OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:21 PM:The letter from John Gilley is an example of more Republican lies and distortions because they cannot find any fault with Obama if they just look at facts and issues.
He misquotes Obama's statements.
Obama stated that he was not in the pews when the few specific examples of outrageous statements were made that were later selected out of context for the video to be repeated over and over as if Obama had made those statements himself. New York Times columnist William Kristol challenged this, but later had to print a retraction when Obama proved his statements correct (The North County Times printed Kristol's article but deleted the accusations that had been proven false.)
Later, he did acknowledge that he had heard some statements on political subjects that made him "cringe" although he had come for religious, not political, instruction, and did understand from where those statements had come.
Again, we ask the conservatives:
1 - Have you no issues? Are you just going to wage a debate of name calling?
2 - Is this the new McCarthyism - can't find anything your opponent said, so guilt by association?
3 - Are you going to hold your own candidate, John W. McBush to the same standard - he did not turn to religious figures with a far worse racist past for religious or spiritual guidance. He turned to them for political endorsements. But the conservatives in their glass houses are mighty silent as they toss stones against the innocent.
Again, that is all they have. More swift boating. Is anyone really surprised?

Chris wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:11 PM:Well once again William Ficere knows not of which he speaks. Yes there are some Iraqis going back but it is not in huge numbers as he would like us to believe. Many of those going back do so because they are running out of money and many cannot go back because they would be killed because they were the target of ethnic cleansing to start with. Just recently it was brought out that a third of the Iraqis in Iraq would like to leave but have no where to go. Ficere embeleshes Husseins despotism. Now when all is said and done people are more interested in having decent living conditions more than this so-called democracy. The Iraqis don't have democracy now because the government they have answers to Washington and the government they have only has power in the gree zone and the militias rule the rest. When the Iraqis needed help it was the militias that they could turn to because the corrupt government has done nothing for the Iraqis. The fact is that living conditions were much better under Saddam then they are now and would have been better if not for our sanctions. Then Ficere say's we should thank god for our magnificent troops and their noble mission. What rot. What noble mission. Destroying a country, killing it's citizens. What has the military done for this country except help run it into bankruptcy while running around the would creating more misery and enemies.

To Roger Turk wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:53 PM:"I've finally found an honest, first-person account of the misdeeds of many at our southern border. Lou Dobbs and the Minutemen have not provided the insight into our ongoing border problems." So in other words Lou Dobbs and the minutemen are liars!!!! Yes, I agree completely that Lou Dobbs and the minutemen are liars!!!!

Ms M wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:12 AM:To John Gilley - If you would hold our president and current republican adm. to the same standards as you do Obama about "lying" then I will join you in your leadership on impeaching the folks who have lied to the American people for the past seven years - I'm there!

More Obama wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:57 AM:Leon Smith today states "Barack Obama sponsored the Global Poverty Act, which will increase by $854 billion the amount of yearly foreign aid." What was left out was that the Poverty Act allows the UN to tax the United States!

Focal Point wrote on Mar 30, 2008 1:24 AM:Apoll from Yesterday: Well, I did check it out as you suggested. You are correct. I beg your pardon for the error. Joe McCarthy was a Republican. I did not confuse the two McCarthys. I was just wrong.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 30, 2008 1:28 AM:Sorab Ghandhi: Sorry. You are so wrong. 4,000 dead amd 20,000 wounded and maimed Americans is not worth the Iraqi War. It is not a trade off, and is unacceptable.

Yokozuna to Obamacan (10:21 PM) wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:49 AM:Thank you for rising far above the name calling you mentioned in your item #1. By the way, who is John W. Bush?

Alf wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:24 AM:Well, "Chris" at 11:11PM, you leave out the "elephant in the living room", i.e. it was and is GWB who, as commander-in-chief of the military, ordered the military to invade and then occupy the sovereign nation called Iraq. It is GWB who is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the DEATHS of over 4,003 American Troops in Iraq, the deaths and destruction in Iraq since 2003 and running our economy into the ground. Regards, Alf.

White Rabbit wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:39 AM:Obamacan, you’re giving the average American voter way too much credit. This is not an exercise to try to determine just how enlightened we actually are. This is a presidential election!
If Obama was an acceptable candidate to Middle America this nominating process would have been over long ago and he would be leading McCain in the polls 55-45%. He’s had several opportunities for knock out blows and has come up short each time. Why is that? He’s only gotten just over half the votes of DEMOCRATS. Why is that? A new Gallup Poll says that 38% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee. Why is that? I think you know the answer.
By the way, Swift Boating works. The Republicans have perfected it. Gore and Kerry fell victim to it. Dukakis was ahead by 20% on Labor Day in 1988. One Willie Horton ad, one flag burning controversy, one ill-advised tank ride, one debate question on the death penalty and his campaigned was over. And you think Obama’s getting roughed up unfairly now. The slime machine hasn’t even gotten warmed up.
I’m not saying that Hillary would be a shoo-in but I strongly believe that an Obama nomination will definitely put McCain in the White House. Who was it that got elected twice because they wouldn’t allow themselves to be Swift Boated? Obama will try an appeal to America’s better nature. Good luck with that!

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:35 AM:Yokozuna at 10:21 asks who John W. Bush is.
Actually, what I referred to was John W. McBush.
There used to be a straight-talkin' maverick who was a solid enough conservative, but willing to stand up and speak his conscience, even when it went against his party.
This straight-talker spoke out against hate-mongering right-wing religious demagogues, spoke out against torture (based on first-hand experience), opposed tax cuts for the rich and recognized the seriousness of climate change. His name was John W. McCain. Admirable fellow, even when we disagreed.
But McCain morphed into McBush, becoming a clone of the scoundrel who trashed his reputation during their 2000 Primary face-off to become the most outrageous flip-flopper of all time.
He now embraces the racist, right-wing religious demagogues he once denounced, actively seeking their political endorsements and on-stage embraces. He voted against a bill to outlaw specific acts of torture. He now supports making permanent the tax cuts permanent, and completely abstained from all votes when he had chances to do something about climate change.
Sad.
No wonder the Republicans don't want to talk about issues.

Ms M wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:18 AM:White Rabbit
[-] wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:39 AM: ...I strongly believe that an Obama nomination will definitely put McCain in the White House. That's your opinion. When I picture McCain and Obama standing together on stage in a debate......well need I say more! And as for Hilliary supporters voting for McCain - I don't think so - they hate this administration and the war just too much. When it is all said and done they will support their party. McCain will keep us in a war, probably bomb Iran.........

Alf wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:38 AM:To finish the last sentence for you the way I envision it, "Ms M" at 9:18AM, "McCain will keep us in a war, probably bomb Iran........." and completing the ruination of our military and what little is left of our economy. "John W McBush" is the worst of all current candidates that I would want in the white house. Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:45 AM:Re: Obamacan (8:35 a.m.)
Obamacan talks about how McCain morphed into McBush, a clone of the scoundrel who trashed his reputation in their 2000 primary face-off.
Could this be some sort of bizarre delayed Stockholm Syndrome reaction?
Delayed Post-traumatic stress syndrome?
From his days as a POW or his torture by the Bush swift-boaters - or both?

Ron wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:54 AM:Some people are still yammering about Florida 2000. I say: GET OVER IT!
Responding to White Rabbit {Mar 29} @ 3:11 AM, he/she says:"As a result of not counting all the votes in Florida, the newcomer won." I agree, Goreleone did not want to count ALL THE VOTES. NO, he only wanted very specific Democrat Counties counted, only those in which he thought he might eek out a victory.
Of course people, Florida voters should have been outraged, an across the board, across the State count should have been carried out. But that was not the Goreleone plan, they sought only to unfairly count in counties where there was an overwhelming majority of Democrat voters. Why not re-count in Republican counties? Perhaps in the confusion over a Democrat Butterfly ballot, maybe some Republicans got confused, and disenfranchised. Perhaps we should have been concerned about their hanging, pregnant, intentional chads?
It is ironic now, that in 2008, faced with the same choice, Democrats themselves are choosing to not count Florida. Well, I should say, "Certain Democrats", and they know who they are.
But, it just goes to show the fraud, fake, and phoney's who make up this party. They will do WHATEVER it take to win, no matter what happens to the average voter, joe-6-pack, or the people they say they care about. Bunch of phoneys.

Ron wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:11 AM:Man... you have just got to give it up, "OBAMACANT" @10:21 PM.
The letter from John Gilley is an excellent example of stating the truth: "...when you condone the extreme behavior of radical individuals and/or groups, you are agreeing with them. This is tacit consent at work."
His word, condone means to:
1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
This perfectly describes the Obamaman's actions.
I'd say most Americans pretty well got this guy pegged. He sat in a racist church for 20 years, wrote a book based on his racist spiritual mentor, on how this one racist man shaped his life.
So, tap dance as you will, it is not going to change anyone's opinion.
Racism, is kind of like pornography, we know it, when we see it.

Reardon wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:21 AM:I have been challenged to bring a less radical educational change list to the table, one that has a more realistic ability to get reform.

I could that, but it too will not work. If we can’t get a relatively minimal change to vouchers in a general election (the proposition was defeated more than 2-1 in the year 2000), which would have made incremental changes over a long period of time through the introduction of competition, we can’t do ANYTHING. The teachers unions, with the massive support of 900,000 teachers in this state, and the huge nationwide money the union can bring, easily defeated the proposition.

If the populace is not alarmed that we currently rank with Louisiana and Mississippi in K-12 education, and they are not so alarmed, then nothing short of revolution will work.

Partly this is a result of “yes, schools are bad, but my school is great”. This mass denial is also true of teachers, politicians, lawyers and a host of others – it is a case of mass denial by a generally uneducated population, which does not treasure education.

Ms M wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:29 AM:Ron
[-] wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:11 AM:.... Ron you really need to get over the Rev. - almost everyone else has except those who would never have voted for Obama in the first place. The polls that indicate Obama was hurt by the Rev. are from the conserv. and who are not his supporters.

Kennedy-Gore wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:46 AM:Ron at 9:54 tells us to "get over" the Gore 2000 thing.
Yeah!
We should be like Max Hagan whose letter shows us he isn't even over 1960!

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:52 AM:Ms. M is spot on at 10:29 a.m.
The only ones clinging to the McCarthyist strategy of trying to make Obama guilty by association (since he is 100% clean himself) are those who would never consider voting for him anyway!
Like we are going to take our marching orders from them? As if!

Apollo wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:55 AM:Re: Kennedy-Gore (10:46 a.m.)
At least Kennedy won the popular vote.
And Gore's popular vote margin was double that of Kennedy's!

Now what? wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:02 AM:As the surge seems to be unraveling, or at least showing us what it has always been, a very delicate situation that had to do with a whole lot more than those extra troops serving as beat cops in Baghdad, what in the world does Free Pass McCain have to run on now? Will he base his foreign policy on "stay the course"? Will he outBush Bush and trump up reasons to bomb Iran? What now in Iraq, please? The elected leadership there is, if you haven't noticed, allied with Iran. So which side are we on? The Sunnis that we're paying (over 80,000 of them!) not to shoot us are the people that used to shoot us! Is that the strategy? Shell out billions to pay the people who killed our troops, and do so indefinitely so that we can pretend there's a meaningful "peace"? What now, neocons?

Get over what? wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:07 AM:Should we just get over 9-11? No, you'd say: that was an event that showed us, since we seemed to not know it before, that there were people who hated Americans. People who were against liberty and the American way! People who despised out culture and freedom! People who would not stop unless we stopped them! In other words, same as the 2000 election. As Dick Cheney said of 9-11, "It was an opportunity."

Reardon wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:18 AM:George Cordry’s analysis of the current newspaper situation is accurate, and he is a long-time and well-known North County observer. The newspaper only has one absolute and irrefutable advantage: the reach and depth of their reporting. The internet only solves the printing and distribution portion of the news business, and that is all it can solve.

The printing and distribution cost is well over 50% of the cost of newspapering, so the paper is happy to get rid of that cost – but it can’t yet find a solution to the advertising space that paper brings, so it is losing advertising FASTER than printing and distribution cost.

It is a long, slow death. Newspapers need to discover that they are in the news business, not the newspaper business. (They know it, they just have ink in their blood and can’t easily accept it.)

Reporting, folks! Electronics cannot do face to face interviews, or in-depth investigative reporting. Boots-on-the-Ground reporting. There are reporters in every burg in this nation giving reporting the reach and depth for NEWS.

Wright is Right wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:18 AM:To John Gilley (letter):
This morning's Los Angeles Times has an in-depth analysis of the Wright sermons.
It does note that these are just a few exerpts from thousands of sermons over several decades.
It also puts the speeches in context.
When you hear the whole sermon, you might still agree some phrases were particularly harsh and "cringe" at them, but it does add a deeper perspective.
For example, when he says "God damn America" he defines "damnation" as being held responsible. He says America does have many wrongs to correct, and to be "damned" is to be required to come into reconciliation. It turns out the sermon is about the path to reconciliation.
This starts out with language that captures the anger of the African community as a starting point, then leads them toward an outlook of reconciliation.
It is like Black Liberation Theology itself.
At a time when many were encouraged to leave the Christian religion that only brought (and justified) slavery, oppression and segregation, to become either Jews (Sammy Davis) or Muslims (Farrakhan), Black Liberation Theology was a way to keep blacks in the Christian faith - using their anger as a starting point to lead them to universal Christian love, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Of course, certain people don't want to tell you the rest of the story.
How Christ-like of them.

Chris to Alf wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:44 PM:You are right about Bush. However I talk about the military because it is the military that decides how to run the war and it is the military that committs these attrocities and lies and covers up their misdeeds. We have people like Ficere that pumps up the military and says that I owe them when in fact they have done nothing for me. The fact is that the American people look to the military as some god and it is my purpose to try to get them to see that it is not a god and we need to bring them under control. So while Bush started this war because of the arrogance and ignorance of the American people it is people in the military that continue to attack me for not bowing down and worshiping the ground they walk on. So I am going to continue with my criticism of the military because I am sick of them and theirs lying to the people and giving our murderous ways some credibility.

Reardon wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:49 PM:I have no idea if Obama is into racial politics, although his belonging to an African-Centric church may be an indicator. What I do know is that his followers are into racial politics. If you don’t believe that, try being a Black elected politician who is still supporting Hillary, like Sheila Jackson Lee in Houston! These Black politicians are under a lot of pressure for racial solidarity, because there is not a dime’s worth of political difference between the two Democratic candidates. Hillary’s main problem is Bill and lying (that may be the same problem); Obama’s main problem is his followers. Even on this blog, his followers are True Believers who worship him, and have no life, no interest in subject matter beyond him. As soon as they have adopted an alliteration mantra, like FINITE FILTHY FOSSILE FUELS, they will have become DD.

GFN wrote on Mar 30, 2008 1:28 PM:To "Focal Point", 1:24 am...I believe all who post owe you a respectful thank you. Thank you.

Ms M wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:08 PM:Reardon
[-] wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:49 PM: Regardless of what pressure is being put upon someone as to who they should vote for - when they cast their vote, they will hopefully vote for the person who they truly believe would make the best candidate. Not everyone agrees with their ministers/priests 100 % of the time. Also, are you saying that ministers who back the other candidates aren't using their pulpit to back them?

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:41 PM:Poor Reardon at 12:49 p.m.
He still cannot find any issues.
Can't talk about healthcare, the economy (which John W. McBush admits knowing nothing about), the war (McBush does know about this, but wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years) - NOTHING.
So all he can do is call names and ridicule Obama's supporters.
Those who have issues discuss issues.
Those who do not call names.
Ms. M was spot on at 10:29 a.m.
The only ones clinging to the McCarthyist strategy of trying to make Obama guilty by association (since he is 100% clean himself) are those who would never consider voting for him anyway!
Like we are going to take our marching orders from them? As if!

Red-Rover wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:45 PM:Obamacan Diatribe: Wants to talk issues,but brings none to the table.

From my question of what "Obama, as president,might miss", O-can has labled me as a "Bushman",a "Republican"
when nothing in my posting alluded to either, nor did I mention "holding anyone to a standard". That's a lot of assuming without facts. Sticking to the facts seem to elude this writer, maybe that is why no issue has been
brought to the table to be discussed.

Reardon wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:52 PM:Reardon does not take the name of a candidate, comments on many things, and is not a single-issue commenter.
As to calling names, do you mean something like James Carville calling Gov. Richardson a “Judas?”
Or Bill Clinton questioning Obama’s patriotism?
To which Gen. Merrill McPeak, adviser to Obama, described Bill Clinton’s remark as “McCarthyism.”
Reardon does not intend to participate in an arguments between opponents, except as an observer. In my last post I remarked on the baggage that each candidate has. They do.

Chris to Ron wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:30 PM:So, racism is wrong when it is aimed at whites but not when it is aimed at muslims. Got it.

Falling into line? wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:05 PM:Why condemn the alleged "pressure" on African-Americans to vote for Obama when the whole Republican/Conservative world is doing the same with McCain? This is the McCain that conservatives ranted about as a traitor, a "democrat", a "liberal". But here they all are, falling into line. At least the African-Americans who decide on Obama over Hillary are being consistent in their beliefs about policies and philosophy...the conservatives go by nothing except the "R" after the candidate's name.

sdraoul wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:09 PM:Somebocy actually thinks one can be racist towards a Muslim, who might be white, red or purple?

Come on, North County is one of the most educated areas in the country.

Does one have to lecture this paper's readers over and over that one cannot be racist towards a religion, only a race (Black, Asian or White) or subrace (Mexican mestizo)?

One can be bigoted toward a religion such as Muslim, Catholic or Jewish, but one cannot be racist towards one.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:31 PM:Reardon: Obama is not a racist and neither are his supporters. Million of white Americans support Obama. Their reasons hae nothing to do with race. In fact, the youth of America are pretty much past the racial divide unlike their parents and grand parents. Now as to the blog, I am a lilly white Irish type. I am whiter than white. I support Obama.

Just to get it accurate wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:12 PM:"Racism" is a belief that one "race" is superior to another. I heard nothing in Rev Wright's remarks that indicated the belief that African-Americans were superior to Caucasians. He might be prejudiced against white people (though the evidence is overwhelming that he is not) but he certainly is no racist. For African-Americans to teach their children that White America is not to be trusted is perhaps not ideal, but it certainly is rational.

esteban wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:19 PM:Chris, you think the MILITARY runs the war!?!??! HA!!! As you say, what rot!! The suits in Washington runs the war. If the real warriors ran the war, this thing would be over and we'd have zero losses. Get outta MY country traitor!!!

Reardon wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:10 PM:Believe me, Focal Point, I never suggested that Whites do not support Obama. As I recall, Obama won the Democratic delegates from Iowa, and there are not seven Blacks in the State. Actually, I was commenting on Black solidarity, and on the Hillary side, Woman solidarity. The latest polls indicate that if either Obama or Hillary, wins, a high % of the other solidarity group will bolt the party, or sit on their hands. That indicates more racial, and sexual solidarity than party solidarity -- not that it will all necessarily hold in the general election. But6 this is what happens when a political party is designed around disparate special interest groups and two of the main special interest groups have a candidate in the “finals!”

Chris wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:12 PM:You have a point on racism but I just wonder what would happen if the vast majority of Muslims were white instead of middle eastern. So in that sense I think that calling it racism isn't far off. I could have deferenciated the two but since the word Muslim is mentioned I think that is just a form of racism that is hidden by refering to religion.

Chris to esteban wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:18 PM:I stand by my statement. All the suits in Washington care about is that the job gets done. Yes certain things like torture are dictated. But I don't think things like firing on the Palestinian hotel were dictated by Washington. The suits just can't be there to make all the decisions and they have to let the military make these spur of the minute decisions.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:52 AM:Reardon: Then I misunderstood your original blog. Thanks for your clarification.

Surfer wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:20 AM:esteban: Dude, you can be xenophobic. But, you can hang ten with me any time.

Ms M wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:25 AM:What happened to Monday's letters?

To Letters Editor wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:38 AM:Way to go for again violating your own Letters policy, but then again you’re probably glad happy to publish Pulse’s letters since they tend to get a response. You published a letter from Pulse on 18 March and then again on 30 March, maybe it’s leap year math but that looks to me like it is short of the one letter per fourteen day policy.

To Chris wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:40 AM:From your comments I guess you're still able to receive the news being beamed to you from the Democracy Now basement. Since based on your own admission you came late to an interest in history and politics I’ll just continue to think of you as being in the same stage as those learning about communism in college and thinking it’s a good system. If you move now to a totalitarian regime you could probably move up nicely, or you could stay here, keep spewing your vile, and in time maybe you’ll mature past your belief that everything in the world is America’s fault.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:01 AM:To Chris[-] wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:40 AM:
Is that you, Asterod? Is that you,Mike America. Sure sounds like you.

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:02 AM:Red-Rover at 4:45 p.m. states that I talk about issues but brought none to the table.
I suggest he read the thread more carefully before he pontificates about what is missing from it.
In my 8:35 a.m. post in this thread, when I criticized John W. McBush, I cited specifc points based on issues, and enumerated the following: healthcare, economy, Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, environment and global warming, and flip-flopping on several of them.
While I did not complicate my post by trying to cover the minutiae of those issues all in a single post, and since most of us know at least generally the candidates' views on those issues, I was trying to draw the discussion back to that frame of reference, exactly as I stated earlier.
No one has to read all or even any of the posts in this thread.
But if you haven't, don't make assumptions about what isn't there.
Now, do you actually have a comment on any of these issues, or do you just want to again re-hash the McCarthyism of trying to hold Obama responsible for what others say?

Alf wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:53 AM:In the San Francisco Chronicle I learned that Aloha Airlines is shutting down passenger service after today and going Chapter 11. We bought tickets to Kaua'i for late May through Travelocity on Aloha, now we'll see if we're out our fare, if we must pay more through Hawaiian or if we can even get there on the dates that we booked our lodging. What a ... mess!! Regards, Alf.

to to Chris wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:05 AM:I don't know about everything being America's fault, but I do know that President Bush invaded a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us, had no alliance with al Qaeda, had nothing to do with 911, was moving forward diplomatically via UN inspections, and was fully contained. That, by any definition, is immoral and illegal. Invasions are not things one should do unless there is no other resort. The dead, injured, and displaced as a result of this invasion are the responsibility of President Bush. We don't know how it will turn out in the long run, of course, but the same would be true if Saddam had remained in power until his death. Neither we nor the Iraqis will ever know what would've happened if we'd not done this illegal and immoral thing. So the next President inherits a total mess. But I hear McCain saying, "America will never surrender!" and I think here's another one who cares only about rousing bloodlust disguised as a phony patriotism. Patriotism means love of country. "Never surrender" is an appeal to pride, to ego, to feeling macho...has nothing to do with what's best for the country in this case. Enough of this endless effort to finally win a Vietnam. Let's move on to the 21st Century before thousand more are slaughtered for a slogan.

Surfer wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:15 AM:Alf[-] wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:53 AM: Hey Alf, "the kahuna of with.". Real bummer about the airline. Hope things work out for you. If and when you get there, hit the North Shore. Sets can vary 3ft to 8ft that time of year. Still a buku ride. Regards Surfer.

Escalated Vietnam wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:37 AM:Max in Ramona ("Man of Peace?": In 1954, the France pulled it's troops out of Vietnam after having been routed at Dien Bien Phu. The Eisenhower administration replaced them with US Special Forces initially. Every US President through Nixon escalated the US presence in Vietnam. On Vietnam, Kennedy was a man of his times. On being a visionary with motivating a generation to reach for the stars, Kennedy is timeless. No person is all things at all times and, surely, people who tend to paint with broad brushes don't do so all time.

Escalated Vietnam wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:38 AM:Max in Ramona "Man of Peace?": In 1954, the France pulled it's troops out of Vietnam after having been routed at Dien Bien Phu. The Eisenhower administration replaced them with US Special Forces initially. Every US President through Nixon escalated the US presence in Vietnam. On Vietnam, Kennedy was a man of his times. On being a visionary with motivating a generation to reach for the stars, Kennedy is timeless. No person is all things at all times and, surely, people who tend to paint with broad brushes don't do so all time.

Asteroid wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:45 AM:Chris[-] wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:12 PM: “You have a point on racism but I just wonder what would happen if the vast majority of Muslims were white instead of Middle Eastern.” Gee, I wonder if chris would be as defensive and supportive of Muslims terrorists if they were “white” instead of middle eastern. ??? That's me offal pointless, not the other guy. You know, you really shouldn't let me get to you the way I do; you could never reciprocate.

WAKE-UP!! wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:25 PM:Almost 1:30 in the afternoon and still todays letters not even posted. Getting worse everday NC Times; but hey the format looks great!

Ron wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:32 PM:Apparetly, "To Letters Editor" @7:38 AM, you are not familar with the letters policy?
Look under: "Letter's we admire..."
Need I say more?

Alf wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:35 PM:Thanks, "Surfer" at 11:15AM. I don't surf, but that does not mean that I can't get a few decent shots of the surf. I'll be in search of the perfect shot of Waipo'o Falls, about as far away from Princeville by road as you can get. Last time we stayed in Po'ipu. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:49 PM:Huh? "Chris to Ron" @5:30 PM?
I'm reading, but .. sorry. I'm not quite gettin' the logic.
>>>So, racism is wrong when it is aimed at whites but not when it is aimed at muslims. Got it.>>>
Ah, No Chris, and I don't think it's because I'm particularly dense on logic, terms, or even the English language.
Let me see if I understand, K?
Racism again Muslims? Am I reading that correctly?
Racism, in my dictionary means: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I don't see all Muslims as being one particular race. Do you?
Unless, of course, your using the more broad definition, in which:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Now, even if you use that definition, I have never stated that ALL Muslims want to cut off people's head. I will note, for the record, that in most Muslim societies, women do take a back seat to men, and punishment for crimes are generally more harsh.
Notice, what I did not say...
I never said that Arabs did this, nor did I ever say Persians/Iranians did this. That would be racist. What I have said is, radical Muslims do these things. In Their twisted religion, not their race, not their country, not their origin.
I certainly hope that clears up your confusion.

Ron wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:00 PM:Oh, and "Chris" @9:12 PM, one more thought about raicsm.
I have said, and I do believe, it would be very racist of us to now desert the Iraqi's, after we have torn down their country, and leave without rebuilding it, as we had done in Europe.
I think those who would leave them flat, would do it precisely because they hold some kind of racist fiber within their moral DNA.
In all honesty, I think some would find it very easy to leave those brown skinned people to fend for themselves.
I know, I know... they are not Americans. You just keep on telling yourself that. Look deep, my friend, look deep.

Margaret wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:06 PM:Max Hagan interpreted Peg Hart's ediorial on Obama to mean, "that what a candidate looks like and what they say is more important than what they do." "Looks like" infers he thinks Ms. Hart is of color.Wrong. So with Max's analagy on what a person says is not important, we have his permission not to take the ten commandments Moses gave us seriously.

To Ron wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:20 PM:Taken from the online Letter Policy - Individual writers are limited to one letter every two weeks. Priority is given to North County writers.

Affirmative wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:50 PM:Gee Ron: Kond of interesting logic. Les us see at least 70,000 dead civilians, two
milion displaced within Iraq, two million in exile outside of Iraq. All services only available a few hours a day. I guess we gave them an affirmative action plan

Ms M wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:00 PM:Hey what happened to the letters for Monday 3/31? I left work at 3:00 and they had finally showed up. I log in at home 3 hrs. later and now they are gone! What's up?

Iconoclast wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:19 PM:RACISM is nothing more than a form of collectivism – from which statism derives – which is a mind-set that promotes the belief that the group, the mass, the “public;” i.e. the mob, is more important than the individual, which is the smallest (and I suspect the most abused) minority. I hope this is clear to, at least, one of you.