DD Wiz wrote on May 1, 2008 7:31 PM:The published letter from James Amorosa notes a local hate website targeting liberals.
Yeah, this is old news. I found this long ago and quickly checked to see if my name was there.
Yeah, it was.
What a relief! I would have been so disappointed if I would have been left off a list of infamous liberals :-)

Buyers remorse wrote on May 1, 2008 7:48 PM:Gallup Daily Tracking Poll:
Clinton 49% Obama 45%
McCain 47% Obama 43%

My fifteen minutes wrote on May 1, 2008 8:05 PM:Hey, DD. I'm on that list too. I never realized I was hateful, lying scum and a vile propagandist. Not to mention persistent and repetitive. Well, I did know about the persistent part.
Site seems kind of outdated though, I haven't written a letter in about a year I think. Got bored.

Mike wrote on May 1, 2008 8:26 PM:I didn't make the list. Makes me feel like a slacker:(

Floyd The Scientist wrote on May 1, 2008 11:18 PM:I felt left out, since I wasn't on any of his lists of Good Guys or Bad Guys. Either I'm not extreme enough, or us scientists in our WHITE LAB COATS are ignored since we are above the fray anyway. One of our celebrated and peer-reviewed posters (who shall not be named) is listed twice -- an honor of sorts, I suppose. If you find it threatening to be on such a list, maybe you'll have a better understanding of the resistance to gun registration.

Yokozuna to DD wrote on May 2, 2008 5:26 AM:You are clearly the winner. I think I saw your name on that list twice - once for Escondido and once for another city. Keep up the good work. Evidently your opponents feel you are twice as effective.

Theotis wrote on May 2, 2008 5:56 AM:As to Mr. Guerrero's remarks....I couldn't agree more. There are so many FOR SALE signs in my neighborhood...and these council clowns want a new city hall? Forget that action Jackson!

Liberals wrote on May 2, 2008 6:58 AM:My definition of a liberal is a whiny cry baby that can't take no for an answer!

Vista Granny wrote on May 2, 2008 7:00 AM:Hey DD, I'm there too! Unbelievable! The only good thing I saw was the note that the page was made with a MAC. I can't believe anyone can be that ugly and hateful.

I knew it wrote on May 2, 2008 7:32 AM:I knew Vista Granny was a letter-to-the editor kinda gal! Go Vista Granny!

roger wrote on May 2, 2008 7:42 AM:to NCT what is MAT 2

Mike wrote on May 2, 2008 7:55 AM:May, actually, be a great time for a new Vista City Hall. When the economy is tanked, as it seems to be at the moment, bids are bound to be the lowest.

Hey Brian wrote on May 2, 2008 8:07 AM:Thanks for the laughs!! Your letters are always so funny and useless. Why do you keep writing them? Please don't stop your letters are funnier than the comics strips printed in this newspaper.

Sad wrote on May 2, 2008 8:33 AM:My condolences to Mrs. Capt. Johnson. You must be mortified.

More bad news wrote on May 2, 2008 8:35 AM:From the NY Times QUOTE Two thunderous blasts set off by suicide bombers ripped through a crowded shopping street in the town of Balad Ruz in Diyala Province on Thursday, killing at least 35 people and wounding at least 62 others, many of them seriously. ENDQUOTE Seriously, folks, isn't it time to leave? Aren't we learning again, daily, that the decrease in violence that we saw for past months really had little to do with our "surge"? That it was all about the Iraqis' own decisions and tactics? What the heck are we doing there?

Diane the Delusionist wrote on May 2, 2008 8:40 AM:I'm so glad to be on the list too. Wow. Never thought my opinions would spark such fire.. Just hope the fire doesn't consume poor old James. That pathetic website was, I admit a creative outlet for your emotions...but yikes- it sure seems like a child's temper tantrum. Call me and I can put you in touch with some excellent resources that will help you with your pain!

hardtack wrote on May 2, 2008 8:47 AM:Reardon, sorry for my confusion, yesterday. If we round the decimals either way it amounts to about 1* increase on either scale. I would think a 1* temperature change over 100 years would not be alarming . . . particularly since we have no conclusive evidence as to the exact cause, or if humans can do anything about it one way or the other.

to Hey Brian wrote on May 2, 2008 8:51 AM:Coming from someone who doesn't even seem to know what a sentence is, the value of your opinion is quite questionable to the rest of us.

Maybe you'd like to try again?

Randy wrote on May 2, 2008 8:53 AM:We daily watch the gradual demise of one of the greatest superpowers in history under the direction of the Bush administration. The wealthy get richer while the poor are oppressed. Is this a great country or what?

Ms M wrote on May 2, 2008 8:55 AM:Liberals
[-] wrote on May 2, 2008 6:58 AM:My definition of a liberal is a whiny cry baby that can't take no for an answer!...and my definition of a conservative is one who has ruined our country and won't accept responsibility!

GFN wrote on May 2, 2008 9:02 AM:Rocky Chavez is claiming to be the best steward of the City's money??? What a joke! He's the one who led the charge to donate $2.2 MILLION of Oceanside's scarcest resource to Doug Manchester for the failed pier project. The reason for the demise of the development was that it violated the Coastal development law, and the "Big City" Manchester people knew this going in. It really appears that Rocky got scared, not of the City's liability to a lawsuit, but of what would have come out about what he said and did behind the scenes. O'side had no liability; Manchester knew the law, that's why he's the multi-millionaire, and he knew Rocky would cave...some steward.

To Liberals wrote on May 2, 2008 9:10 AM:You said in your post: "My definition of a liberal is a whiny cry baby that can't take no for an answer!"

Hey, that's my definition of a conservative.

DD Wiz wrote on May 2, 2008 9:34 AM:The posts from "Floyd The Scientist" (11:18pm), "Yokozuna to DD" (5:26am) and "Vista Granny" (7:00am) make note of either being included (or not) on the name-calling hate list, and note that I had the honor of being included twice.
By way of explanation as to why I get to be included from two different cities, from 1991 to 2004 I lived in Oceanside, from where I wrote quite a few letters to the Oceanside Blade-Citizen, Escondido Times-Advocate (I subscribed to both until they combined) and then to the North County Times after they merged. In 2004 I moved to Escondido where I have continued occasional contributions to the North County Times.
I know that "Yokozuna" is not acquainted with me offline, but I know that a number of other online participants do know me either through various Democratic Clubs I'm in, the North County Forum (where I occasionally participate but not as a member since they are -- admittedly -- too pro-Green party), or through either of the two Audubon chapters I'm a member of. "Vista Granny" has indicated several times knowing me, but as I know several wonderful, adorable liberal grandmothers in Vista, I'm not sure which she is? Maybe drop a subtle hint that would only be decipherable to the cognoscenti?

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 9:37 AM:So, who is right, Obama’s opposition to a gas tax holiday, or Hillary (McCain) supported gas tax proposal?

Hillary is in the short term, and Obama is on the long-term – but “in the long term we are all dead.” (Keynes)

Right now, it would ease the strain on truckers, and therefore food prices for the poor. Given the choice of helping the poor or the government, Obama picks the government.

I just find it interesting that cutting ANY tax is so controversial to liberals. It runs counter to their genetic proclivity.

Talk about PC wrote on May 2, 2008 9:54 AM:From the LA Times Quote Teacher Fired For Refusing To Sign Loyalty Oath
Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out communists.by Richard C. Paddock
When Wendy Gonaver was offered a job teaching American studies at Cal State Fullerton this academic year, she was pleased to be headed back to the classroom to talk about one of her favorite themes: protecting constitutional freedoms.But the day before class was scheduled to begin, her appointment as a lecturer abruptly ended over just the kind of issue that might have figured in her course. She lost the job because she did not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The loyalty oath was added to the state Constitution by voters in 1952 to root out communists in public jobs. Now, 16 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main effect is to weed out religious believers, particularly Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses. ENDQUOTE So while Alf and others stew about their being "pressured" to use "visually impaired", this professor lost her job for not using the old fashioned kind of PC words. And hers, on top of it, was also a punishment for having a certain religious faith. Are we outraged?

Wondering wrote on May 2, 2008 10:01 AM:Diane the Delusionist: Is he Chuck?

Greenergy wrote on May 2, 2008 10:14 AM:Love the enthusiasm shown in the letter from Kerry Woods, though the "A-B-C" plan doesn't sound very feasible, but Hardtack at 8:47 definitely takes today's prize.
What is Hardtack's "scientific" conclusion: "I would think a 1 degree temperature change over 100 years would not be alarming." I just love it when amateur's who have not the slightest grasp of how a one degree change - not in local day-to-day weather - but of the global mean temperature for the whole planet, can have enormous consequences in terms of long-range, wide scale climate patterns.
I've heard the saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," but how much more dangerous when one pontificates outrageously silly opinions based on NO knowledge!
Hardtack continues: "particularly since we have no conclusive evidence as to the exact cause, or if humans can do anything about it one way or the other."
Another brazenly absurd statement considering the plethora of published, peer-reviewed papers that state the exact opposite, from people who actually do know something.

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 10:17 AM:Hardtack: The French have a term called "staircase humor" -- for things we remember or figure out late, as we climb the staircase for bed. Usually, it is something we SHOULD have said, and it happens to all of us.

Yes, we have had Global Warming for 20,000 years, and it continues. As it happens, that is good since we are "Out of Africa" -- not "Out of Iceland.'

Our race thrives on heat, although obviously we can get too much of a good thing. What we call "San Diego" has (geologically) been 10+ degrees warmer than it is today, and the ocean has risen past El Cajon.

We will adapt. Beware of those carrying a sign reading, “The end is nigh!’

They are religious nuts, but it is a new religion that we simply do not understand. Lucky for us, they do not practice serial child abuse like some religious fanatics.

Pretty in Pink wrote on May 2, 2008 10:17 AM:By definition according to a survey at Berkley of 1000 random people, those that came out with black and white views, were less flexible in their think and had poor logic were all found to be Republicans. How that fits Bush.

Apollo wrote on May 2, 2008 10:44 AM:Re: Reardon (10:17 a.m.)
For someone like Reardon, the people who had been warning for years that New Orleans was in urgent danger if it directly by a Cat-5 hurricane (including a huge article on the subject in National Geographic just a few months before the tragedy), and those who gave dire immediate warnings in the days right before it hit, would all have been dismissed as religious fanatics warning of the end of the world.
Basically Reardon just dismisses the legion of serious scientists as all being crackpots, while offering nothing better.
But over the last couple of days, it has been made clear why he is so obsessed with all things DDWiz, as the Wiz has masterfully exposed his habit of distorting facts and misrepresenting sources.
Please, give me the real scientists any time.

Alf wrote on May 2, 2008 10:48 AM:Yes, "Talk about PC" at 9:54AM, we are outraged. Regards, Alf.

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 10:52 AM:I saw nothing in your description of the oath to "... defend the state and federal constitutions against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..." that was religious in nature. It's more likely the purpose of the oath was accomplished since it weeded out someone who opposes our system of government. Your posting would be an excellent example of a "red herring" in the Newspapers In Education program -- how about submitting it as a "Letter To The Editor" for all to see?

Yokozuna to DD wrote on May 2, 2008 10:52 AM:Correct. We do not know each other personally offline. In fact, when I first started reading your blogs I figured you were 180 degrees from my opinions. However, after deciphering your real identity and visiting your website I found, gasp, that I actually agree with many of your premises (papers at least, haven't read the two books). Then I decided to cut the 180 degrees difference to 90. Just don't try to get the remaining 90. :-)

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 10:58 AM:I sure hope Reardon doesn't miss "The Global Warming Hoax-A-Thon" in today's Community Forum. One key point in the article is: not only do we have "politcal correctness", we now have "environmental correctness" as well!

Prez sez wrote on May 2, 2008 11:06 AM:Enjoyed the letter from Dwain Deets on alternative energy.
But I notice a spelling error that snuck past his spell-check and our esteemed editors.
The term "nook-yoo-lar" was misspelled "nuclear."
Anyone who has listened to our esteemed college edge-yoo-kated prezydent knows I'm right.

Er Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 11:06 AM:Go back and read the whole post about the fired professor...there is a line there about how this affects Quakers, etc. Comprende?

Oh reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 11:08 AM:My goodness what lengths you will go to. In the long term we die? Really? So rather than discuss this matter, you really would take the stand that it's a mistake to look at the longer term consequences of our actions? Really? Or are you just trying to find a way to spin Obama's intelligence into a flaw? And, of all things, in the name of helping the poor. LOL Hmmm, I wonder...

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 11:14 AM:The people who had been warning about the potential for problems in New Orleans were opposed tooth and nail by the environmentalists. The Army Corps of Engineers pressed for ten years to address the issue and were stopped in their tracks. Environmentalists are also opposing fresh water from a desalting plant in Carlsbad, the delivery of green energy over a proposed power line, and the reduction of vehicle emissions that would occur with freeway expansion.

Dont Bogart My Friend wrote on May 2, 2008 11:20 AM:I swore I'd take a few weeks off but I couldn't resist a peak. It was either this board or checking on the real news (or so they say). I'm happy to see new topics ie the letter from James Amorosa with responses and the PC deal from Alf and Talk about PC that must be a response from previous days. I AM OUTRAGED AS WELL!!!

Gotta go play pasture pool with my redneck friends.

Guess who?

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 11:23 AM:The requirement to support the constitution and defend it against all enemies is not religious in nature. There is nothing in either constitution that is religious either. What this means is there is no substance to a claim of a "religious objection".

Focal Point wrote on May 2, 2008 11:33 AM:FLOYD: "The Army Corps of Engineers – which is under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend – insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane."

DD Wiz wrote on May 2, 2008 11:43 AM:The post from "Floyd" (11:14am) follows the example of his buddy "Reardon" in changing the subject to avoid the actual issue.
Instead of responding to the point about ignoring valid warnings from qualified sources, he changes the subject to environmentalists opposing the changes.
And he even gets that wrong.
The National Geographic article referred to in the post from "Apollo" (10:44am) was from the October 2004 issue, page 92. The National Geographic, while maintaining a high standard of unbiased objectivity, is also one of the strongest pro-environmental groups in existence, and their warnings are hardly consistent with "Floyd's" absurd statement.
Likewise, his blanket statement about "environmentalists" opposing the Carlsbad desalination plant is equally off base. I think my environmental credentials are as solid as anyone's, and I don't oppose the plant, and I know other environmentalists that agree with me. I do acknowledge there are specific concerns that need to be addressed, but I don't consider them deal breakers. I disagree with the environmentalists who feel that the obstacles are insurmountable.
This misrepresentation, of course, is completely consistent with the misstatements that are constantly being thrown at us.

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 12:20 PM:Ah, yes, DD Wiz is begging the question again. The valid warnings in New Orleans from qualified sources weren't ignored -- solutions to the problem were actively opposed by the environmentalists, which is why the levees weren't beefed-up. In addition, opposition to the Carlsbad desalting plant has been coming from the environmentalists, regardless of DD Wiz's claims to the contrary.

Vista Granny wrote on May 2, 2008 12:28 PM:To: DD W: I've been in your home in Oceanside. I was on the Board of Directors in the Oceanside Demo Club many years ago. I am getting up in years, but am still quite gorgeous, great figure I hear. Know who I am now?

Oh Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 12:37 PM:Regarding the fired professor, I am once again amazed at how skilled you are at missing the point of something. Please go back and read the first post and see if, when you read it a third time, maybe slowly, you understand it. Good luck. (Or perhaps someone else can explain this to Floyd? I give up.)

Greenergy wrote on May 2, 2008 12:39 PM:Floyd at 12:20 p.m. continues to lump all environmentalists into one pot.
I have seen posts before from DDWiz in which he has expressed disagreement with those environmentalists who believe that the only way to support Mother Earth is to live a spartan, primitive existence.
I agree with Wiz that one can aspire to a pleasant and high-quality life while still living in harmony with nature.
I also agree with Wiz that the answer to perennial drought is to tap the virtually unlimited seawater reservoir that lies next to us, as long as it is done right.
I further agree with Wiz that Floyd does not have the slightest understanding of true environmentalism.

Chris wrote on May 2, 2008 1:20 PM:I would hope that the letter by James Amorosa would be a wake up call. You know there are plenty of people in the military that woudn't hesetate to kick in our doors in the middle of the night. They wouldn't hesitate to shoot us or torture us in some dungion. I can't empathise enough that there are many people in our government and miltiary that are just as sadistic as any that served under Hitler or Stalin. Under those regimes who do you think committed those attrocities. It was the good boys that went to the churches and the schools in the villages. But when they go into the military or were indoctrinated by the governmetn in other ways they turned on the people who were relatives or friends during their childhood. As I said the viciousness and vileness comming from the web site listed by Amorosa should be a wakeup call. Can't happen here? Oh really. I can write the letters I do and do the blogs because I have no illusions about the people who rule over us and how they can fire up the ignoramouses that live amoung us to show their PATIOTISM by becoming sadistic monsters.

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 1:20 PM:When prominent environmentalists such as the founder of Earth First! say things like "phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental", I believe I do have the slightest understanding of their goals and beliefs. Alas, I cannot give the link in this posting but if you search with Google for "environmentalism" you'll find it in one of the first three results.

Floyd wrote on May 2, 2008 1:24 PM:Here's the point: the professor is objecting on religious grounds, but there are no religious requirements involved in an oath to defend the constitution. There is no requirement to worship, no requirement to obey any religious authority, and no prohibition aimed at any particular religious group. If the oath required the support of a state-sponsored church, then there would be a basis for a religious objection. But it doesn't, so there isn't.

Oh Please wrote on May 2, 2008 1:51 PM:Floyd[-] wrote on May 2, 2008 1:24 PM: The
prof is not refusing to take the oath based on the content. It is against his religion to swear to anything. In fact, thee is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus advised not to swear by anything but to simply say yes when you mean yes and to say no when you mean no.

Greenergy wrote on May 2, 2008 1:59 PM:There he goes again! Floyd at 1:20 p.m. cites one environmental extremist and, yet again, lumps all environmentalists into the same pot.
This is about the same as if I cited the Christian Identity Movement, the KKK (whose crosses are self-described as Christian crosses), and even the FLDS and many other extremist cults and used that as the basis for condemning all Christians.
Taking one extreme instance and broadly extrapolating to cover anything that might possibly be construed to have any similarity, is very instructive of Floyd's reasoning methods, if you can call them that.
For the record, I do not agree that "phasing out of the human race will solve" anything.
I have stated my views, and they are consistent with other environmentalists here.
I understand that Floyd will simply deny our right to describe our own opinions, as he does with any "inconvenient truth."
As for searching "Google," Floyd shows again that he has no more understanding of how Google works (and how it ranks search results) than anything else he posts about.

Brittanicus wrote on May 2, 2008 2:00 PM:Immigration has direct massive negative consequences on today's and yesterdays economy. It is all encompassing your Jobs and economic growth, energy independence, health care access, education and an overcrowded prison system. All these issues are impacted by the 12 to 30 million illegal immigration invasion. This issue is all encompassing because illegal aliens are no longer taking jobs Americans wont do. Remember the new President will enact a massive AMNESTY, then that promotes an open-door for millions more to come; compliments of the Globalists.

A few states now are representing the American taxpayers, such as Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma and Rhode Island, instead of the special interest lobby. It's taken forty years of complete inattention or betrayal by Washington and timid Governors, Mayors and their lieutenants. Now they must face up to the fact that the majority of taxpayers are sick and tired, of being a welfare system for big business who hire cheap illegal labor.
Find out the unsuppressed truth at these websites: GRASSFIRE, NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH, LIBERTY POST, IMMIGRATION NEWS INDEXER, UNIPAC and VDARE.

GFN wrote on May 2, 2008 2:03 PM:Vista Granny...hmmmm...you just spiced up my day as I think I know who you are!!!

ASTEROID wrote on May 2, 2008 2:03 PM:RE: Hate list targets liberal NCT letter writers, by James Amorosa.Thank you for the heads up; just book-marked the site you mention. Let me allay your fears Chrissy; if there were any possibility of anyone doing the things you mention, your front door would have been dangling off it’s hinges years ago. You just keep reading and writing your al jazeerah and commy propaganda.

Antoine wrote on May 2, 2008 2:15 PM:yeah..no new city hall!

Answer for Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 2:21 PM:"Reardon
[-] wrote on May 2, 2008 9:37 AM:
So, who is right, Obama’s opposition to a gas tax holiday, or Hillary (McCain) supported gas tax proposal?
Right now, it would ease the strain on truckers, and therefore food prices for the poor. Given the choice of helping the poor or the government, Obama picks the government."

Roger Tauss, the International Vice President for the Transport Worker's Union, which supports Obama but would, nevertheless, stick to its issues, responds:

"It is crazy," he said. "There is a bunch of different reason it is crazy and all the economist are saying it is nuts. First of all it is pocket change and it doesn't do anything short term. It will just put more money in the oil companies pockets. It is typical Washington beltway crap. It is just like typical. They make a big fight over a small, nothing issue, and nothing will ever get done."

From Robert Shapiro, formerly the undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and the author of "Futurecast." An independent voice with ties to the former first lady, however, did not give the expected results.

"Stated as clearly as I can," he wrote, "it's utterly misguided both environmentally and economically. Environmentally, it does actual harm, since it reduces the price of producing greenhouse gases. And economically it's trivial or worse -- by reducing the price of driving it encourages more of it, thereby increasing demand for gasoline, which inevitably pushes the price back up - the consumer gains nothing, and the oil companies and OPEC collect the extra bucks instead of the government."

UPDATE: Even the American Trucking Association, the group the Clinton camp says is most favorable to it's idea, offers a tepid thanks but no thanks. From the group's spokesperson:

"ATA appreciates the effort and supports the proposals. But we do have concerns that any fuel tax suspension proposal could damage the already ailing Highway Trust Fund. To the extent that McCain and Snowe's proposals use general revenue funds to offset the hit to the trust fund, that concern is addressed. ATA did not ask for this legislation. And we believe it is only a very short term answer that does not do anything to address the longer term issue of rising fuel prices. ATA recognizes that rising fuel costs have a disproportionate impact on small trucking companies where even a small savings can be the difference in their staying in business."

Clinton, it should be noted, would not pay for the tax break from the Highway Trust Funds. But the message seems the same: this is not the answer needed.

DD Wiz wrote on May 2, 2008 2:26 PM:The post from "Vista Granny" (12:28pm) does narrow the choices, but I still know several very lovely liberal ladies who would fit that description, all made ever the moreso by their liberalism and the seasonings of time and wisdom.
I'm glad this helps clear things up for "GFN" (2:03pm), but that raises questions, too, as I'm not sure who "GFN" is -- also from the Democratic Club of Carlsbad-Oceanside???

Oh Mike wrote on May 2, 2008 2:45 PM:I never cease to be amused when I hear people accuse "liberals" (or anyone) of being in tune with communists AND terrorist Islamists. Could there be ideologies that have less to agree about than communism and religious fundamentalism? Accusing people of somehow subscribing to both only shows that the accuser is working from some vague clearinghouse of stored propaganda under the heading "Bad people" and assuming that anyone that disagrees with them believes whatever is in that clearinghouse. Why anyone would want to publicize their own ignorance is beyond me, but I do appreciate the silliness of it when I see it.

Alf wrote on May 2, 2008 3:11 PM:To All,
I'm going to the Rennaissance Pleasure Faire one day this weekend and will concentrate real hard on Festivities, Food, Fun, Food and Bountiful, Buxom, Bouncing Bodacious Babes. Regards, Alf.

Chris to Asteroid wrote on May 2, 2008 3:19 PM:Reading your blog for 2:03 Pm I see that you still have nothing to say. Just more blather.

sdraoul wrote on May 2, 2008 3:21 PM:“Britannicus” and Gary Walker continue to spread misinformation. Britannicus because he mentions 30-million illegals (an estimate from the bankrupt and total failure, Bears Stearns). Gary Walker when he spouts drivel about massive violent crimes by illegals.

Neither offers proof of their statements or facts of any sort. They only offer ignorant bigotry.

If there are 2-3,000,000 illegals in California, why is murder way down, Why are other violent crimes down in state and local statistical rates? In fact, LA no longer has record murder rates and the rates that do exist are disproportionately committed by LA minority Blacks, not Hispanics or by illegals.

Walker and Britannicus have newspaper clippings, anecdotes which are what newspaper clips are. They have no official proof of their gratuitous assertions.

Walker's complaint about the NC TIMES not headlining violent crime by illegals is invalid.

Consider this: “IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS” is a common phrase among news media. If there was a massive violent crime wave, the front pages would be splattered (pardon the pun) with blood, especially if the perpetrators had Spanish surnames.

The proof Walker is wrong is in the lack of blood splatter on the front page which proves my point. If there was a murder a day, a week or even a month by illegals it would be all over every newspaper and TV news program.

Just look at the emotional outbursts that occur when one murder by an illegal happen. Imagine what would happen if there was one a month or one a week.

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 3:29 PM:No, not all liberal environmentalists are equal, and yes they all get tarred with the same broad brush. The enviro nuts are an albatross around their necks, just as some religious nuts are an albatross around conservative necks.

It is up to conservatives to get rid of their nuts and it is necessary for liberals to get rid of their nuts. Opposition from the known opposition is too easily discounted. When your putative friends wink and nod the madness continues. When your putative friends say, “KNOCK IT OFF,” all except the dead-enders listen.

The Republican treatment of David Duke did not end his outrageous activity, but it ended his influence.

To Chris wrote on May 2, 2008 3:40 PM:Your first post was not until 1:20 PM today. Wouldn't the orderlies give you your computer any earlier?

Yokozuna to Alf wrote on May 2, 2008 3:49 PM:Have fun at the fair. Do you enter the photo contest? If so you can write off your trip.

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 4:12 PM:Yes, most liberal programs end up hurting the poor – unintentionally, of course, but results count much more than intentions.

We have an immediate fuel price problem – actually, the poor do. Most of us don’t give a tinkers. Hillary, Obama, and John have not pumped a gallon in decades.

And, yes, a tax holiday – particularly if it was a complete tax holiday (sales, local, state and federal0 would have an immediate impact. About $0.75 a gallon. That is impressive.

The Tom Friedman column yesterday had a great quote: “Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Unless we have managed to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand, he is nearly right. (Actually we, Canada and Mexico all produce most of our energy.) We need to increase supply and decrease demand. Decreasing demand means educating 300 million people – while increasing supply means educating 60 Senators.

In difficulty, that task is about equal. I just saw a great video on politicians who lease personal cars and have their insurance and gasoline paid by the taxpayers. (Fortunately that is local pols, see the Richard Rider column in this newspaper, and members of the house but not the Senate.)

The medium range solution is drilling for the oil beneath our feet. Solar-powered cars in Minnesota are a few years away.

Drill!

The long-range solution is renewable power. Scientific American ran a plan last December showing that it would take “only” 30,000 square MILES of photovoltaic cells to provide billions of watts of power, ASSUMING 16.5 percent efficiency – currently available not even in the lab.

Jumping right to photovoltaic is not feasible – and the object is to minimize the pain in the meanwhile. That means diminishing taxes on gas for a brief time, announcing drilling to keep the price down, and planning for photovoltaic in the long run.

Reardon surely you jest wrote on May 2, 2008 4:29 PM:Reardon says, "most liberal programs end up hurting the poor". Really? Let's look at the turn of the 20th C., then, when liberalism was microscopic. Unions were weak, at best. Child labor. Sweat shops. No required public education to speak of. Then along came those liberals. Public education got more funding and child labor laws were introduced. Sweat shops declined. Unions brought bargaining power to the working person. Women got the vote. Social security was introduced. The civil rights movement won true citizenship for African-Americans. Yep, those liberal programs sure did hurt the poor, didn't they? What would the poor have ever done without conservatives?

Ms M wrote on May 2, 2008 4:32 PM:Reardon
[-] wrote on May 2, 2008 4:12 PM:...um Reardon, McCain was the first to offer the "gas tax holiday". It was the liberal Obama who is against it.

An interesting trend wrote on May 2, 2008 4:39 PM:From the AP QUOTE COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio's attorney general admitted an extramarital affair with an employee Friday, soon after three of his aides were fired or forced out after an investigation found evidence of sexual harassment and other misconduct.
Leaders of both parties were critical of Attorney General Marc Dann, one of several Democrats swept into office in 2006 after a scandal over state investments sullied Republicans. He apologized to his wife and supporters but promised not to step down. ENDQUOTE Once again we find that Democrats can't resist sins of straight sex while Republicans can't resist sins involving money. I know, there are exceptions on both sides, but I wonder if this overall trend tells us about the two parties. Insstead of Blue and Red, maybe we should be talking about Lust and Greed states. As a Democrat, I find it fascinating.

Vista City Hall wrote on May 2, 2008 4:41 PM:The needs of the central and north part of Vista are so vast and great how do they even know where to begin? Yup, the current City Hall is really horrible, so are many of the residential streets, the weed abatement, whew, not to mention large trash items spewed around, couches are my favorite! Neighborhoods that have so many needs it'll make your toes curl. They are beginning here shortly to put in an island median on Escondido Ave, to what purpose? So it looks pretty? I think the City of Vista needs to backtrack a little and go over their priorities. It's so massive and there are so many legitimate areas that need attention now, I pitty them. Where do they begin? I guess ya gotta start somewhere.

As far as amendment #4 which puts residential neighborhoods into the redevelopment? I don't support it unless they put it in a written guarantee that they will actually come into precise neighborhoods and fix the infrastructure. Empty promises I can do without.

DD Wiz wrote on May 2, 2008 6:27 PM:The post from "Vista Granny" (12:28pm) provided some "hints" as to her identity, and I noted in my post at 2:26pm that her description would match several people I know.
But what I had failed to do was to take into consideration her earlier comment at 7:00am in which she mentioned that she was also on the infamous list.
So I looked over the list of entrants for Vista, finding many cherished friends among them, but of the several lovely liberal grannies I had in mind, only one was on the "list" so, that being the case, I do think I know who you are, Vista Granny, and yes, you have been a great friend and long-time loyal Democrat, and lovely doesn't even begin to describe you!
Now -- who could "GFN" be? Hint please, did you make the list?

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 6:38 PM:Ms. M: There is nothing in my 4:12 that disagrees with what you said at 4:32. Do you have a reading problem, or a comprehension problem?

McCain and Hillary support changing the gasoline tax for immediate relief. Obama opposes doing so.

Moroni wrote on May 2, 2008 6:53 PM:Morris, you should be excommunicated for the shame you bring down upon our ward!

Nephi

SOLON wrote on May 2, 2008 6:57 PM:… Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering and refusing to support the McCain proposal to discontinue the gas tax for the summer. First, if it is discontinued just for the summer, when it is restored, the Republicans will start their bellyaching that the Democrats are raising taxes. More fundamentally, the removal of the tax will never affect the price of gasoline. The removal will simply create a tiny vacuum, which the oil corporations will immediately fill with higher prices and higher profits. As Thomas Friedman just wrote, “This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.”


Here's what's scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage - gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars - and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage - new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Our energy problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage - gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars - and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage - new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

hardtack wrote on May 2, 2008 7:13 PM:Reardon: So it’s “staircase humor,” is it? It seems like I have been “enjoying” that a lot lately.

Can’t tell you how embarrassing that is for an engineer (retired). I think, some places where I worked, would call a gaffe like that: “pink slip humor” ... or, at least., “name off the promotion list.”

Kind regards. Have a good evening.

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 7:23 PM:To Surely You Jest: Yes, I would argue that liberals hurt the poor – and I offer as a evidence the welfare program before changes, and as witness I offer the late BIG LIBERAL James Patrick Moynihan who wrote entire books on the subject.

It broke up millions of poor families, established a government plantation for the poor and hurt them terribly.
But, as bad as it was – and even after changes it is better but not good – nothing, absolutely NOTHING matches the deaths, DEATHS of 20 million African children from the banning of DDT.

The union problem is not dissimilar to the Ethanol problem – born of good intentions, and once successful, remain to cause unintended consequences. TODAY, the rust belt is the result of union policies, and that hurts the poor – unless the poor are willing to move to absolutely BOOMING manufacturing plants in Right-to-Work (non-union) states!

Before I even get to the current Ethanol kerfuffle that certifiably hurts the poor, lets go to MTBE, which was taken off the market because it hurt everyone – but MTBE was a replacement for lead, which hurt everyone. (Lots of OOPS.)

But the OOPS GROUP wanted Ethanol, which was used as a no-knock replacement for MTBE, which was…well, you know…to be used not just for anti-knocking, but to be increased (substantially) to be used as a replacement for gasoline.

You know the impact on the poor, but if you don’t, check the UN.

And, believe me you don’t want to talk about the benefits of public education, where everyone is fleeing as quickly as financial circumstances permit. That particularly hurts the poor, who can’t flee and liberals keep them there by defeating vouchers! In fact, the largest single group that sends their children to private schools -- public school teachers! THEY KNOW!

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 7:37 PM:Ms. M: Why can't you take yes for an answer?

I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE...

(More on request.)

Reardon wrote on May 2, 2008 8:41 PM:Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Reardon needs to fact check before hitting the "send" button.

Defender of Truth Justice and the American Way wrote on May 2, 2008 8:58 PM:Navy Capt. D.A. Johnson's website is more than ignorant and hateful. It is a cause for concern. I have forwarded his website to security expert Gavin De Becker for threat analysis.

Carol wrote on May 2, 2008 9:28 PM:To James Amorosa:
Come to the next North County Forum Letters Night (held every January or early Feb.) and meet about 160 North County people who are on the captain's list and damn proud of it.

Chris to to Chris wrote on May 2, 2008 9:58 PM:You see I have a life outside of blogging and beside I need time to educate myself before I come out here and spread a bunch of misinformation. Maybe you and others ought to try it.

Oh Reardon wrote on May 3, 2008 12:55 PM:So your strategy for showing that liberals hurt the poor is to pick a policy and either find something in it that has such consequences or wait, indefinitely if necessary, for something to turn. In other words, no policies cannot hurt the poor. Before the days of unions, would you say the conservative "no union" policy helped the poor? Would you say that having no agency with the charge of inspecting foods and drugs helped the poor? Would you say that even now, with the state of education, the poor are hurt more than they were when they just went to work, full time, at age 8? Oh, Reardon, you should try playing with a deck that you don't stack sometime. LOL

Reardon wrote on May 3, 2008 6:23 PM:To Oh: Liberals make it easy to pick apart their programs because liberals rely on ideology rather than common sense.

Common sense would dictate that when the plan turns south, you end or modify the plan! You might think that after the first, say MILLION Africans (just under the age of 5) DIED, liberals MIGHT reconsider their plan!
Nope! We are at 20 million and counting!

Unions solved the outrageous problems they were needed for – and now like The March of Dimes, they continue. At least the March of Dimes still has a purpose – unions are driving their people to ruin! (Check the foreign auto plants in the South!)

Liberals KNOW that Blacks suffer grossly from inner-city schools, and survey after survey have shown that Blacks WANT vouchers. Liberals REFUSE to help poor Blacks because in spite of the failure of their system design, Liberals are driven by ideology!

Not results!

Liberals hate the poor! Results demonstrate that, clearly.