OBAMACAN wrote on May 10, 2008 8:53 PM:Poor Garth Gregory Hansen. His letter shows him to have a naive understanding of what "true" and "false" means to Republicans.
Yes, he is completely correct that the ad showing actual video footage of McCain saying it is OK to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, is factually accurate. It is actual video footage! He is further correct that Republicans are sniveling and whining about it and calling it "false."
Of course, by Republican standards, it is false. They look at their own real whoppers like Willie Horton or the Swift Boats or McCain's black baby, and these Democratic ads don't even begin to compare. What kind of real attack ad is this, when it doesn't even bend the truth even a bit? You call that an attack ad? To Republicans, this is a FALSE attack ad - it doesn't even lie or exaggerate the way a good "true" Republican attack ad would do! To Republicans, these "false" attack ads that can't even bend themsleves to tell even a teensy white lie are a disgrace to the field they pioneered. And by their standards of deceit and distortion, they don't measure up at all - they are definitely "false"!

George McGovern (long-time Clinton supporter):
It is now time for our party to "...concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November."

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope.

Ron wrote on May 10, 2008 10:29 PM:You know, sometimes these lib's can really get on your nerves. What with the lies and all. John McCain did say it would be "Fine by him" if the United States was in Iraq for next 100 years. Just as we have been in Germany & Japan since the end of World War II. Meaning... we would mimick the exact policy we have successfully enjoyed in both former enemy countries, Germany & Japan. Now, apparently this concept is a bit too complicated for some people like Garth Gregory Hansen. These folk like to constantly refer to this as: "McCain's 100-year war." Which is inaccurate.
I've said this before, but it is worth repeating. As we have all seen with the Democrat primary, these guy's count people by the color of their skin. They constantly talk about "the Black" vote, or "the Hispanic vote", or "the white female" vote.. it's simply their way of looking at the world. They do not see people, as people. They see race, they see ethnicity, they see gender, they see all the things they hope to use to divide people.
In Iraq, it is particularly disappointing that they would see these brown skinned people as savages, and less than an American. Yet, out of the other side of their mouth, you will hear all the leftist pap & hype about "WE are the World", and all that other nonsense. It's simply not what they believe. I mean... look at their actions. They want to help defeat both the American military, and doom the Iraq people by placing them at the mercy of a terrorist state like Iran.
Now, in my book, that's not love for one's brother. That's sticking his neck in the noose so you can cut out, and save your own skin.
And if you really want to know what our enemies think, check out some of the Arab media outlets. The very terrorists who want to kill us, are openly voicing their candidate of choice. And it is Barack Obama. When your enemies say openly say They perfer Barack Obama over any other candidate, you have got to ask the question, Why? It is because he says he believes Iraq should be handed over to the terrorist, by default.
Now, many leftists have said George Bush gave Bin Laden what he really wanted, a war. If that is true, then why are they now calling for an end to the war? A War where we are kicking the "you know what" out of these guy's.

sdraoul wrote on May 10, 2008 10:42 PM:Obamacan is really funny. McCain said we could be in Iraq for a 100 years--then he said as logn as there wren't any casualties.

The MoveOn ad claims he said he is willing to "war" for a 2100 years and he didn't say that. The ad and anyone who defends it are not telling the truth.

Besides, did Clinton pull our troops out of Germany where they have been for 63 years, or Korea wher ethey have been for 58 years, or Clinton's Bosnia occupation that he claimed would only alst a year and it is now over ten years?

As far as Willie Horton, it was Al Gore who introduced the world to Willie Horton, nto the GOP.

As for Swift Boating, sorry ObmamaFanatic, but there was plenty of truth in the Swift Boat Veterans campaign. There is proof:

Senator Kerry still has not allowed the U.S. Navy to release his entire Navy Record--unlike McCain whose total Navy record was released the other day.

Not a single officer who served with McCain, or served time in the Hanoi Hilton has charged McCain with any criminal or conduct unbecoming as Kerry was by 21 officers he served with.

Neither Willie Horton or the Swift Boat campaign was funded or controlled by the GOP.

In the current case, the DNC and MoveOn.org are collaborating tos mear John McCain.

Take your pick, community organizer or Naval aviator, combat veteran Silvar Star awardee who didn't write up his medal awards like John Kerry did.

sdraoul wrote on May 10, 2008 10:43 PM:George McGovern, lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.

Alf wrote on May 11, 2008 5:53 AM:I like the letter by Garth Gregory Hansen. The U.S. cannot remain in Iraq or, worse yet, invade Iran without suffering complete economic melt-down and complete loss of our ability to defend ourselves elsewhere in the world. McGWB's insistance that we continue this insanity in Iraq shows that he does not care about our military and our economy. Regards, Alf.

Brilliant Reg George wrote on May 11, 2008 5:58 AM:Sure Reg that is a great idea lets get Blackwater out there to secure our borders that is just what we need crazed vigilantes who do not have to be accountable for their actions!!! As far as people on unemployment and welfare geez man don't you know that sometimes people hit hard times and need those services!!! Why don't you get out there and pick our fruits and vegetables and garbage. Just remember one thing Reg but for the grace of God there go I.

To Judy Holston wrote on May 11, 2008 6:06 AM:Hey Judy perhaps all those people you say need housing can just buy one of those homes that has repossessed.

to Ron wrote on May 11, 2008 6:20 AM:Ron, it will never be a peaceful occupation of Iraq if we're there for 100 years. As long as our troop presence is there, our country will be seen as occupiers and targets. Our troops did a fantastic job of quickly toppling Saddam's government. Unfortunately there was no reality based plan as to what to do next. We are never going to be seen as liberators, and we continue to dump billions of dollars into their country while our economy suffers.

And lets not pretend for a second that you care about the well being of the Iraqi people. Our attack on a country that was never a threat to us has killed thousands of civilians, and there are millions more still to this day displaced from their homes. If our occupation were a success, Iraqi citizens would return from neighboring countries where they live as refugees. Bush's war has been a complete failure.

What did Iraq have to do with Osama Bin Laden? NOTHING. But yeah. Unfortunately we are giving Bin Laden what he really wanted: war. In his view, he toppled the Soviet Union by bankrupting them in Afghanistan. He sees victory in bankrupting our country in Iraq. When is Bin Laden going to be brought to justice? do you even care that 7 years after 9/11 that we have no plans to find him, and barely seem to even care about catching him? The man in charge of the group responsible for killing thousands of U.S. civilians, and you turn a blind eye to the fact that we aren't looking for him. He is not in Iraq, so please explain how we are kicking anything but ourselves.

Oh ROn wrote on May 11, 2008 7:52 AM:The reason the terrorists would say they prefer Obama is because they know that the American right would use this against him so that Mccain would win. George Bush was the best thing that ever happened to bin Laden, and al Qaeda wants four more years. Isn't it obvious?

Chuck wrote on May 11, 2008 8:38 AM:I see the usuals are out protesting the display of military equipment on Oceanside beach. They are the same protesters who praise Russia's May Day show of might. They are the same protesters who demand removal of all Christian symbolism during Christmas time parades, yet, they demand their civil rights to prance on floats in the same parade wearing only leather g-stings and rainbow tu-tu's. Thats right, its the SB777 crowd and their ilk

Mike wrote on May 11, 2008 8:56 AM:sdraoul is correct! The same country that elected his hero, George W. Bush, to two terms also chose Richard Nixon over George McGovern.

sdraoul is also correct that John McCain was speaking of 100+ years of occupation in Iraq, not 100+ years of war. Pax Americana currently has 725 millitary bases in 130 foreign countries. John McCain is advocating for a whole lot more of the same.

While sdraul regards any documentary which doesn't tell him what he wants to hear as rubish, would be interesting to hear what those of you who can, and do, think have to say about Eugene Jarecki's "Why We Fight".

Alf wrote on May 11, 2008 8:58 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 8:38AM, you are in your usual fine form. Regards, Alf

Mike wrote on May 11, 2008 9:01 AM:Ron at 10:29 quips: "I've said this before, but it's worth repeating..."

It's not.

Please don't.

Yokozuna to Brilliant George wrote on May 11, 2008 9:08 AM:Just a quick clarification and a question. The Blackwater employees are not really crazed vigilantes, they are paid employees (whether or not they are "crazed" would probably best be determined by a psychiatrist). Some people are really fortunate to have their station in life determined by the grace of God. Why do you think God doesn't like the others?

Alf wrote on May 11, 2008 9:11 AM:The letter from Avista Bee strikes home. Before we sold our lower parcel we received a weed abatement notice every year and would knock down the weeds to prevent a "running fire" as required. Invariably, while driving to the mountains or elsewhere, we would see much of the land adjacent to the roads with tall, dry weeds just waiting for a source of ignition and wonder 'Why do we have to abate OUR weeds when these other people (or government?) seemingly do not?'. It is a question that deserves an answer. Regards, Alf.

Cindi wrote on May 11, 2008 9:23 AM:Rest assured the bus will still go to the Wild Animal Park. It just will not go beyond the Wild Animal Park if NCTD gets its way. This means that those in Ramona won't be able to go anywhere,even every two hours, and as far as I can see there are no other options for us to travel other than to impose on family and friends. I hope as many as possible will come to the meeting. I know of other bus companies who require their employees to use public transportation to get back and forth to work. These particular systems work beautifully.

DD Wiz wrote on May 11, 2008 9:25 AM:The post from "sdraoul" (10:42pm) is another glaring of either lack of knowledge on something he goes spouting off about or outright lies, not sure which, though since the widely spread talk-radio propaganda about the Willie Horton ad starting with Al Gore has been repeateadly debunked in this forum, it does raise more questions about "sdraoul's" posting habits.
Let's see -- the same people who don't want to give Gore credit for his rightful role in making the Internet a reality, want to pass along a widespread MYTH about Al Gore "inventing" Willie Horton.

In a primary debate that included Dukakis, Gore responded to a general question about prison policy by making a general comment about the furlough policy in Massachussets, where Dukakis had been governor, and which was the only state whose furlough program included prisoners who had sentences of life without parole. He did not mention any specific instance, nor did he Willie Horton by name. 
In May 1988, AFTER Gore had locked up the nomination, the conservative Reader's Diget ran an article about the Massachussets program, introducing the specific case of Willie Horton and noting that Democratic nominee Dukakis had been the governor. Bush communications guru Lee Atwater picked it up and blew it up (and way out of proportion to any role by Dukakis in the specific case), which he later admitted (on his deathbed) that he had moral regrets about. 
But Al Gore never cited the specific instance nor did he mention the name of Willie Horton.
And of course, unable to run against the current presumed Democratic nominee, "sdraoul" is going to try to run against John Kerry by citing his desire to have his medical privacy respected. He ignores the fact that Kerry was a legitimate war hero, risking his life and taking multiple hits to head directly into enemy fire to save the life of one of his men in mortal danger. In contrast, as has been mentioned here before, all McCain did was fail to complete his mission, get shot down and lose a multi-million dollar piece of equipment, and manage to stay alive under admittedly harsh conditions. Courageous, yes. Heroic, no. Kerry chose to expose himself to danger to save someone else. McCain was a victim of circumstance (his own mission failure) who managed to save himself.
Once again we see a perfect example of the inaccuracies and outright hate speech propaganda that emanate from the keyboard of "sdraoul."

Alf wrote on May 11, 2008 9:29 AM:While the letter from Leon Smith says he would like to see "a Congressional Caucasian Caucus in both political parties", it can't happan as long as it is virtually illegal to have a "caucasian" anything (racist) or "male" anything (sexist), but just peachy to have a "black" or "Hispanic" or "female" anything. It's OK and socially acceptable to have a "womens only" school, but discriminatory to have a "mens only" school. What's fair for the gander is not fair for the goose, right? Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on May 11, 2008 9:31 AM:>>>Well, "Chuck" at 8:38AM, you are in your usual fine form. Regards, Alf>>>

Just trying to keep the board "fair and balanced"

Chuck wrote on May 11, 2008 9:35 AM:I'm guessing that the minister who perfrmed the Bush wedding in Texas yesterday is not one to preach "G-D America, troop hate, Jew hate and general America hate, as the preacher who married the Hussein Obama's and baptized their kids. (But of course Hussein knew nothing about his preachers total racist hate)

Karl wrote on May 11, 2008 9:38 AM:Alf @ 9:11 AM:

Alf, I serve on a voluntary committee that arbitrates and rules on disagreements between the city and the public on city ordinances and code compliance. We had a case about 10 years ago that the homeowner did not comply with the weed abatement after several notices. The Fire Department contracted out the abatement and sent the poor guy a large bill. What I learned from that case is this particular ordinace was written directed at the public. Nowhere in the ordinace is weed abatement directed at publicly held land.

The same can be said for building code compliance. As somewhat of an expert in all building codes I can walk into any City Hall (including new ones) and find a miriad of code violations.

The philosophy of "do as I say not as I do" is in affect here.

Don't even get me started on municipal employees that do not pay into Social Security or only work every other Friday. I have first hand knowledge on this one as my wife is a recipient of this great pension plan and Friday off plan.

Karl wrote on May 11, 2008 9:43 AM:You're doing a fine job Chuck and the jocularity isn't half bad either.

Roger wrote on May 11, 2008 9:55 AM:Chuck at 8:38 AM made unflattering reference to my rainbow tu tu. I'm deaply hurt.

sdraoul wrote on May 11, 2008 10:02 AM:Leon smith's historical knowledge is faulty especially for a lawyer.

When the entire Congress was a Caucasian Caucus (except for one black Republican from Chicago) it managed to slam the door shut on Italian Catholics, Russian/Polish Jews and Greek Orthodox by prohibiting immigration to the USA by these groups with an immigration act in 1924.

Their ethnic bigoted tool: quotas. They passed a law prohibiting these Italians, Russians, Poles and Greeks by the simple method of limiting immigration by these people to one percent of their US population in 1890.

If Leon Smith researches the Italian, Russian, Polish and Greek American communities in 1890 he'll find out there weren't any to speak of or enough to count.

The Congressional Caucasian Caucus (of the whole) was smart to hide racism and bigotry by using 1890 quotas. Quite devilish I'd say.

So, if you are descendent from Italians, Russians, Poles, Jewish and otherwise, plus from Greeks, root Leon Smith and his supporters on. Maybe his Congressional Caucasian Caucus will deport anyone who can’t show ancestors who were resident in the USA in 1890. That would only leave Smith and me, lots of Smiths and lots of Contreras’.

Ron wrote on May 11, 2008 10:12 AM:In response to my good buddy wizzer
{May 10} @10:18 PM, baloney.
What have I told you about these leftist Democrats? You have to be careful when they start talking about taxes, budgets, and tax credits. Now my buddy just did this, he says:
"Ron admits that those earning less than $39,000 (in 1993 dollars) had their taxes cut, and those earning almost up to $100,000 had no change in their taxes."
Now, wizzer knows darn well what I'm talking about with the $3,000 variable.
Under the 1990 Omnibus bill where "Read My Lips" George Bush senior violated his tax pledge with a Democrat Congress, & raised taxes on the American people. Under the Bush 1/Democrat bill those who made less than $36,000 a year paid 15%, those who made more paid 28%, up to $86,000. After that, all incomes over $86K paid 31%. Under the Clinton plan, the 15% bracket was boosted so the salary range was raised to $39,000, a $3,000 difference. What I said was, if you were lucky enough to stay down below the $39K range, then you got the "tax cut." Most people didn't. Now, what Clinton & the Democrats did do, is to create two new tax rates, a 35% & a 39.5%. If you made between $86K and up to $200K, then you were in the new 35% rate. If you made over $200K, you were at the 39.5% rate. But, the middle-class "tax cut's" they bragged about were those who made less than $39K, which captured so few, it wasn't worth anything.
At the time, it was "the biggest tax increase in history", after Billy Bob campaigned he would not raise taxes on the lower or middle class.
And think about all those two income families who made between $86K and up for a second. They all got a tax increase, from 31% to the new 35% rate. Are these "the Rich" ole Billy Bob was talking about? Heck, that pay range captures most teachers. In fact, most two income families make about that range. So tell me wizzer about this "no change?"

Nick wrote on May 11, 2008 10:14 AM:Speaking of Caucuses, let's take a look at the Congressional Black Caucus, who do not let any "white" folks join.

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American."

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only six years old.

"Half my Democratic constituents were African American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African Americans."

[Source-By: Josephine Hearn
January 22, 2007 01:01 PM EST.
Josephine Hearn covers the House for Politico. She previously covered lobbying and later House Democrats for The Hill. Prior to that, she worked in television on two PBS Frontline documentaries and at NBC Network News]

Ron wrote on May 11, 2008 10:26 AM:Then my good buddy wizzer says: "What both "Ron" and "sdraoul" disingenuously fail to mention, is the wide variety of tax credits..."
No, your wrong wizzer, I did mention these "tax credits." Just look at my
post from May 10, @10:26 AM.
QUOTE: "And you really gotta do some research when the old wizzer @8:02 PM starts talking about taxes under Bill Clinton.
Like all radical leftists, they love "targeted tax cuts." In short, a targeted tax cut is permission to pay less tax if you do what they tell you to do. As opposed to what Bush did, an across-the-board tax cut. In the Bush version, he simply gave you back more of your own hard earned money with no strings attached. In the Clinton/liberal/progressive/or whatever else they are calling themselves today's scheme.. you do what THEY tell you do to, then you'll get the break. If you don't, you don't get the break. Period.
People like wiz think this is a good idea, and the way to go. Why? Cause like all lib's, they know better than you how to spend your own money. They can't help it, they just know more, are smarter, and clearly in their minds, you don't know squat. You need their help to figuire out yur own life." END QUOTE
So, I have addressed this, and you have constantly stated you favor "targeted tax cut's", meaning the government shall decide which economic behavior they see as beneficial, and only those will they grant a tax break. It is a form of behaviorial hoop-jumping, forcing you to do something in order to receive the credit. Of course, like all liberals, they love this kind of strings attached stuff. And it is because they think most people, most Americans are stupid. they are just too dumb to figuire things out. It is this very superiorist attitude I've been speaking to. They know best, and they will instruct you.
Wizzer blathers on about it "being good" for families and others. But, let me ask you this. If you couldn't do what the government was telling you to do, like say.. go to college to get a pitance $10K per year "targeted tax cut", then you never realized the cut.
And let's all not forget, that "targeted tax cut" was very specific, it could only be used towards tuition costs, not dorms, or food, or gas, or parking, or any of the other expenses most colleges require. See what I mean? It was speficially "targeted" to capture fewer people, so the government's take was higher. But, this is how lib's operate. They try to sell you this lemon, telling you it's the cat's meow, then you find out.. this expense does not qualify, this expense does not qualify, until your down to the point where you get nothing back.
But, they will sell you by slick marketing & packaging how good it is for you, all the while knowing it's really about making you feel good, while reaching deeper into your wallet.
If you really wanted kids to go to school, you'd flat line all the expenses. Dorm, gas, parking, books, etc. You make it as easy as you can so they can get as close to a "free" education as is possible. But... that's not what they did.

Dont have to smear McCain wrote on May 11, 2008 10:27 AM:On 60 Minutes in 1997, John McCain said that he was a war criminal, that he dropped bombs on innocent women and children. Maybe this clip will be played as often as Rev Wright's. McCain wasn't saying that he should be punished, of course. American bombers never deserve punishment. Why only last week we learned that no Blackwater personnel were prosecuted and that their contracts were renewed. It's nice to be an American approved by the administration. Above the law, anywhere in the world, unaccountable for your actions. Yes, life will be good under President McCain, a real hero.

fair and unbalanced wrote on May 11, 2008 10:33 AM:It IS good to see Chuck back in town. And he's right, being the voice to balance those who are rational and honest. Chuck's posts are always wonderful boosters for liberals when any reader compares the two. Thanks, Chuck, and keep those puppies coming.

DD Wiz wrote on May 11, 2008 10:35 AM:The post from "Ron" (10:12am) confirms for the second time my point. Thank you, again, "Ron" for this repeated affirmation.
As "Ron" noted, there was a huge tax reduction on the first $39,000 of income. This tax reduction applied to EVERYONE, not just those whose entire income was in that layer. As "Ron" always forgets to remind us, the progressive tax rates only applies to portions of income in the respective brackets.
So everyone making $39,000 or less in 1993 dollars ("Ron" conveniently forgets to factor in inflation), had a huge reduction on their entire income. Those earning from $39,000 to $86,000 had a huge reduction on the first big chunk of income, and no change on the rest, so they still got a big tax reduction, depending on how close their total income was to the $39,000 cutoff point.
Those earning more than $86,000 (again, this is in 1993 dollars) had a small increase only on the portion of income over $86,000, and those over $200K had a larger increase only on the portion of income over $200K. But again, since EVERYONE got the primary level rate reduction, you really had to learn a lot to have seen your total tax bill go up, so the complaints by "Ron" and "sdraoul" that I was responding to show either total ignorance of how progressive tax rates work, or that they circulate in a very elite crowd of those who are doing the best, yet instead of getting down on their knees and thanking god for how well they are doing, all they can do is whine, whine, whine. Nothing worse than a whiny, complaining rich person who can't even enjoy the opportunities they have been blessed with.
And, of course, for the third time, "Ron" simply ignores the larger point about the targeted tax credits to further reduce taxes for the lower and middle classes, and Bush's later tax cuts being offset by user fees aimed at that same core group, as well as additional costs to offset government cutbacks, and consumer costs due to preferential treatment by sweetheart deals for cronies in Big Oil and Big Pharma, while being socked by lower incomes due to job outsourcing to offshore companies that could have been limited by trade policy and enforcing taxes on offshore companies with principal operations in the United States.
Again, "Ron" is either ignorant of these issues or disingenuous in misrepresenting them.

Curious wrote on May 11, 2008 10:39 AM:If "libs" is an appropriate way to refer to "liberals" would "cons" be appropriate for "conservatives"?

Yokozuna wrote on May 11, 2008 10:46 AM:We don't hear a lot about Obama's heritage regarding his white mother. Where are all the racists from both groups decrying his parent's mix race union? Why is he always referred to as "black". Is there no politically correct term for offspring of an inter-racial couple? How do we pigeon hole that group of people for undeserved generality discussions as we do with other groups of people: conservatives, lawyers, liberals, illegals, religious affiliations,etc.

OBAMACAN wrote on May 11, 2008 11:00 AM:Yokozuna at 10:46 a.m. notes the inadequacy of comment about Obama's white mother.
And this is true, notwithstanding the recent artcile about her syndicated in the North County Times by Ellen Goodman (in honor of Mother's Day - greetings to all the Moms).

One note, among her diverse European background, there is a village in Ireland that traces one of her ancestors to there. They have a sign up honoring the fact that he has an Irish ancestor, only in the sign they spell his name the Irish way, "O'bama." (Not kidding.)

George McGovern (long-time Clinton supporter):
It is now time for our party to "...concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November."

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope.

Reardon wrote on May 11, 2008 11:28 AM:Everyone in an argument sets focus on whatever data supports their argument, and conveniently ignores that data that supports their opponent. No one has an obligation to be “balanced” but rather to present THEIR best argument.

Opponents never answer their opponents – they stress THEIR data. That is the method of debate and it is a reasonable method because both sides usually have some rationality to their position.

Unfortunately, some people, like DD, continue to call names – and accuse their opponent: X “is either ignorant of these issues or disingenuous in misrepresenting them,” or Y is “is another glaring of either lack of knowledge on something he goes spouting off about or outright lies.” (Both just from today.)

DD is incapable of just providing a rational argument without name-calling. Check the discussion today and see if you can find any such specific and personal name-calling on his opponents side.

I could not. Other liberals and conservatives eschew name-calling – some have no arguments just opinions, some are “one-trick ponies,” – but most are civil.

It is a stark comparison.

Ms M wrote on May 11, 2008 11:33 AM:Yokozuna
[-] wrote on May 11, 2008 10:46 AM: Years ago (sorry, but I don't know exactly when) the rule was that if you had a drop of Black blood you were considered Black and shunned by the White race. So Obama and other interracial children, even if brought up soley by a their White family, as they go out into society they tend to lean towards their black heritage.

Chuck wrote on May 11, 2008 11:38 AM:>>>But again, since EVERYONE got the primary level rate reduction, you really had to learn a lot to have seen your total tax bill go up, so the complaints by "Ron" and "sdraoul" that I was responding to show either total ignorance of how progressive tax rates work>>>
What you forget is the Alternative Minimum Tax that screws taxpayers in states with high income taxes, & high property taxes like California. Alot of the middle tax and "rich" lost any tax decrease due to this tax. Plus there hardly was a "tax cut". The top tax rates under Reagan & Bush I was was 28%. Billy BJ raised that rate 40% up to 39%. Bush II merely dropped the top rate back to 33.5%. so your BS doesnt cut it.

hardtack wrote on May 11, 2008 12:06 PM:I don’t follow Judy Holston’s beef. Her first paragraph says “purchase,” her second paragraph says “take.” Which is it? The two verbs are mutually exclusive.

As I understand eminent domain law, justly administered (which Prop 98 seeks to enforce) , an owner is compensated fair-market value for property purchased for public use. Of course, anytime the government purchases anything it’s with “taxpayer money” – saying so is redundant.

This is not to say that government does not have an egregious way of “taking” property through adverse condemnation. This is done by zoning law. Given a choice of relinquishing my property rights to eminent domain of zoning, I’ll take the money.

hardtack wrote on May 11, 2008 12:13 PM:When I read Joe Martin’s letter on May 7, I anticipated a reply. John Matthews did not disappoint me. He says it all better than I would have.

To Reg George wrote on May 11, 2008 12:28 PM:Stop Blackwater! Stop Blackwater!! Stop Blackwater!!! Stop Blackwater!!!! Stop Blackwater!!!!! Stop Blackwater now!!!!

Ron wrote on May 11, 2008 12:38 PM:You know... sometimes I just shake my head whenever i get come back's like my buddy wizzer @ 10:35 AM.
He says: "As "Ron" noted, there was a huge tax reduction on the first $39,000 of income. This tax reduction applied to EVERYONE, not just those whose entire income was in that layer."
NNo there wasn't wiz, cause the previous Bush 1 bracket of 15% top'd out at $36,000. All Clinton ever did was raise it another $3K which captured so few tax payers, it was ridiculous to call it a tax cut. People already earning up to $36,000 a year, were already receiving the lower rate.
But, do you see how they carefully stage their answers?
And notice, he does not dispute my contention that the newly created tax bracket of 35% captured teachers and other professionals who made this amount, causing their tax rate to jump 3%. Aren't "teachers" middle-class?
The bottom line is this whole discussion is this: They think/believe that the money you earn is the Government's. They know/feel they can do more, and better things with it than you can, the person who earns it.
And further note, he does not disagree with the "targeted tax cut" in education. It costs parent's a lot of money to send their kids to college, certainly more than a pitance of $10K a year. And the "cut" ole Billy Bob offered would not cover all the extra expenses each & every family faces.
And if you happened to make more than $86K a year as a two income family, you just realized a 3% increase in your taxable income, thanks to ole Bubba.
So, your kid goes in short.
Like I said, your gotta be careful when talking to these leftists about taxes.
They see your money, as their money.
That's why the taxman gets "his" first, and you get the left over.

Chris wrote on May 11, 2008 4:00 PM:The only thing about Chuck bringing balance is that this so-called balance has nothing to do with truth. Of course that is because these Conservatives have no defense that has anything to do with truth. Just a bunch of usless blather.

Chris to Chuck wrote on May 11, 2008 4:18 PM:Of course the reason that Russia is flexing it's muscle is because of all the sabre rattling by the US. Of course you haven't figured that our or more likely just hoped that we Libs haven't and thought you could get away with this dig on Russia.

DD Wiz wrote on May 11, 2008 7:53 PM:The posts from "Reardon" (11:28am) and "Ron" (12:38pm) are simply more of the same distraction and from and evasion of actual issues.
To "Reardon": when someone repeatedly states inaccurate information after being repeatedly corrected, pointing that out is relevant to the argument and is not name calling. In any case, you have a very strange double standard if you can't find any name calling in the posts from "Ron" and "sdraoul" -- perhaps we can call it ideological vision impairnment. Oops! In the meantime, I will simply point out that you did not address a single substantive point, but then calling attention will just cause you to scream about name calling, won't it?
As one who must be quite sensitive after the number of times you have been caught misstating facts or misrepresenting data (local TV weatherman = peer-reviewed meteorologist??), methinks thou doth protest a wee bit too much.
As for "Ron": Yet again he misstates the facts, misstating the actual tax rates (see official IRS website at: www.irs.gov) and dodges the relevant additional points I made regarding offsetting additional tax credits by Clinton and offsetting increased consumer expenses and loss of earning power by working people resulting from Bush's sweetheart deals favoring his Big Oil, Big Pharma and Offshore outsourced labor buddies. But, I sort of understand, that anything not simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker is too much for the conservative mind, notwithstanding their amazing ability to then present numerous lengthy posts filled with convoluted doubletalks when the objective is to obfuscate.

Focal Point wrote on May 11, 2008 8:11 PM:Chris to Chuck[-] wrote on May 11, 2008 4:18 PM: Did we realy think that Russia was finished just because the Soviet Union collapsed? That is absurd. Russia will be back as a major economic and world power.
Russian agenda for European participation, respect as a world power and military giant did not cease with the demise of the Soviet Union. Mother Russia will be back this time financed by capitalistic profits.

sddan wrote on May 12, 2008 3:04 AM:I had to laugh at Chuck resurrecting the tired, boring argument about Rev. Wright by comparing the minister who officiated at Jenna Bush's wedding. The minister, Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell of Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, supports Obama.

Greencinitan wrote on May 12, 2008 6:39 AM:County Supervisors up for re-election: it would be a great service if you would summarize the positions the incumbents take and the positions their challengers take on significant issues facing the county, rather than describing their age and how long they've been in office. What matters is their views of key issues and whether there are any significant differences that would help a voter make an informed choice.

Karl wrote on May 12, 2008 6:51 AM:Greencinitan @ 6:39 AM:

It's called google. If you need to wait for a newpaper to tell you about candidates stances on issues you will get a very one sided opinion. Search the net and figure it out for yourself. This is how I decide which judges to vote for. Most judgeships get little or no press at election time.

Thanks Karl wrote on May 12, 2008 7:16 AM:I had the same question as Greencinitan.

I'm left mumbling "why didn't I think of that?" (that's a rhetorical question, no need to respond).

To Leon wrote on May 12, 2008 7:42 AM:I am in total agreement with Leon, illegal immigration is out of control.
Limits on the numbers of immigrants into this country have always been deemed necessary to mitigate the impact of the additional people into the workforce and society. Their numbers must be controlled so as not to drastically affect the wage balance. It was quite obvious to our past representatives that a radical change due to an overabundance of labor in any field of work would depress wages of current workers causing a ripple effect in the local economy. The reduced circulation of capital in the workers hands would be felt by all businesses in the area. Another reason for controlled immigration is the obvious impact on the local infrastructure such as schools, fire and police protection, hospitalization, transportation, water, gas, electricity, and sewage processing. Without controlled immigration the system breaks down. That is what we see happening at our southern borders. Millions of uninvited, uneducated people destroying our way of life.
As an example of their impact, I remember the protest called “A day without a Mexican” the drive home on OUR ROADS after a 12 hour day at work was glorious.
So do NOT be surprised that American citizens are demanding a closed southern border and deportation of illegal’s in this country.

Dave from Oceanside

to Leon wrote on May 12, 2008 8:55 AM:Leon:

Maybe the name should be "Legal American Citizen Caucus".
It would include all groups of people, except illegal's.

Dave from Oceanside

Beth-San Marcos wrote on May 12, 2008 1:19 PM:I agree with Leon, we need a Caucasian Caucus. There should be absolutely and completely nothing wrong with it. After all, is one race better than the other????? Does one race deserve more than the other??? iF ALL ARE EQUAL, WHY EVEN MENTION ANY RACIAL AFFILIATION? We need to stop this nonsense about race. many are sick of it. I guess the so called democratic party ain't so democratic is it?

To Beth wrote on May 12, 2008 2:41 PM:Because dear, as much as we may like to think so, we are not all equal. The Caucasians have all the advantages and that is why we need special interest groups. Get a clue.

Oh Beth wrote on May 12, 2008 3:19 PM:You seem to not get it. When you look at the Republican convention, you will see one gigantic Caucasian Caucus. But that's not the point. Many groups that have historically been denied power (and not just ancient history, either) have found that forming groups to talk about issues of common concern and perhaps consolidating power are helpful. They know from experience, including present-day experience, that as much as many white people like to talk about being color-blind, it ain't so as of yet, so to ignore it or pretend race doesn't matter is still to self-destruct. You can tell when the racial bias is truly gone when that group no longer sees the need to exist. You can see for yourself that many groups (of Jews, of Italians, etc) have come and gone for this reason. I would think that as a woman, you'd "get" this. After all, many people say that gender inequality is a thing of the past, too. And they are wrong.