upwards against the dollar. ALERT: the Japanese yen keeps going up, closing today at 103. When it takes only 100 yen to buy a dollar, you will know how far the dollar has sunk. The Pound closed at $1.987, and the long awaited $2 landmark is just around the corner (next week??).
So what is going on here? The real value of gold and black gold is not changing much, except against the value of paper currencies. Owning physical gold is fast returning as the favored way to secure wealth against the rising tide of fiscal irresponsibility as governments continue to devalue their currencies by printing money, as evident of soaring money supplies in the range of 12% to 20% per annum. No wonder my Guatemalan friend is smiling so much these days. Anselmo has more gold in his mouth than money in his pocket. Russian and Chinese governments together with private investors are all buying gold bullion in strength as the credit crunch shows the inherent weakness in the world governments monetary policies, which may be about to ignite hyper-inflation.
See the lead article, sec. 1 of today�s NC Times: STAGFLATION, an old problem we haven�t had to deal with for 30 years. Bush has brought it back. STAGFLATION: �A condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment - a time of stagnation - accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. Stagflation occurs when the economy isn't growing but prices are, which is not a good situation for a country to be in.� This happened to a great extent during the 1970s, when world oil prices rose dramatically, fueling sharp inflation in developed countries. For these countries, including the U.S., stagnation increased the inflationary effects.
This administration has refused to address two fundamental problems with the economy: Our DEBT, and out of control CURRENCY MANIPULATION. We keep accusing the Chinese of currency manipulation, but no one has manipulated the dollar like Wall Street brokers in its creation of rotten sausage it was selling on the world markets as AAA products. They created rotten investment vehicles with U.S. housing securities as an engine. Then customers around the world were shocked when their engines all began to fail. And the stock market keeps screaming for further interest rate cuts and printing massive amounts of paper money, which are compounding the inflation problem.
There is no greater threat to a nation�s security than the destruction of its currency. Forget the Taliban. We have our own economic terrorists.

Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:26 PM:"Chris" the difference between me and you, you ask? I actually served my Country Proudly. You hate this Country, our Government and our Military. See the difference. Besides, I could NEVER be filled with as much hate as you, I'm just to nice. Your hate must be eating away at your insides. You must have stock in Tums.....LOL.

If it's natural wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:40 PM:DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:47 PM: "Now let's all mind our own business". Well, as soon as one proposes to add same-sex marriage to state law, proposing to turn private relationships into publicly recognized, legal relationships, it becomes public business in a democracy to decide how the state will define same-sex marriage. Will we limit it to two adults? Should we exclude two brothers who are gay, committed to each other and want equal rights?-

El Guero wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:50 PM:So many people seem to be missing the point (as RobertM doesn't) that 1) Mexico is a rich country; 2) the richest man IN THE WORLD is a Mexican; and 3) as RobertM says, MILLIONS of Mexicans are fleeing their home country—reluctantly—and finding sanctuary in America, and not the other way around. Ah, but as some of the skeptics, such as 'Hey Doug' (5:58 am), Chris, and Pinky would claim: "I am more concerned about what is happening here in the United States." Good for you. In case you haven't noticed, one-quarter of Mexico has moved here (and "here" is the United States, isn't it?), because our government has chosen not to enforce its own laws, and another quarter are on the way, making this the largest, continuous, and most unnecessary economically-driven mass migration in the history of the world. That it is having a profound impact on our country's social, educational, and environmental infrastructure and its culture—without the consent of the governed—seems not to matter. Yes, America is a violent society. There is an epidemic of gun-related violence, most recently on college campuses. And there has always been a large criminal element, and it will continue to grow, especially as the gap between rich and poor widens. But can any of you geniuses identify what the single largest contributor to U.S. poverty is? Chris, you seem like a bright (not to mention arrogantly confident) guy. What's your guess?

Solon ... wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:52 PM: ? Expat is wrong (6:09 AM). The first mention of William F. Buckley on these blogs was posted one hour after his death by myself, an astute LIBERAL, in which I paid tribute to this great intellectual. I wrote on Feb 27, 2008 11:39 AM: ? William F. Buckley just died and hour ago at age 82. Author of more than 40 books, and a rare polysyllabic journalist, he charmed even us liberals with his courtly, witty and erudite manner. He was the great-grandfather of conservatism: before Ronald Reagan there was Barry Goldwater, and before Barry Goldwater there was the National Review, but before the National Review there was William F. Buckley. END QUOTE.
Some oleaginous snake oil salesmen on the radical right simply are incognizant of what we liberals actually say. They hear only those who speak their tongue.-

esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:53 PM:Have a good weekend my friends...even you liberal nutjobs. I'm headed out to Vegas to the Mustang Ranch for some R & R....

To Oh, Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:07 PM:When you get down to it, there is only one excuse that people offer against same sex marriage between two adults, it has no relationship with any law at all. Either 2 words "It's wrong" or 4 words "It's just not right". They may embellish their position with outrageous scenarios, but they have no legal standing or precedent in U.S. law. That's what you get when religion attempts to dictate law - "It's just not right" perverts itself into "It's illegal". Religious right indeed!-

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:29 PM:Ah, but there you go again not a Wiz @1:47 PM. Did I not address this? "...between ADULT's".. and requiring "ADULT CONSENT".
You see, by stating that, you have precluded that they do not deserve a life that is happy and fulfilling according to YOUR view. Like I've said before, even lib's have limits, and we just hit yours. Who are you to assess whether their relationships exhibit a semblance of co-equal sharing in a mature relationship? You've discounted them for "being Children." Now, you can hide behind that, but like I said, we've had children marry earlier in our own history, and most times to much older men. Today, we have re-set the "terms", and all I'm asking is, why do you discrimminate against them, by the limits your mind perceives? So, it just proves my point, that even you are willing to discriminate against, if it fits your world view. Change the paradigm.

Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:46 PM:>>but there is no quality except in commodities, such as gold, silver and oil, which are already at breathtaking levels. What�s a poor guy to do?>> Everyone knows but Bernanke & Bush. Paulsen is running the country for Goldman and his buddies at Bear, Merrill, BofA, Citi, & UBS. Bush told the markets yesterday there was no recession, and they responded in kind today to his idiocy

OBSERVATION wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:54 PM:esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 2:53 PM: Have a good time and do not torture anybody.

ORACLE = wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:56 PM:= Disaster in the markets today. The DOW lost 315 points, the NASDAQ 60 points (over 2.5%), compounding yesterday’s sharp sell off. Most notable was the huge sell off of world giant insurance company AIG. Investors are seeking a flight to quality, but there is no quality except in commodities, such as gold, silver and oil, which are already at breathtaking levels. What’s a poor guy to do? Most don’t even know the Titanic is sinking yet.
Gold rose another $7.50 today, silver is nudging $20 (meteoric rise), and oil refuses to go below $100 bbl. So is it just the dollar and equities that are plunging? No. Other major currencies are staying solid, crawling ever upwards against the dollar. ALERT: the Japanese yen keeps going up, closing today at 103. When it takes only 100 yen to buy a dollar, you will know how far the dollar has sunk. The Pound closed at $1.987, and the long awaited $2 landmark is just around the corner (next week??).
So what is going on here? The real value of gold and black gold is not changing much, except against the value of paper currencies. Owning physical gold is fast returning as the favored way to secure wealth against the rising tide of fiscal irresponsibility as governments continue to devalue their currencies by printing money, as evident of soaring money supplies in the range of 12% to 20% per annum. No wonder my Guatemalan friend is smiling so much these days. Anselmo has more gold in his mouth than money in his pocket. Russian and Chinese governments together with private investors are all buying gold bullion in strength as the credit crunch shows the inherent weakness in the world governments monetary policies, which may be about to ignite hyper-inflation.
See the lead article, sec. 1 of today’s NC Times: STAGFLATION, an old problem we haven’t had to deal with for 30 years. Bush has brought it back. STAGFLATION: “A condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment - a time of stagnation - accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. Stagflation occurs when the economy isn't growing but prices are, which is not a good situation for a country to be in.” This happened to a great extent during the 1970s, when world oil prices rose dramatically, fueling sharp inflation in developed countries. For these countries, including the U.S., stagnation increased the inflationary effects.
This administration has refused to address two fundamental problems with the economy: Our DEBT, and out of control CURRENCY MANIPULATION. We keep accusing the Chinese of currency manipulation, but no one has manipulated the dollar like Wall Street brokers in its creation of rotten sausage it was selling on the world markets as AAA products. They created rotten investment vehicles with U.S. housing securities as an engine. Then customers around the world were shocked when their engines all began to fail. And the stock market keeps screaming for further interest rate cuts and printing massive amounts of paper money, which are compounding the inflation problem.
There is no greater threat to a nation’s security than the destruction of its currency. Forget the Taliban. We have our own economic terrorists.

ORACLE = wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:05 PM:There is no greater threat to a nation’s security than the destruction of its currency. Forget the Taliban. We have our own economic terrorists.

To Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:12 PM:DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 1:47 PM, '...I find thoughts of such to be quite out of place in a society that respects the rights of children to be children'. I wonder where the Wiz stands on SB777 and family notification before a child has an abortion. Society seems to be placing children in the position of making adult-like decisions regarding their sexuality.

geez esteban wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:13 PM: You actually have to pay for it?

0412 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:38 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 29, 2008 3:54 AM: LOL Why didn't have the "Great Decider" just ok drilling with one of his signing statements. He's been there in the Oval Office for the last 8 years. What about your handy dandy rubber stamp Republican Congress that was there for the last six years? OK OK. LOL Me and my five liberals control George Bush and all the Repug Reps. LOL

SOLON ... wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:39 PM: … Oh, Lordy! As my aunt Julia used to say. Ain’t seen so much homophobia and gay bashing since Bill Oreilly went on one of his tirades last August against gays because the San Diego Padres baseball team hosted a gay-pride night and a children’s hat giveaway promotion during the same game. The notion of kids and gay people in a stadium at the same time caused O’Reilly to go berserk. O’Reilly reported that QUOTE: thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families and stated, QUOTE Clear-thinking people understand it is completely out of context and inappropriate. END of QUOTE. He even called it social engineering by the Padres. PSHAW!
I always thought something had to be looney about Oreilly’s sex life.
Show me a vehement gay-basher, and I’ll show you someone with inner conflicts. I saw this phenomenon up close in college and in the army, knowing guys who would get drunk and then go cruise the gay block in town looking for people to beat up. Never had girlfriends. You don’t need to be a PhD in psychology to figure that scene out. I am figuring out which of our regular bloggers have doubts about their sexuality. Interesting!
Beware the gay bashers! They can be dangerous.

Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:45 PM:"Whizzer", that's a first. I do believe I apologized the other day for firing off on you, but not for the old "Peer-Reviewed" nonsense.
Cheers,Nick.

OBSERVATION wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:45 PM:ARISTOTLE: "Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."

Ron wrote on Feb 29, 2008 4:50 PM:Right you are.. "To Ron" @4:12 PM, and that is why I have argued, that if you do believe that children should be allowed to be children, why do you put birth control into their hands? Why do you take them, behind their own parents backs, and help them get an abortion. If they are not mature enough to properly discern a Consentual Mature Adult relationship, then why do you insist upon giving them the means to pursue an Adult relationship? And hide it from their parents.
You can't have it both ways.
Just an aside here... but in regards to SB777. did you happen to catch the 2 year old who said he was a she? You just know, his lib parent's were behind that. A TWO YEAR OLD!

SOLON ... wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:17 PM:… Poor Chuck (3:23 AM) is two years behind even Bush in acknowledging there were no WMDs in Iraq. At a news conference in Cleveland, OH, on Mar 21, 2006, Mr. Bush, admitting there were no WMDs in Iraq and said: QUOTE: Where did we go wrong on intelligence? The truth of the matter is that the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. END QUOTE.
Not so. Most of the world thought it best to wait for the U.N. inspectors, then on the ground in Iraq, to complete their work before answering that question. Those inspectors had found no evidence of WMD and this president knew full well that would probably be their final conclusion when he ordered the preemptive invasion. Yet he justified it then by referring to the 9/11 attack, warning, BUSH QUOTE: We cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. END QUOTE
On the following Tuesday the Associated Press reported that a treasure trove of translations of audio tapes of top-level Iraqi meetings involving Hussein, released at the request of U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, show that Iraq had destroyed its WMD program by 1992. Those tapes were obtained soon after the 2003 invasion, yet the Bush administration kept them secret while continuing to assert that Iraq had an active WMD program.
At that same Cleveland news conference in March 2006, BUSH SAID:
“Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists.”
The incompetence of this president is mind boggling.
Chuck fits right into the Bush mold, except Chuck is two years behind Bush in acknowledging there were no WMDs, and goes on to say it was liberals who confused Mr. Bush. Poor Chuck. All this stuff is archived on the internet. Please do a little research instead of trusting your confused memory.

So, Ron @ 4:50 wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:43 PM:What you're saying is that if I say that children should not be allowed to have abortions without parental consent, which I tend to agree with you about, you will finally, finally concede that no one has the right to deny homosexual adult couples the right to marry? About time. You might become a constitution-loving American yet.

To Solon wrote on Feb 29, 2008 5:56 PM:I am afraid what you say about the world economy is true, and I can only believe that people are not replying to that is because they don't want to believe it. I know I don't. Remember that old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."? I believe we are in for some extremely interesting times. My hair's standing on end and I don't have any gold teeth. Damn.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:43 PM: The post from "To Ron" (4:12pm) cites a quote from an earlier post of mine (1:47pm) about respecting the rights of children and asks, "I wonder where the Wiz stands on SB777 and family notification before a child has an abortion."
Here's where this participant stands:
On SB777: I'm sure everyone knows that it has been extremely misrepresented and caricatured in this forum to the point where it has no resemblance to the actual law, which identifies serious and complex issues of gender and identity, and which deals with the very serious of hate crime abuse against children. Especially in light of the cruel, brutal hate-crime murder of Larry King (the gay teen in Oxnard, not the talk show host), the manner in which this law is misrepresented and ridiculed is cruel and inappropriate. While there is no law ever passed that is 100% perfect, SB777 is good legislation and merits support.
Regarding parental notification: A girl who is old enough to be pregnant is old enough to make certain decisions that affect the rest of HER life and which SHE more than anyone else will bear consequences for the rest of her life. I have never seen a "parental notification" proposal that includes a requirement that the parents who make a decision opposite what the girl wants are forced to assume lifetime liability for responsibility and support of the child. We are not talking about headaches and aspirin here, but life-changing consequences. She may not be old enough to make all adult decisions, or to consent to legal adult choices or even adult relationships, but if she is pregnant, whether she aborts, carries or gives the child up for adoption, SHE will be the one who endures the consequences for the rest of her life. That is true whether she was forcibly raped, the victim of incest or "thought" she was in love and was trying to act like the adult that she isn't. In any case, the examples of incest and child abuse are, alone, valid reasons why notification laws are not workable. Almost all girls with a problem situation will turn first to their parents for help. If a girl can't go to her parents with this kind of problem, then she should not have to. And the alternative is what? A scared teen girl being forced to go to a judge? Give me a break! The whole point is to set up one more roadblock to make abortion harder. Newsflash! The whole point of having LEGAL abortion rights is so she doesn't have to have a "do it yourself" or back-alley job. She IS going to be talking to adult professionals, even in the extremely rare instances when she can't go to her parents. Look at the reality. This issue is not about parental control; if she can't go to her parents with this kind of problem at this age, they have already lost control. This is about stopping girls from having abortions at all.

Also to Solon wrote on Feb 29, 2008 6:58 PM:The reason people aren't responding is that they are stymied: because what you say reflects a terrible truth, so terrible that the right-wing radio hacks haven't come up with slogans to deal with it yet, they are mute, tongue tied. It hasn't found its way to a moronic left-right shouting match. Unlike Iraq and so many other things, this might be, uh, real. This might be not a political reality show but actual real reality, with, uh, consequences other than showing us sides to root for. We Americans have lost so much contact with reality, we need people with the intellectual credentials of Rush and O'Reilly to show us how -- not to worry -- whatever happens is just more liberal power-flexing, just more evil. But the dollar, the price of oil, the recession, well heck, this might, like, affect us...no, I mean really! Rush! O'Reilly! What should we think? Halp! This seems to not be just an entertaining football game!

sdraoul wrote on Feb 29, 2008 7:37 PM:El Guero -- which means blonde or white guy-- probably doesn't answer to blonde because we all know about blondies, don't we?

His screed about Mexico is lower than even Doug Bell's. The “white guy” doesn't know much about Mexico or how many Mexicans have "fled" Mexico for a very rich country—the USA.

Every single person in the USA who isn't 100% INDIAN (I don't use Native American, it's like CHICANO, which I also don't use-- phony) came from some where else. Until recently that was the perquisite of Europeans who couldn't advance in European society. They left Europe for the exact same reasons Mexicans come here.

Therefore, legal or illegal doesn't mean a thing. All those people who came here before the 1920s just walked in or stepped off the boat. If they were Irish they were usually illegally sworn in as citizens. If they were Italian, they invented the illegal alien as we know it.

So until El Guero, Dougie Bell and their ilk wake up from their fantasies and until they match the Medals of Honor awarded to at least three illegal alien Mexicans in WWII and Vietnam, they should retrench. They should learn what it is like to be an American like those 35,000 or more Mexican citizens fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan since those wars broke out.

My guess is El Guero and Doug Bell don't have many campaign ribbons on their Marine Greens or Army Khakis, as many, that is, as those awarded to Mexican citizens..

Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:05 PM:You are nice. I remember when I was criticizing what we did to the Indians and all I got from you was some nasty comment about how you didn't want me to speak for you or your people, I forget wich. You still didn't answer my question as to why you support the same millitary that committed genocide to your people. Anyhow I was serving my country too. I was working to pay the taxes for that wasted effort in Vietnam and also to pay for all the money we used to trash central America. By the way, how many freebies did you get for putting your time in the military. Just spare me how you were serving your country while suggesting that those of us who didn't serve in the military are somehow sluggards.

TFB wrote on Feb 29, 2008 8:05 PM:-
DDWhiz at 6:43 replies to a question about his views on parental notification for teen abortion.
Question for the anti-choice conservatives: how do you feel about the flip side:
What about a situation where the parents think an abortion would be the best way to make a problem "go away," but a teenaged girl wants to carry to term?

Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:36 PM: Yep "Chris", I am nice. I'm just not going to sink down and wallow on the bottom with you. I like to think of the cup as half full. You on the other hand don't just think of it as half empty, you hate the cup, and you hate the reason for the cup.
You don't speak for Indians "Chris" because you don't care about them. You just use them for your own little agenda of spouting your tiresome, hate filled drivel.
Forget about what freebies you think I recieved from the Military, how about all the great free stuff I get for being an Indian. All my medical and dental for free, as well as college and my kids get it all too. Pretty cool huh? Guess what? I have NEVER taken anything for free. I have worked my butt off my whole life for everything I have(Many thanks to my pops for his incredible work ethic). I put myself thru college(not my parents) by working 2 part-time jobs and taking a full load. My whole family gets their medical for free, but I don't use it. Nope, I shell out $700.00 a month for really good coverage. I'm just your typical hard working American, taking care of his own and not looking for a handout, it's called sweat equity. You get out of life what you put into it amigo.
You know "Chris", I've never really cared for you, but I don't hate you. I actually feel sorry for you. You only get one shot at this world and it goes by pretty fast. No one should have to go through it filled with as much hate as you. There are far to many things in this life to be thanful for.

Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 10:25 PM:Who are you to call me a liar. You will never know how disgusted I am when I see what we have done to the unfortunate in this world. But of course you just sidesteped my question. What you never used the GI bill for college? Your family gets their medical for free but you don't. Maybe you could explain all this in detail. I see in your blogs a lot of smoke but nothing else. Maybe you can answer this but I doubt it. Why would I go to all this trouble if I didn't care about the Indians or Iraqis. Why would I have a problem with the military if I didn't care. But you are just like George Bush. We have the so-called terrorist telling us what the problem is but we just ignore it and brush it off as just people who love to wallow in hate and hate us for who we are and our religion. So that is what you do. You just ignore what I say and just say that I just hate the military for nothing because that is just the type of person I am. As I said your bloggs are nothing but smoke and I don't believe a lot of what you say about yourself.

Asteroid to Nick wrote on Mar 1, 2008 2:21 AM:Nick wrote on Feb 29, 2008 9:36 PM:Now you're talking kid, that's how you handle that miserable old fool. Bravo!