OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:40 PM:Here we go again! Brian Eberhard calls Barack Obama a "Trojan Horse". John Bulat criticizes his wife and misrepresents a few statements from a former pastor, taken out of context. And Art Petersen complains that the North County Times is too liberal (are you kidding me?) because it didn't adequately cover the non-story about what someone else said because they couldn't find anything wrong with Obama himself.
Obviously, none of these people watched the entire 37+ minute speech that Obama gave. He fully addressed these concerns but, of course, these people are not interested in his actual positions or what he actually said.
These are hateful character assassins of the worst sort. These people cannot deal with Obama on the specific issues or on what he has said himself. All they can do is resort to name-calling and cheap shots about others, and even those are taken out of context.
If this is all they have, it is clear that this shining star of intelligence, judgment and real-world experience is going to sail past the tired old clone of Bob Dole (without the charsima), who can only promise a third term of the Bush-McCain travesty.
It is going to be a sweep in November!

Chris to Obamacan wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:40 PM:Where on line can I see the speach from Obama?

Chris to moderator wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:43 PM:I sure get tired of typing in the image verification and then being told that what I typed in doesn't mach the image when in fact I did it right and then have to do it over several times.

Chris to U.S. flag wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:50 PM:So you don't like someone flying the flag of their country of origin here unless it is the American flag. Well maybe people in other countries don't like it when our military goes over to their country and flies the U.S. flag there after our military invaded their soverign nation. But I suppose you don't have any problem with that.

To chris wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:25 PM:You would do yourself a favor not to suppose. You have no idea what I think about us in another nation, as a matter of fact I don't think I even brought that up. I do however have a problem with illegal aliens coming here and thinking they can tell us what to do and how to run our country, while abusing every benefit they can, while they fly their flag, they obviously don't love their country as much as they would like us to believe they do or they would be there and not here.
And for the record, I do not think we should be in another nation fighting a ridiculous unlawful war and flying our flag there.
Don't try and put a different slant on a comment I write to suit your agenda.

jvc wrote on Mar 23, 2008 3:38 AM:Can anyone think of a greater civic leader in our community who served as a board of trustee at MiraCosta College with selfless dedication and personal
sacrifice for over 30 years than Henry
Holloway? We must acknowledge his great personal sacrifice and the exemplary example he set by his life-long career as a public servant by renaming Ranch Del Oro Road, Henry Holloway Drive!

Escondodo wrote on Mar 23, 2008 4:36 AM:Jack Pomeroy always represents the voice of common sense. Engineers and developers see the world in a different way. Esthetics are drowned out when developer money/campaign contributions determine our local decisions. Build any offensive thing and money flows. Don't worry; we can doze it later and continue the process. A community that would pretend to put a value on sophistication might ponder the true meaning. Your ears would burn if you knew what people say about recent developments. I could say more but will save my opinions for another venue.

Alf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 4:58 AM:Well, Joe Jones has hit upon one of the many questions that I have had over the years - Why is there no system to transport at least some of the excess water from "A" to "B" which needs it (or "C", "D", etc.)? We have the Interstate Highway System, why not an Interstate Water System? Since all current water distribution agencies must filter (purify) their incoming water to meet certain standards before it is sent to the consumer, there is already a system in place to treat incoming flood water. Any ideas? Regards, Alf.

To Obamacan wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:09 AM:Delusional as always. Your naiveté and glassy-eyed adoration for your shining star continues to astound me. You might try a little research yourself.
Former pastor only because he had to quit recently over his remarks. Taken out of context? Misrepresented? That the government introduced AIDS to kill black people. That 9/11 was “chickens coming home to roost”. And who can forget (expletive deleted) America.
In his book Obama called this guy his spiritual adviser for 20 years. At first he said he never heard any inflammatory remarks. Then he had to admit he had. The Reverend admitted he told Obama a couple of years ago that he (Obama) might have to distance himself from him over his remarks.
Obama’s wife said this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of America. The product of sitting in church every Sunday listening to the hate white America sermons no doubt.
What Obama didn’t address in his speech is why he sat there all these years and never spoke out until forced by events to do so. And what did he mean when he said a few days ago that his grandmother was a “typical white person”?

Alf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:11 AM:Well, the understatement of the day goes to Elinor Jacobson, with her "It is true that sometimes government goes too far in deciding what people may or may not do.....". Be it city, county, state or federal, "government" has already gone way too far, on far too many occassions and on far too many things. The metastasizing tendrils of the cancer of governmental control of The People are virtually everywhere. To quote Frank Zappa - "You will do as you are told until the rights to you are sold" (excellent social commentary, don't you think?). Regards, Alf.

OBAMA MAMA - wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:15 AM:- Regarding OBAMACAN inquiry: You can find Obama's historic speech at
...
or you can Google "Obama's speech on racism" and look for a display with "text". This is one of the great speeches of all time, close to the Gettysburg Address. The most edifying fact is that Barack Obama wrote
this courageous and eloquent speech himself.
A politician who can write his own speeches and not sound like the idiot he usually is has become a rarity in American politics since the Madison Avenue types took over the political process. The typical political speech is a product of the staff and has been carefully crafted to appeal to all the points brought up by pollsters and focus groups.

SOLON … wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:29 AM:… To Chris … I enjoy reading your blogs, so maybe this will help with the image verification rejection. When you get a rejection response, try your “reload” button. Do not remove and change anything. Your entry box should then reappear with the text you entered previously. Then type in the new image verification and re-submit.
I know the frustration, but I have found the new program superior, especially in respect to acceptance of image verification.
Hope it works, and keep going, guy. Your writing is straightforward, pure logic and you don’t back down. I like that.

SOLON … wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:42 AM:… To blogger of 11:25 PM … You make a profound statement: QUOTE
“I do however have a problem with illegal aliens coming here and thinking they can tell us what to do and how to run our country, … while they fly their flag …” END of QUOTE. Such thinking, if applied universally, would apply to invading foreign armies occupying any land, including the armies of the United States. We invaded the land of the Iraqi people who never attacked us, never even threatened to attack us, and who had no realistic means of attacking us until we invaded and occupied their land. How would Americans feel if an invading army invaded us and flew their flag over our homeland ? Oops! You already answered that question. Ironic, isn’t it, that warmongers and jingoists are unable to perceive their own hypocrisy.

OBAMA MAMA - wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:51 AM:- Brian Eberhard is correct in stating that Barack Obama is a “Trojan horse.” He is a good and brave patriot hidden away in the belly of the beast, who, once he is inside the enemy city of Washington, will exit the horse, conquer the city, destroy our domestic enemies, and bring back her former glory! A great classic tale that will told to many generations to come.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:19 AM:OBAMACAN @ 9:40 PM: Welcome to politics 101 (name-calling and cheap shots about others, and even those are taken out of context). Is this the first time you are following an election to public office?

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:20 AM:Chris to moderator @ 10:43 PM: It's a miracle, I've agreed with Chris twice in one week.

thewolf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:33 AM:Howard Sharpell: LBJ ended the trusted fund in 1967. There is no SS trust fund.Repeat, there is no trust fund.

Pinky to Chris wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:41 AM:You can find the complete video of Obama's speech on UTube.

Nick wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:30 AM:The main problem with "Elinor Jacobson's" letter is that smoking bans are not Democratic, therfore she is wrong. "We the People" have NEVER voted on smoking bans. They are always enacted by a few(you know, city councils and Parks Depts). That is NOT the American way. There has never been a Majority Vote of the people to ban smoking. Since it is NOT a Democratic process, I disagree. Besides, the recent ban in Encinitas is a joke. The City DOES NOT won the strip of sand on the beach, the own the right-of-way and access to the beach. The Beach is owned by "We the People", but we did NOT vote on it. See the problem here? It is only a short while until some lawyers start challenging smoking bans. I think I'll give the ACLU a call.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:33 AM:OBAMA MAMA @ 5:15 AM: "This is one of the great speeches of all time, close to the Gettysburg Address". You are kidding, right?

Nick wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:35 AM:Josesph Grants letter is fueled by personal opinion and not facts. I have posted stats in the past that show that in the U.S., the cities with the highest violent crime rates also have the strictest gun laws, look at Washington D.C. The states with the lowest violent crime rates have the most lenient gun laws and issue CCW's easily, just look at Texas and Oklahoma(who also happen to be leading the way in Illegal Immigration Legislation). Maybe these states know something he doesn't. Like the saying goes, and armed society is a polite society.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:37 AM:OBAMA MAMA @ 5:51 AM. which "domestic enemies" are you referring to?

El Guero wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:44 AM:Dear SOLON: You ask the same question at 5:42 am as Chris asked at 10:50 pm. But 'To chris' (at 11:25 pm) had already answered it. He said, "And for the record, I do not think we should be in another nation fighting a ridiculous unlawful war and flying our flag there." Just where is the hypocrisy in that?

Ron wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:56 AM:When Conservatives use the terms:
Marxist or Socialist, we are being descriptive, it is not mindless name calling. We are pointing to examples of moving away from free market capitalism as proposed by Adam Smith, and towards a social democracy. As Karl Marx himself stated: First Democracy, then socialism, then communism.
Within the mindset of liberals, progressives, or whatever else they are calling themselves today, their intent is to hand over to the Central Government all power in their search for what they term as social justice.
This is so far away from the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, and closer to Friedrich Engels, & Leon Trotsky. Again, not name calling, descriptive.

As usual, people like Dunn are unable to offer Americans anything other than more government control, and regulation of their lives. What they offer is a bigger more intrusive government, and not individual liberty, freedom, or the pursuit of happiness. Ever wonder why they never talk about offering more individual liberty, and freedom? Other than more sexual freedom? It is because they do not believe in the individual, they believe in the collective. They do not believe in the Constitution, they believe in altering and interpreting it in ways which meets their own world view.
Dunn and other's are stuck on the definition of socialism as "owned by Government", but absolutely fail to recognise an ownership by proxy via regulation. It is one thing to regulate business to ensure all operate by the same rules, and to prevent theft. These are the ideas of Adam Smith. But what Smith never envisioned was the redistributionist theories as put forth by liberals out of their desire for social justice. Liberals can not tell the difference between regulatory oversight which promotes a vibrant, private-sector system of entrepreneurship as envisioned by Adam Smith, apart from their socialist desires for a "level playing field."
My example, well look at the progression? First Social Security taxation was 2% of payroll, now it's 12.4%. Tomorrow, they want all income taxed, eliminating all caps, and all other barriers. Unable to meet the utopian goals, they seek a higher level of taxation, without regard to what it will do to our economy, or the private sector. All in the name of "fairness."
When what would have been fair to all, is to have the Government practise tried & true savings principals. they abhor them, they want that money spent now on social welfare programs, thus placing the next generation in a debt so egregious, it can not possibly considered as fair to them.
Dunn reveals his Marxist tendencies by the same old tired quote:
"...from the sweat of one's brow..."
This is how your spot the radicals folks, they speak in half truths, and half statements attempting to fool you into believeing they are someone they are not.

Israel is an unequal nation wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:59 AM:Israel is for God's chosen people. Tell me one time when you have heard of a Jew attacking anyone, unless it was to defend themselves. Do not compare Apples to Oranges. Those who support Israel will be bless and those who oppose Israel will be cursed. There's a lot to be said about that verse. It needs to be taken seriously.

Yokozuna to Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:05 AM:Re: 7:19 AM Post: Politics 101? Here's a guy with some real baggage. Found on Yahoo news. Brian Sliter, running for mayor of Wilmer, Texas is a registered sex offender. How would a candidate like to overcome that one?

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL!!

Alf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:30 AM:Well, "Ron" at 8:56AM, taxes do need to be raised. Soon! We are now how many TRILLION dollars (or hundreds of BILLIONS in debt to China? How much do we owe Japan? GWB, in his delusional thinking (the same delusional thinking as a credit card junkie) patently refuses to operate even his "holy insanity of a war" on a pay as you go basis, instead he keeps putting the nation further and further into debt. Since the government has no money except taxes (and fees and "charges") AND since the government is receiving less in taxes than it spends, SOMEONE WILL HAVE TO PAY, SOMETIME! That SOMEONE is every American taxpayer from now until 5 generations OR MORE from now, if there is ever an end point at which we can have a "mortgage burning party" and be truly out of debt. Do you call GWB a "liberal"? He may not be the ONLY cause of our current running up of debt, but his "holy insanity of a war" is going to put us into insolvency one whole heckuva lot faster than our "social programs" will. "You can take that to the bank." Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:34 AM:Well, "Yokozuna" at 9:05AM, Happy Easter to you and everyone! I added a "mystery ingredient" to my devilled eggs. It worked and they are even better than the previous best! Regards, Alf.

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:40 AM:Chris at 10:43 p.m. asks where online to find the Obama speech.
This is easily found on YouTube. As search terms, type in "obama race more perfect union" and it comes up right away. Make sure you get the entire 37 minute version.

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:41 AM:Karl at 7:19 a.m. asks if this is my first time following an election to public office. No. I have actively participated in many local, statewide and national elections. I do understand the reality of dirty politics, but also feel it important to call attention to it.
As for calling Obama's speech one of the greatest of all time, that is accurate.
It will go down in history as a great classic, akin to JFK's speech on Catholicism or Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail. It will be taught in sociology classes for decades, as the most concise and succinct and balanced synopsis of a complex issue.
Until you have watched it, don't minimize how much he packed into it.

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:42 AM:A responded addressed to me at 5:09 a.m. continues to hold Obama responsible for remarks he thoroughly repudiated (while staying loyal to a long-time friend who had much to contribute in other ways, much like my late grandmother who was a wonderful, compassionate and wise advisor but also had some inappropriate views).
He calls me naïve and glassy eyed, but continues to rant about something he obviously did not listen to.
Since he complains about the comment about 9/11 representing "chickens coming home to roost" can we please have some fairness and demand that McCain drop out because he has not repudiated similar comments about 9/11 from Falwell and Robertson? Or is there a double standard?

Apollo wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:50 AM:Re: Ron (8:56 a.m.)
Ron claims that Marx stated: "First Democracy, then socialism, then communism."
So is Ron suggesting we should not have democracy because it is the first step to communism?
And what is this redistribution thing?
Requiring those who have the greatest interests protected by the system pay their fair share is not redistribution.
Requiring protection for the interests of workers and consumers is not redistribution to them, but prevention of redistribution from them.
Ron is living in the past. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Marxist or socialist is so 1950's. People today don't care about labels. Our generation wants solutions, not obstruction.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:57 AM:OBAMACAN @ 9:42 AM: I wasn't aware that McCain sat in a pew on Sundays for 20 years listening to Falwell and Robertson or calling either one them his spiritual leader. Thanks for enlightening me on that one. Keep the facts coming so that I will be up to speed on all the candidates come November. Peace

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:15 AM:Karl at 9:57 seems to think that McCain should get a free pass because he wasn't in the pews of Robertson or Falwell.
On the contrary, McCain had no long-time friendship and mentorship that he would have had to throw under the bus. Obama did not betray a friend and mentor. Loyalty counts for something. He acknowledged that this pastor, world-renowned, was an excellent mentor in other areas, as was my also imperfect grandmother.
For McCain, there should be no resistance whatsoever, especially since he had repudiated them as extremists in 2000, BEFORE their 9/11 statement.
What changed? Did the straight talk go crooked?

Focal Point wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:19 AM:Obama and Rev Wright: It does not matter what Rev Wright said and did. He is not a candidate for a political party or the Office of President. It matter what Obama thinks. He is the candidate. I only agree with abut half about what my priest ever said in his sermons. What does his speeches have to do with what I would think or if my membership in a particular church should continue? The answer is absolutely nothing. What I do know is the Mccain will continue the war in Iraq at the cost of American lives and treasure. Obama will not. So, it you want another 4,000 American dead, you know for whom to cast your vote. The Obama/Rev Wright controversy does not matter anyway. The complainers are the Conservatives. They would not for Obama anyway. I can tell you straight up that your opposition will be voting Obama. So, yu fellas can waste your time on the blog so long as you realize it is a wast of time.

Surfer wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:22 AM:Karl: McCain first denounces Robertson and Falwell as a matter of principle. Then, he attends a church service and plays huggie bear. This is your straight talker-right?
Come on Dude.

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:31 AM:Several further corrections to misstatements in the post at 5:09 a.m. that were addressed to me.
The writer accuses Obama of first saying he had not heard any inflammatory remarks, then admitting he had. False. He claimed not to have been in the church on the occasion when the specific remarks shown in the four video clips were made. William Kristol ran a column claiming evidence that he had been there, and the New York Times subsequently ran a retraction when proof of Obama's whereabouts on those dates was submitted (the North County Times ran the column with the erroneous statement deleted). He did acknowledge in his speech that he had been in the church during other comments that "made him cringe."
The 5:09 post asks, "What did ne mean about his grandmother being a 'TYPICAL' white person." I did a search on the text of the speech for the word "typical" and it never occurs once. The exact statement in the speech is: "I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me."
If you can't cite a quote accurately, don't cite it at all.

Reardon wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:34 AM:Alf: Kauai is 150 years ahead of us, with hand-dug canals and hand dug tunnels to take water from the uber-wet north side of the island to the sunny and dry sugar fields of the south of the island. (Actually, only one sugar plantation remaining because of the subsidy/tariff/union situation).. One of the interesting things to do on that magic island is to take a trip down a short piece of the channel in a big rubber tube, with a hat-light illuminating the hand-work of the tunnels. Heck, we can�t even get water from the Sacramento area through EXISTING channels because of an unchecked judiciary, and extreme environmentalists! Believe me, the environmentalists will sue, sue, sue to stop and attempt to build ANYTHING transporting water, oil, gas, people...

Huh? wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:01 AM:Israel has never attacked anyone? Are you serious? Look, if you want to defend Israel's policies and behavior, that's fine. If you want to say that because they have been threatened since day one so they have a right (in your opinion) to preemptive attacks, that's your right to an opinion. But to simply put forward falsehoods is beyond that. Israel was established even as car bombing zionists blew up markets to terrify Palestinians into leaving. And within the last year they flew an airstrike into Syria. In addition, the letter-writer's comments that Israeli policies (of no return for Palestinians, among others) amount to an anti-democratic and racist principle are literally correct. Again, you have a right to defend Israel, but not to lie about it. Say, instead, that the Jewish experience, most recently in the Hitler era, justify an exception to most modern principles of state morality for the sake of a safe homeland. You can say that the Jews deserve this and have earned it across the centuries. But please, don't pretend it's something it is not.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:08 AM:DEVILED EGGS: Now, that is something worth talking about. Ok Alf, what is the "mystery ingredient?"

Association wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:09 AM:I agree that Obama's speech was quite amazing for its intelligence and bravery. It took on the issues directly. If it's true, as it seemed, that he wrote it himself, then he is to be admired even more. The Republican slime machine has been able to convince a lot of people that Obama is identical to Wright at Wright's worst. Disgusting as is typical of truth- and character-assassination, of course, but probably effective. Taking this out of the pulpit for a moment: how many Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) have listened to speech after speech, and watched action after action, of Bush and his people without thoroughly renouncing the man? The behavior of all these congresspeople, who have been too cowardly to actively oppose Bush's actions, loudly and clearly, trump anything Obama did with respect to Wright times 100. Where were their voices when, time after time, Bush lied, overreached his powers, sent Americans to their death? Unlike Obama, who disagreed with Wright and told us exactly why, these slimeballs just voted to give Bush more and more and more. Each time their picture or name appears on the boob tube, there should be photos of that sneering President, with flag-draped coffins, headlines of there being no WMDs, a spreadsheet of the national debt, people crossing the border, and on and on.

Why? wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:35 AM:Thanks for the hint, but WHY should WE have to hit a reload button and type in a new code? Where's the web master to fix this problem? The other day it was a three code type in. Think they are trying to discourage us from commenting? [Editor's note: We apologize for the inconvenience. We started using this system to cut down on "spam" and it has worked well for that purpose. Thanks for the feedback. We are always looking to improve.]

Joseph J. wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:52 AM:Now that the Supreme Court will correctly reaffirm our individual right to keep and bear arms, the gun grabbers are at it again! This time, they have concocted a silly and dangerous scheme to track all ammunition by creating the �Ammunition Accountability Act� The draft reads: "An ACT relating to firearms and ammunition; requiring [AGENCY] to establish a statewide database to track coded ammunition manufactured and sold for handguns and assault rifles." Do they really believe that the bad guys are going to use their own coded ammunition? Liberals justify this insanity by citing that �Each year �, more than 30% of all homicides that involve a gun go unsolved.� They conveniently leave out the fact that these homicides are NOT committed by lawful gun owners. Criminals don�t use GUNS that are registered to them! Why do liberals believe they�ll use AMMO that is registered to them? I wonder what liberals will say when one of their coded bullets ends up in some dead body across town, and the law knocks on their door to explain the shooting. �Yes officer, that IS my bullet, but I didn�t shoot him! You gotta believe me!� Why are liberals so intellectually bankrupt?

Nick wrote on Mar 23, 2008 12:19 PM:Happy Easter to all. I didn't "devil" the eggs to day "Alf", I poached them w/crab benedict, asparagas and memosas on the patio.
Cheers, Nick.

To Obamacan wrote on Mar 23, 2008 12:32 PM:I didn't say he said his grandmother was a typical white person in the speech. He said it on a Philadelphia radio station interview on March 20, a few days ago like I said. If you're going to correct my use of quotes then maybe you should check your facts beforehand. Hard to believe you didn't know about it. Although it kinda fits with your hear no evil, see no evil outlook when it comes to your shining star. People do get blind staring at the sun too long, you know.

To Obamacan wrote on Mar 23, 2008 12:47 PM:In your 9:40 PM you said that the pastor’s remarks were misrepresented and taken out of context. Then in your 9:42 AM you said Obama thoroughly repudiated them. Why would he have to repudiate misrepresented remarks taken out of context? Try to be consistent.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 12:51 PM:Surfer @ 10:22 AM Surfer, is there another Karl on this blog? I can't believe that you have partaken of the herb so early on Easter Morning Surf Junkie. Where have you read from me that McCain is a straight talker? Right, you never have and never will. Let me rephrase that, I probably never will call a polititian a straight talker. Who knows, there may be one out there somewhere. You're on the wrong guy Surfer Dude, I might surprise you with my vote in November. Although I vote predominately Republican, I have voted for other parties in the past. have you voted for more than 1 Party? Do you vote?

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:00 PM:OBAMACAN @ 9:41 AM: OBIWAN, I listened to the orginal all the way through and on utube later on. Both times I listened all the way through. It is apparent to me that you and I listen with different sets of ears. You obviously heard something that made your day, I heard excuses. This is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. Viva la difference. If you find this candidate the next coming, more power to you.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:16 PM:Alf @ 4:58 AM. Your idea on H20 makes too much sense to actually become reality. A good number of citizens in the H2O heavy states have a true disdain for Californians, this alone would be a major stumbling block. The last time I was in my birth state (MO) I was asked this question by a very young distant cousin; "My mom told me that God picked up the United States on the East coast and anything loose rolled down to California. Is that true?". My young cousin was very sincere and it took all I had to keep from rolling on the ground. From the mouths of children come some real classics. The energy to pump the H2O may be a major stumbling block also.

Come clean Alf, what was the MI in the fart bombs? We're all dying to know.

With all the love sent your way yesterday I was left yearning for a group hug. Peace my Brother

theWolf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 2:02 PM:To Apollo: Why of course we ought to redistribute wealth. That's what most people think until it is their wealth being taken. A short example, a college teacher asked his class if wealth redistribution was a good thing. Most thought so. He then suggested that from that point on grades would be redistributed so that the A students would have their grades reduced to bring up the D and F students, leveling the grades. Amazingly, the A student complained-saying they worked hard for their grades while the D and F students did not deserve higher grades because...
Apollo, I hope the sun is shining on your well meaning but impractical idea.

hardtack wrote on Mar 23, 2008 2:13 PM:If Marsha Sanford thinks the sub-prime blowback was the result of deregulation and free-market activity, I suggest she look elsewhere for her economic insight. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, started the sub-prime disaster-ball rolling. The regulation intended to address allegations of redlining – banks refusing to set up shop in, and lend to, low-income / high risk neighborhoods. The unintended consequence of the CRA was in putting banks between a rock and hard place. They had to either loosen their lending standards and accept the inevitable financial consequences or incur fines. I don’t know how the free market enters that equation

hardtack wrote on Mar 23, 2008 2:39 PM:ALF, I feel your pain concerning the debt. However, I don’t see how raising taxes on investors (the Democratic Speaker’s brainchild) will encourage the investments needed to drive business, create jobs and, thus, the tax revenues necessary to retire the debt, ONLY if both parties stop “buying” re-election by giving away borrowed money.

jvc wrote on Mar 23, 2008 3:30 PM:Happy Easter! Epecially to Reardon,
who needs a special Easter Blessing to
have him see the need of his great arts of persuasion to help the underprivileged!

Expat Doug wrote on Mar 23, 2008 4:17 PM:Ron, your 8:56 post shows your lack of real understanding of academic History, Economics, and Political Science.

If the less inaccurate use of the terms "Marxist" or "Socialist", you claim Conservatives (and, now, you speak for all Conservatives? How arrogant!)are "being descriptive...We are pointing to examples of moving away from free market capitalism as proposed by Adam Smith..."

Ron, at the university level, students of the three disciplines I mention above, after their first upper level courses in those subjects understand that not only did we ever employ Smith's economic or political model, but we have moved more distant from it since his theories were presented. It is far from intellectually sophisticated for anyone to believe we are or have ever been a good example of Adam Smith's vision of a Free Market economy.

Unlike you, who feels able to speak for all Conservatives, I cannot speak for Mr. Dunn, but casual observation tells me that it is more often those on the right who call Liberals "progressives, or whatever else...these days", and claim that the left's "intent is to hand over to the Central Government all power in their search for what they term as social justice." Given your track record, Ron, for falsely implying you know what's in the minds of every Conservative, your assessment of the thoughts of Liberals are also severely suspect of being inaccurate, and you can no more speak for Liberals than you can for all Conservatives.

Finaly Ron, you might what to re-think you skills as a constitutional scholar, because what you claim to be as "far away from the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, and closer to Friedrich Engels, & Leon Trotsky, may be descriptive as you claim, but again frought with inaccuracy because of your over generalizations.

In your haste to condemn the left, you confuse the policies of modern Conservatives with the Liberals you seem to so illogically and emotionally loathe. You claim Dunn(your Liberal nemisis), and all other Liberals "are unable to offer Americans anything other than more government control, and regulation of their lives. What they offer is a bigger more intrusive government, and not individual liberty, freedom, or the pursuit of happiness". This seems a more accurate description of what the current administration has delivered over the last 7 and a half years than some diabolic goal of left wing American politicos.

But thanks for trying, Ron. Although most of what you write seems superficial until really examined, it is indeed entertaining.

Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:04 PM:Editor. I'm not used to being sensored. What in my comment to surfer and obiwan was wrong? Asking for alf's SI?

OBAMA MAMA - wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:23 PM:- Karl asked who our domestic enemies are (8:37 AM). They are the ones who lied and deceived our nation into a criminal and illegal war against a people who were no threat to us. They are the ones who destroyed the moral reputation of our nation with perverse acts and policies. They are the ones who depleted our treasury and created a vast ocean of debt for our grandchildren. They are the ones who willfully failed to protect our people, and to provide necessary relief in time of great natural disaster. They are the ones who lie and conceal as “state secrets” information that belongs to the people. They are the ones who ravaged our Constitution’s fundamental construction of three separate and equal branches of government in order to create a tyrannical and oppressive executive. They are the ones who confiscated that which belongs to all the people for the common good and parceled it out to their favorite bidders for political gain. They are the ones who flout long established laws with impunity under the nefarious cloak of “homeland security”. They are the ones who bully and intimidate the free press to press forward their propaganda and political agenda. They are the ones to promote division in our government, and plot to engender distrust throughout the land.

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:37 PM:… Wolf gives a simplistic, non-applicable and adolescent example to discredit the primary principles behind the concept of wealth distribution. Knowledge and grades in school are things which cannot be redistributed. Every fool knows that.
Perhaps Wolf can achieve some understanding by asking the right question to begin with: When should wealth be redistributed?

SOLON … wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:44 PM:… Alf, you have us all dying of curiosity. What is the secret ingredient? Did you add a little bit of alcoholic liquer, or did you grind up a little piece of the devil’s tail?

Oh, Wolf wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:06 PM:I don't see how one could argue that the A student's performance on an exam or a paper was in any way due to the work of the D and F students, if they did any. On the other hand, people have argued that the wealth of our financial A students DOES, in fact come to at least some degree from the work of the D and F workers, if they work at all, of course. There are also many A financial students who did less work than the D workers: they inherited or married into their wealth...shall professors give some students good grades because of their names? Oh, yes, some already do...there was that Bush kid...nevermind. All this is, of course, also besides the point. Many of us want SOME redistribution of the money to pay for things that we feel are in the common good. We also might want to redistribute some to ensure that the most impoverished, the elderly, and the abandoned are not without a minimal safety net. You probably think this is unfair, and it is to anyone who assumes that "fair" means each individual against each other individual. But if you don't happen to have that assumption, and assume instead that we all are part of a larger society with mutual benefits and obligations, then "fair" changes its meaning. I like the latter.

sdraoul wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:07 PM:Obama said on Friday that he never heard any of Wright's comments. On Tuesday he stated he heard statements that made him "cringe." Not consistent. Probably a lie considering he attended that church for 20 years, long before he was elected U.S. Senator.

But, he says on Tuesday that he can no more "disown" his spiritual mentor than he can the "black community." Why not? Bill Cospby took American blacks to the woodshed. Wait a minute, his entire political base is that church. Sorry, politics interferes with truth-seeking.

He says he wrote the speech entirely by himself. Please. I've written and delivered enough speeches to know that his statement is not possible. I'll bet half-a-dozen assistants helped himw rite the speech -- afyer all, his entire candidacy depended on its acceptance.

On Thursday on a Philadelphia radio program he described his "N" word using grandmother a "typical white person" in her fears of young black men. Don't doubt that is the word his grandmother used, he described her words in "code" so blacks would get the message and be able to use that line in his defense.

Michelle Obama states that she has "never, really never" been "proud of America" in her "adult life." Let's see, Princeton (not SDSU)), Harvard Law (not night school), million dollar homes, salaries in the hundreds of thousands and she suffers lack of pride in the only country in the entire world were she could have all that. What a gal!

Obama fanatics are just that, fanatics. His speech was OK, that's all.

Until he disowns each and every statement by his "pastor" and Black Liberation Theology, Obama is nothing but a hustler, or as was described in the LA Times last year in an aricle entitled "THE PERFECT NEGRO" a perfect hustler.

Just remember, when he left Harvard Law he could have served the country as an officer in any military service of his choice. Instead he became a "community organizer" as his first steps towards political office. he did not serve the country that gave him so much, he took and he continues to take.

Oh, Karl wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:10 PM:Where Obama gives reasons, you see excuses...except that he also clearly and straightforwardly rejects his pastor's beliefs about America. Can you understand the difference between a reason and an excuse? I didn't think so. For you, it seems, if someone said something that you didn't agree with, you call time out on the spot, tell them that you renounce everything about them, and walk away. Yeah, right. Just like you live by the golden rule. I must admit, if you actually are this way, I can see why you'd hold others to the same holy standard. I hope you hold Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to the same high standards as you do Obama.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:34 PM:The posts from "Nick" (3/22 - 12:58am and 1:01am) are the classic straw man (or, in this case, maybe the "snow man" -- I'll resist the tempation to say "snow job").
"Nick" did not respond to my actual post.
Instead, "Nick" invents my position, which he simply makes up out of whole cloth (once again) instead of actually quoting anything I have actually said. He says, "You claim that snowfall in the region is from evaporation caused by Global Warming."
I have never said that. I did not describe the mechanism of snow formation which is optimal at certain temperature, nor go into any of the reasons why this is so.
So after completely making up a phony claim about my position, "Nick" easily knocks the snow man down and expects some kind of trophy.
"Nick" whines that I "dismissed" his past data.
I have not wasted my time responding to "data" that have no relevance to my point and, since "Nick" has not addressed it, my point stands.
I tried this morning to post these to yesterday's file but had a hard time getting them into the old file.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:40 PM:The post from "Expat Doug" (4:17pm) is lengthy like some of mine, and uses a screen name similar to a first name that some have linked to my offline identity, and makes some excellent points that are similar to points I would have been happy to claim ownership.
Therefore, just by way of clarification, I want to confirm that "Expat Doug" and myself are different individuals. That said, I am appreciative and supportive of his comments and would otherwise have been proud to claim them as my own if I could have done so without being guilty of plagiarism.

To to Chris wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:47 PM:Just for the record, it wasn't the illegals who were telling you what to do. On the contrary, it was a fellow American citizen. This is my country too and we need to face the fact that the illegals are not going to stop coming here.

OBAMA MAMA - wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:59 PM:- Karl questions the greatness of Obama’s speech, but in doing so invites questions about his own views on America.
(1) THE NEW REPUBLIC:
Today, Barack Obama gave a brilliant, inspiring, intellectually supple speech … It's … Those who actually heard or read Obama's entire speech will be reminded that he is a true intellectual--a talented writer and lyrical speaker. Is there another person in American politics capable of giving a speech so organic, so devoid of cant and cliche? Certainly not that pedestrian orator, Hillary Clinton.
(2) HUFFINGTON POST:
… in 37 minutes, Obama showed a touch of greatness. Without the usual campaign artiface or spin, with surprisingly little superstar wattage or lofty rhetoric, he said what had to be said. He explained, in sympathetic but critical terms, why views such as Reverend Wright's are so widely held in the African-American community.
I can't imagine another leading politician making this speech. Robert Kennedy did the awful night Martin Luther King was killed, but that was another time. Bill Clinton can move African-Americans and whites. Yet I never fully escape the sense of political artifice, the sense that a calibrated Sister Souljah moment may intrude.
(3) ANDREW SULLIVAN:
"I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history... I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy -- not this man, his candidacy -- and what he can bring us to achieve -- is an historic opportunity."
(4) EDITORIAL - CENTRAL.net
The first things that struck me about the speech was how apolitical it was. It really seemed like something more suited to a lecture hall in a university than a presidential campaign. It’s just not something that can be analyzed looking at the traditional horse-race type machinations. The most interesting parts to me are how detailed and realistic the speech was. There’s no real quick way to sum up his argument.
(5) and OBAMA HIMSELF:
“But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man (Rev. Wright). The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.”

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:59 PM:SDRaoul, who never ever "disowns" the wrongs done by illegals who steal their way across our borders and wreak economic havoic, much less even taking them "to the woodshed," has the nerve to criticize Obama who, just like Bill Cosby, has not disowned those close to him in his life who have other valued contributions, but did sternly take them "to the woodshed" while also having the depth to explain, but not justify, the reasons why they got there.
I do think that SDRaoul understands this.
I just don't think he is intellectually or morally consistent enough to see how poorly he measures up to the standard of Obama.
Heck, he admits he can't even write his own speeches, unlike Obama who did.

Jack_D wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:06 PM:I would like to associate myself with sdraoul's excellent post (6:07). Obama and his wife are racial demagogues who do not appreciate what their country has done for them. His association with Rev. Wright is very disturbing. I recommend reading Charles Krauthammer's excellent column on the subject at the Washington Post website.

I say this as someone who despises George Bush and worries about McCain's bellicose foreign policy positions.

Reardon wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:36 PM: