Fred wrote on May 12, 2008 7:41 PM:Stanley Peterson is right! The sky is falling! Only restoring school prayer can save us!

Ron wrote on May 12, 2008 9:03 PM:I think one thing Michael O'Connor, an
Escondido firefighter failed to mention in his letter was how Unions like to work out "staffing" for the public safety he says he's worried about. City Council's routinely "short-staff" fire departments cause's that's the way Union bosses want it done. This way, they can help their firefighters make over time, thus boosting their total take home pay. Not to mention, higher pay, means higher union dues. Shortchanging public safety?
I was designed that way, for the precise benefit of the firefighters unions.

John wrote on May 12, 2008 9:08 PM:I agree with Ray Raino. His letter from a month ago made some good points too.

OBSERVATION wrote on May 12, 2008 9:23 PM:U.S. drops charges against '20th hijacker' facing Guantanamo trial

1 hour ago

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The Pentagon is dropping charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was supposed to have been the "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men facing murder charges before a U.S. military tribunal for the attacks.

But U.S. military defence lawyers confirmed to The Associated Press on Monday that a Pentagon official has finalized the charges only against the other five, including the alleged architect of the attacks.

U.S. officials have said al-Qahtani was subjected to harsh treatment authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

OH PLEASE wrote on May 12, 2008 9:24 PM:Fred[-] wrote on May 12, 2008 7:41 PM:
Hail Mary!

Nick wrote on May 12, 2008 10:13 PM:"Alf" my friend, you are a staunch advocate for our Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Do you know anything about The Rex 84 Program ?
Did you have any idea that there are 100's of prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.
Under REX, the president could declare a state of emergency, empowering the head of FEMA to take control of the internal infrastructure of the United States and suspend the Constitution. The president could invoke executive orders 11000 through 11004 which would:
1) Draft all citizens into work forces under government supervision;
2) Empower the postmaster to register all men, women and children;
3) Seize all airports and aircraft;
4) Seize all housing and establish forced relocation of citizens.

FEMA, with a black budget allegedly provided by the Department of Defense, has worked closely with the Pentagon in an effort to avoid the legal restrictions of Posse Comitatus. While FEMA may not have been directly responsible for these precedent- setting cases, the principle of federal control was seen during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 with the federalization of the National Guard and during the siege at Waco, where Army tanks were involved in the final conflagration.
The deputy attorney general of California commented at a conference that anyone who attacks the state, even verbally, becomes a revolutionary and an enemy by definition. Louis Guiffreda, who was head of FEMA, stated that "legitimate violence is integral to our form of government, for it is from this source that we can continue to purge our weaknesses."
Makes me start to wonder "Alf".
Cheers, Nick.

Alf wrote on May 13, 2008 7:20 AM:Well, "Nick" at 10:13PM, I googled REX 84 (Readiness Exercise 1984) and I found it to be quite scary and the 84, short for 1984, is quite appropriate, don't you think? George Orwell would be both proud and terrified. I suggest that others google "REX 84" which makes the scope of the internment camps during WWII seem rather small. Regards, Alf.

To Bradley Morehead wrote on May 13, 2008 7:41 AM:Thanks for your letter it prompted me to go back and read that Community Forum written by Tina Jillings and I think you have made some valid points. No where in her article does she say the Mexicans are a superior race. I agree with you everyone comes here to live the American Dream. That is why my ancestors came here! I also do not feel pressure to learn Spanish. I think Norma Parker was speaking from a personal disdain for Latinos. I do not hold that opinion and I am glad there are people like you who will stand up for those being wrongfully persecuted. I don't know Tina Jillings personally but I do know of her and I have to say that I admire her. When a person states don't call me "racists or a xenophobe because I want to stick up for my country" well what can I say?

Pluto wrote on May 13, 2008 8:11 AM: Great letter by Brian Williams. Yes, Mexicans are struggling to change their corrupt government, but powerful forces contrive to keep the status quo. Drug lords are now killing police officials who are trying to get some control over border towns. Drug lords get their money, power and weapons from U.S. drug users and archaic U.S. drug laws, same as the gangsters in the Prohibition era. And the poverty which drove millions to enter the U.S. illegally was created by NAFTA and other economic policies supported by corrupt governments on both sides of the border. I'm also glad Williams brought up the book "Censored 2008". Google Project Censored and check out the group which publishes this important annual book which contains in-depth reports on important stories which are not reported by the mainstream media.

Pluto wrote on May 13, 2008 8:22 AM: Great letter by Bradley Morehead. The last sentence, however, is misleading. People generally come here to avoid poverty or persecution. The only "dream" involved is the dream of a better life. Ours happens to be the richest and most powerful country, with the most economic opportunity. People love their home country, but want/need a better life - wherever they can find it. It's an ignorant conceit to pretend our country is "better" than everyone else. Our country leads the world in corruption. The history of the criminal Bush regime certainly proves that, the stolen 2000 election, the 9-11 cover-up, the illegal war on Iraq, illegal spying, renditions, torture - don't get me started!

Alf wrote on May 13, 2008 8:47 AM:The letter from George Mavrik complains that "Vista, in its infinite wisdom, ruled in January 2003 that it is against the law to protect your property with barbed wire or razor wire". In Encinitas, that has been the case for much longer, at least for a property line fence. Personally, I don't think that I would want the liability that results from such adornments. Regards, Alf.

YES Brian Williams YES wrote on May 13, 2008 8:54 AM:Finally someone has explained beautifully the reason for the influx of immigrants coming to the United States!! NAFTA and U.S. companies have created an economic mess in Mexico and now we have desperate people coming here for whatever opportunities are available. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We need to let our Legislators and ALL elected officials know that we want Compassionate, humane, and fair immigration reform NOW!! Thank you Brian for the letter.

Apollo wrote on May 13, 2008 9:16 AM:Re: Nick (10:13 p.m.) and Alf (7:20 a.m.)
Nick provides info about the possibility of more scary abuses of power at a time when Americans are already reeling from recent unconstitutional expansions of power and infringement of civil liberties.
I do not know if this "REX 84" or "Readiness Exercise 1984" is a genuine threat or an urban legend hoax. I did Google it and found many entries; when constrained to only official ".gov" sites nothing came up.
However, just the fact that it is so believable in today's climate shows how far we've strayed.
Question for Nick and Alf and some of the other self-described Libertarians here, including Reardon:
I saw in this morning's paper that Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman from Georgia, who was one of the leaders of the heinous witch hunt against Bill Clinton, left the Republican party two years ago to register as a Libertarian, and is now aligned with the ACLU to fight violations of civil liberties. He still opposes both Democrats (social issues and federal programs) and Republicans (for violating true conservative principles of personal freedom and fiscal responsibility).
I am wondering how many Libertarian types will be supporting Bob Barr for president?

To Pluto and Bradley Morehead wrote on May 13, 2008 9:33 AM:Great letter Bradley!!! To: Pluto that may be true but the thought of the possiblity of the American Dream to those who live in utter poverty, persecution, is enough for them to risk their lives to come here. There is a study that shows new arriving immigrants believe more in the American Dream than many Americans because we all know the dirty little secrets of our corrupt government...."the criminal Bush regime certainly proves that, the stolen 2000 election, the 9-11 cover-up, the illegal war on Iraq, illegal spying, renditions, torture - don't get me started!" I agree don't get me started. I think it is a rude awakening for these people when they arrive here after their arduous journey only to be faced with malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom their suffering. This is a disgusting time in America.

hardtack wrote on May 13, 2008 9:41 AM:Thanks, Ray Raino. Always refreshing to hear from someone who thinks outside the box.

"Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil; our great hope lies in developing what is good." – Calvin Coolidge

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." – Abraham Lincoln

Reardon wrote on May 13, 2008 9:49 AM:Apollo: I am looking seriously at Bob Barr, and still considering Ron Paul as a write-in. I am also considering staying home and working in my garden, which is more constructive than voting against people.

Ron wrote on May 13, 2008 10:16 AM:Stanley Peterson says a pending crisis could lead to a revolution, perhaps
the crisis could result in real global warming. Like a world war.
Now, that is possible, unlikely, but possible. What is much more likely would be a crisis created by our own leadership for an imaginary, pseudo-science. It is obvious now we have all three Presidential candidates who will pursue reductions in carbon/CO2 output by industry, which will affect every single American person resulting in devastating economic disaster, by our own hand.
We've already heard the dogma on this, from Al Gore, Bill Clinton, the IPCC, and the kooks who think we are destroying this planet. The bottom line
is they want an 80% reduction in carbon/CO2 output. Now, think about that for a second... 80%.
Think about your daily life, and think about all the things you do that require power. When you get up in the morning, you take a shower. when you eat breakfast, you cook your food. When you drink your coffee, it's perculated in a coffee pot. And these are the simple things. You probably unload your dishwasher in the morning, before going to work. Your coffee needs milk or creamer, it's been kept cool all night by your electrical refrigerator. Your alarm clock woke you, thanks to the power plant down the road.
Going out to your car, you notice your lawn needs a drink, and you turn on your sprinklers, thanks again to the power company who drives the pumps that pumps the water up to your home.
You hop into your car, thanks to the il company, you have gasoline to drive to work in 20 minutes. Now, you could have ridden public transportation, but you need to also drop your kids off at school, and doesn't fit into your time frame. You get to work, turn on your computer, again thanks to the power company. You begin your day by telephone, never knowing all of the petroleum products that go into a phone system. The machines like faxes, copiers, scanners, you use to do your job all contain oil-based products, but that doesn't concern you, as long as you get the job done.
Now, I've gone through this short list just to show how many things we rely upon that use oil. Can you imagine if you were required to use only 20%? How many of the above items would you be willing to completely cut out of your day?
The legislation proposed by liberals in the Senate {and I'm including John McLame in this} would mandate
reductions of "greenhouse gas emissions" to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 2050 require an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the 1990 level.
We now know, the Supreme Court, which has no scientists on it, now claim that when you exhale, you are expelling pollution, or CO2.
The lose of jobs will be massive, the reduction in standard of living to your daily life will be unmatched. On top of that, the lib's have carbon taxes, and more fuel taxes, curly tail lightbulbs, and ethanol waiting for you. Squeezing you, killing your ability to make a living, driving even more jobs offshore.
Remember what I said yesterday about regulations killing jobs, and economic growth? Even ole Billy Bob Clinton got in on this, by saying: "We will need to slow down our economy to meet the demands of greenhouse gas reductions."
Need I say more? 80%, think about it.
What will you give up?

Ms M wrote on May 13, 2008 10:22 AM:For Ron Paul supporters - I heard on one of the talk shows that Ron Paul is going to show up at the Cons. convention with a surprise - so it may not be over for those of you who support Paul.

hardtack wrote on May 13, 2008 10:41 AM:This from Thomas Sowell, published today on ..., resonates well with my post yesterday:

“Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries – India and China – having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations 8 times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world's oil supply?

“The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains.”

Ah, yes! Enter Big Oil and the Executive sitting where the “buck stops” and we have the perfect fall-guys for our congressional demagogues. You didn’t really expect those Congresspersons, who voted for the war and against oil and nuclear production, to take any blame for gasoline prices, themselves, did you?

Sure, Bush is a bonehead. But belaboring the fact ad infinitum only serves to remove the heat from where it belongs – on Congress, both sides of the aisle.

Sue wrote on May 13, 2008 10:50 AM:I was hoping Ron Paul would run as a libertarian again, but I guess not. Staying home is not an option. There must be somebody on the balot worth voting for.

OBSERVATION wrote on May 13, 2008 11:12 AM:In April 1984, President Reagan signed Presidential Directorate Number 54 that allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. The exercise was to test FEMA's readiness to assume military authority in the event of a "State of Domestic National Emergency" concurrent with the launching of a direct United States military operation in Central America. The plan called for the deputation of U.S. military and National Guard units so that they could legally be used for domestic law enforcement. These units would be assigned to conduct sweeps and take into custody an estimated 400,000 undocumented Central American immigrants in the United States. The immigrants would be interned at 10 detention centers to be set up at military bases throughout the country. REX 84 was so highly guarded that special metal security doors were placed on the fifth floor of the FEMA building in Washington, D.C. Even long-standing employees of the Civil Defense of the Federal Executive Department possessing the highest possible security clearances were not being allowed through the newly installed metal security doors. Only personnel wearing a special red Christian cross or crucifix lapel pin were allowed into the premises. Lt. Col. North was responsible for drawing up the emergency plan, which U.S. Attorney General William French Smith opposed vehemently.

Alf wrote on May 13, 2008 11:20 AM:Well, "Apollo" at 9:16AM, my write-in vote will go to Ron Paul. I believe he has as much of a chance as a snowball in Hades, but I cannot honestly vote for anyone else. Bob Barr does NOT have the record for voting and attitudinal consistency that Ron Paul does! Never again will I vote for the "lesser of two evils". Regards, Alf.

bogie wrote on May 13, 2008 11:29 AM:Ray Raino makes some good and valid points for legalization of drugs. Heck I think 50% of the people I know are on the legal drug Vicodeine. However if you use Ray's arguement on drivers that do 85 mph on the freeway does it still hold water?

Ms M wrote on May 13, 2008 11:41 AM:To Ron Paul supporters - I heard on a talk show that Paul is going to do a mutiny at the cons convention. He does not feel that McCain is the guy for the cons. (Originally posted 11:20A)

Reardon wrote on May 13, 2008 11:53 AM:Apropos of yesterday’s discussion of “non-profits”: Can you believe that Harvard has a $35 BILLON endowment in their NON-PROFIT coffers.

Harvard is just a huge NONPROFIT investment bank, with a small school attached. (The Endowment grows at about $8 Billion – NON-taxed – annually.)

Massachusetts is considering taxing the “excess” of all non-profits excess over $1 Billion at a rate of 2.5% and Harvard says, “That is taxing success.”

Seems I have heard that from conservative corporations when they are taxed! But the uber liberals say to the Harvard Liberals, “but you have so much and you need to share with those who have so little.”

And the Harvard liberals say, if you do that we will have to open a branch university in the South, and transfer our 350 year old university money administration out of this high tax state!

I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT!

The Harvard Liberals act just like conservative corporations when threatened by still more leftist politicians!

GUZZLER wrote on May 13, 2008 11:57 AM:Great post, Ron at 10:16 a.m.
Just what we would expect from someone who is invested in the oil companies!

Bill wrote on May 13, 2008 12:36 PM:The stolen 2000 election?

Let me see now?

Bush won every single recount and its Gore that asked the Florida Supreme Court to intervene after Bush was declared the winner. The state court allowed different standards for the counting of votes in different counties so the supreme court rules 7-2 ( Not 5-4 as many libs have suggested)against Gore on the basis of violating equal protection by applying different standards for different counties.Bush wanted all the votes counted while Gore wanted some counted and some disenfranchised.

How is that Bush stealing the election?

Gore wanted some American votes to not count.

Oh those pesky facts that some in here refuse to acknowledge.

No wonder Democrats cant take advantage of incumbency (Gore) and a weak president (Bush)to win elections. They are too busy trying to rewrite history for their gullible constituency that believes this nonsense minus any evidence but their words.

Yeah, thats it, the liberal LA times was in on the grand conspiracy too right?

Complete nonsense that has no basis in fact but to pacify liberals who dont seem to understand why America keeps rejecting them.

Ms M wrote on May 13, 2008 12:56 PM:Bill
[-] wrote on May 13, 2008 12:36 PM:Complete nonsense that has no basis in fact but to pacify liberals who dont seem to understand why America keeps rejecting them. Bill thanks to the job the cons have done on America over the past 7 yrs. there will be no question whatsoever why America will reject the cons. Probably for at least the next 20 years.

Concerned One wrote on May 13, 2008 1:03 PM:I'm skeptical about the whole Rex 84 thing. Yes there are a lot of sites talking about it, but they all say the same thing. If there were 600 to 800 of these camps around, don't you think we would know more about them?

Concerned One wrote on May 13, 2008 1:04 PM:It's Ron Paul or nothing for me. I won't be a part of any of the three stooges!

Ron wrote on May 13, 2008 1:12 PM:Yeah, I saw that too "Reardon" @
11:53 AM! LOL! It's like I always say, out of one side of their colectivist mouth you hear: "Yes, we care about education." Then you read something like this. Where the lib's want to "tax" education:
"Massachusetts is considering taxing the “excess” of all non-profits excess over $1 Billion at a rate of 2.5% and Harvard says, “That is taxing success.”
That's why I always say: "Don't listen to what they say... Look at what they do!"
Actions speak louder than words, my friend. And if they will "tax" education, nothing is off limits... NOTHING.

sdraoul wrote on May 13, 2008 1:12 PM:NAFTA Haters join Urban Myth REX 84 black helicopter paranoia.

President Washington raised an Army to put down a "Whiskey rebellion" in Pennsylvania in 1794.

On August 7, 1794, President Washington called out the militia. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 — as large as the one that had defeated the British. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising.

This was the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states. In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington. (Source Archiving Early America)

The Federal government has always had the right to “martial law” as proven by President Washington in 1794. Anyone who believes federal responsibility for law and order in the USA is a Reagan/Ollie North invention is nuts.

I googled REX 84 and laughed my head off when I read many of the items.

How well I recall that the smelly long-haired Hippies of the 60s were aghast that Lyndon Johnson had established “concentration camps” in which to lock up anti-war dissidents and any one who expressed leftist statements and tendencies.

Now, in 2008, it’s right-wing nuts who are making the exact same complaints.

Yet, no one has published documentation, photos and affidavits or court testimony that such camps were ever built or are being built or exist in any form. I specifically mean Democratic Congress people who have spent billions of dolalrs “investigating” the Bush Administration since 2007.

As for NAFTA fanatics, what drivel. There far more illegals entered the USA from Mexico before 1994 when NAFTA went into effect than since. In fact, illegals peaked in 2000. They have been coming here illegally since 1924 when the open border was slammed shut on Mexicans and, of course, of any Italians, Russians, Poles and Greeks, any immigrants who were Catholic, Orthodox or Jewish.

NAFTA has driven some Mexican farmers off of tiny half acre plots of land, but int he long run that is good for Mexico and the U.S. Mexico imports 20% of its corn stocks (mostly yellow corn for animal feed) from the USA. That amounts to oil for corn. That is good. not bad.

Since NAFTA went into effect, Mexico has grown its economy from 17th in the world to 11th, according to the World Bank. That is not an accident, it is what NAFTA has done in the Big Picture for Mexico. More importantly, it allowed and caused Mexico to throw out the Stalinist-PRI government to replace it with a free market government that won two elections in a row with its strength in Northern Mexico where NAFTA has had the most benefit.

The only group in Mexico that hasn't benefited from NAFTA is the ten percent of the population that is pure Indian which, magically, makes up the majority of poor, in poverty, people who remain uneducated and illiterate because they refuse to leave the 17th century.

OH PLEASE wrote on May 13, 2008 1:39 PM:Bill[-] wrote on May 13, 2008 12:36 PM:
Last time that I checked the Congress had a Democratic majority. The new President will be a Democrat as well in November. I think it is your crowd that is getting the pink slips. And who care about eight year ago. Seems to me that the Liberals look toward the future while the Conservatives are looking to the rear.

ShawnP wrote on May 13, 2008 2:02 PM: To Concerned One at 1:04 --- while I agree with you in spirit, I hate to see you slander the name of legends and my personal heroes, The Three Stooges.
While the real Three Stooges were wonderful, talented entertainers who gave so much laughter to so many people for so many years ---
The current stooges are not wonderful, questionably talented pretenders who give nothing (but promise much) to all of us.

Gordon wrote on May 13, 2008 2:21 PM:Bob Barr helped waste a lot of tax dollars on the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Doesn't strike me as a Libertarian.

I want Ron Paul.

Ms M wrote on May 13, 2008 2:43 PM:Concerned One
[-] wrote on May 13, 2008 1:04 PM: It's Ron Paul or nothing for me. I won't be a part of any of the three stooges! Question Concerned One - who did you vote for in the past 2 elections? I don't want to assume you voted for Bush.

Oh Please wrote on May 13, 2008 2:48 PM:Ron[-] wrote on May 13, 2008 1:12 PM: Hey you guys are talking about the past. That bill was dead in the MASS House of Reps.
Didn't happen.

Re Bradley Morehead wrote on May 13, 2008 2:54 PM:I don't know how Mr. Bradley Morehead has missed this, but here in Southern California you can encounter the pressure to accommodate Spanish speakers by calling just about any business with an automated phone system. How many times a day do we find ourselves on calls where we are invited to press a particular number or symbol in order to receive service in Spanish? It seems to me that, if people weren't resisting learning English, none of this would be necessary, or at least not to the extent that it exists today.

Repeating the past wrote on May 13, 2008 3:19 PM:As I've posted before, the flap about immigrants and their language is as old as immigration. In major cities like NY at the turn of the 20th C, whole neighborhoods were Italian, Eastern European Jewish, Chinese and all the shops spoke that language. There were even newspapers in Italian, Yiddish, Chinese for these groups. And all their kids became English-speakers despite speaking the old language at home. At the same time, self-named "real Americans" complained with the same words we hear now about the corruption of our culture, the resistance of immigrants to becoming "Americans", and all the rest. The whole and only story is that these so-called "real Americans" are as impatient and intolerant today as they were yesterday. Some of them, then and now, are so convinced of the natural superiority of being American and speaking English that they feel that even when they travel, the locals have no right not to know English. Yet another way that we win friends and admirers the world over. Good grief. Get over yourselves.

To Re Bradley Morehead wrote on May 13, 2008 3:38 PM:Gee, it is amazing that taking two to three seconds to press a button on your phone is causing you so much drama. No one is resisting learning English it is just that the businesses are catering to the Latino dollar. If businesses are willing to do that than the caller will use whatever language they feel most comfortable speaking. If a service is being provided why not utilize it? I always press two for Spanish and then the person ends of talking to me in English how great is that I get to speak to someone in English no matter what number I press. Service with a smile. Adios!!

Thanks W wrote on May 13, 2008 3:39 PM:I just read that since Bush took over the presidency, the membership of the ACLU has doubled! Yes, in 2000 it had about 250,000 paid members; today it's 500,000. A telling indicator of the state of civil rights in the USA. As a long-time member, I want to thank W and all of you who voted for him for putting us in this unenviable position. As a long-time member, I can only wish that the country was run in such a manner as to cause the membership to disappear for lack of concern that our rights are in danger.

NONPROFIT wrote on May 13, 2008 3:40 PM:I remain perplexed by Reardon at 11:53 a.m.
Reardon: you seem like a bright guy, and you do find some interesting factoids, like the Harvard stuff.
But it gots nuthin' to do with what I wrote about yesterday.
Like I said before, I was responding to Ron's earlier statement.
Ron had said that there was not "any" corporation that existed to help people with individual needs, that their sole purpose was to make profits for stockholders.
Aside from the fact that a college endowment is a reserve fund to be used for the stated corporate purpose, and not profit to be divvied up among stockholders, the point I was making is that the purpose of the college, or any non-profit charity, church or political organization is to achieve a stated non-profit objective to help people with individual needs.
The fact that it may additionally take in more money than it spends, even lots of it, or even pay high salaries to officers or staff, is a different, separate, unrelated point.
Why are you arguing with this point? It is correct!
Are you trying to change the subject or did you really not understand the drift of the dialogue?

Harvard factoids wrote on May 13, 2008 3:53 PM:Reardon lays out some facts that appear to be so ironic, but misses the more obvious conclusion. When he sarcastically talks about "liberal Harvard" doing this and that with its money, it never seems to occur to Reardon that, um, maybe Harvard is not liberal! That even if Harvard has a lot of liberal professors, the institution is not, and has never been, a liberal one. Reardon might be too in love with conservative radio's sloganeering and stereotyping to actually attend to obvious truths.

two jokes wrote on May 13, 2008 4:22 PM:First, John McCain said recently that he continued to embrace Hagee's endorsement, though he objected to anything that Hagee said that was "anti-anything". Shows you that McCain really studied the words of the man whose endorsement was so important to him. Could anything be more cynical? "Hey, Hagee, just back me, please. I don't even know what you do or said, but my people say you have a following, so how about it? I'll just reject all the stuff you might've said that might offend anyone, though I don't know or care about what it was, ok?" Then, today, came joke number two: Hagee apologized to the Catholics. Wow, this must've really come from the heart, don't you think? It's clear that this version of "religion" in America is nothing but a vote-pandering concept, having nothing to do with the serious matters that religion is actually about. On the contrary, these clowns are all too willing to drag religion into the gutter with them. What a difference from what Obama did with Wright. Take the whole relationship in its actual context of the Reverand's role in his whole life; take the remarks that were offensive and carefully explain what was wrong with them and why. In other words, respect the man, the faith, and the audience. The exact opposite of McCain and Hagee and their two-part pathetic, transparent joke.

Ron wrote on May 13, 2008 4:26 PM:You maybe right.. "Oh Please" @
2:48 PM, you may be right. The point is; they wanted to do it. Like I said, actions my friend, actions. It's not what they say they will do, it's what they attempt to do. Hopefully, the people of Mass got their tea party panties in a twist enough over it to stop what the leftists wanted to do.
But, again... no onw should be surprised at all by this.. cause this is exactly what all liberals/leftists do. Take a look in California right now.
We are facing a 16-20 billion dollar deficit. That is an acculmilation of 3 years worth, the cause being not fixing the structural deficit. Even this year, with revenue being down, we still have 1% more money in revenue to the government. Yet, we are facing this massive deficit, why? Because they spend more than what they have to spend, then... the lib's go looking for "other revenues" to do it.
One of the "loop-holes" these lib's want to close is mortgage interest deductions on home loans. Now, more than likely the common sense of the Republicans will not let this go through. But, it's just the fact that someone, some lib.. thought it was a good idea. Same as controlling the thermostat in your bedroom, awhile back.
Some lib thought THAT was a good idea too! It's the way they think, it's that they believe they have the right to constantly keep looking for additional avenues of taxes from your wallet.
I know some of your lib's aren't out & out socialists the way these guy's are, but when are YOU gonna stand up and say enough is enough? I mean.. take away your mortgage interest deduction? And there is talk of reducing, if not totally taking away child deductions.
I thought you lib's believed in "the Little Guy?" You were the only one's who really had a heart? And yet... the Actions they are taking are telegraphing everything you'll ever need to know how these guy's really think. They simply want to take it ALL.

Ron wrote on May 13, 2008 4:39 PM:No, No.. "Harvard factoids" @3:53 PM, that's not what that proves at all.
Let me, as I always do, help you out with that thought, ok?
First of all, liberals are always liberals first, everything else comes second. And two, liberals don't like to have their money taxes or spent by other people, liberals love to spend other people's money.
So it is not inconsistant to have liberals both be greedy with their own money, and yet.. have other liberals trying to poach it from other lib's.
Not at all, untypical. It is par for the course. Case in point, remember back when John "I served in Cambodia at Christmas" Kerry released his tax returns. In Mass., you can check a box stating you want the government to tax you at the higher rate. Well, he didn't. But, he goes out and rails about tax breaks for "rich people", as if he anit.
then, you got the whole Kennedy clan, trusting their money in Fiji, where the IRS can't get to it. there are soooo many examples of this, it anit funny.
It's the old, do as I say, and not as I do. As I said: "They speak with forked-tongue." Taxing education, no more mortgage deduction, no more child deduction.. you name it, they'll tax it.
Including your breath, per the Supreme Court.

Concerned One wrote on May 13, 2008 4:53 PM:Did I say the Three Stooges? I meant Two and a half men!

Concerned One wrote on May 13, 2008 4:56 PM:Yeah Ms M, you know who I voted for and that's why I'm adamant about not voting for the lesser of (three) evils.

Karl wrote on May 13, 2008 5:37 PM:The only brain cell I have left is spinning with all the negatives about the three amigos. I will reluctantly join the RP express and join Alf's brigade in never eating the lesser of two deviled eggs. Or is it combining the two lesser eggs to make a good egg. Ah crap, I think it was not voting for the standard deviled egg but voting for the mystery ingredient in the deviled egg. That's it RP will be my write in choice.

To Ron- wrote on May 13, 2008 5:37 PM:If someone in the Fire Department is upset because the city is not staffing a station does'nt that mean that he believes the city should'nt be paying overtime to it's firefighters? Your post does'nt make any sense if you read what he wrote.

dave from oceanside wrote on May 13, 2008 5:54 PM:Just what we need Ray, a 711 selling drugs along with beer and alcohol.
Not only would we have drunks, and cell phone blabbers on the road, lets add hopped up drug addicts.
I think you take the bone head award of the year.
You want to solve drug use, execute the drug dealers when their caught.
Expand rehab centers and treat the addicts.

To Tinas defenders wrote on May 13, 2008 5:57 PM:Blah blah blah. I have seen Tina in action too! She gets right in people's faces and acts very aggressive in a physical way. She needs to work on her approach with U.S. Citizens.

Nick wrote on May 13, 2008 6:11 PM:Thanks for checking it out "Alf". I had never heard of it before yesterday, when I heard someone on the jobsite talking about it. I like to do my own research, so I did a little digging. A lot of it is your typical crackpot, conspiracy theory stuff, but there was enough to make me wonder and be a bit worried. I will keep investigaing on my own.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on May 13, 2008 6:17 PM:To Apollo: I have to learn a little more about Bob Barr, but I am still for Ron Paul.
Cheers, Nick.

worker wrote on May 13, 2008 6:21 PM:You have got to ba a very lazy person to not want to press a number on your phone. I can only imagine someone pulling their hair and crying, 'Oh no, I have to push a button!" What a tough choice , english or Spanish. Does it really take that much effort and time from you?

Nick wrote on May 13, 2008 6:49 PM:Hey "Alf", since you found out about Rex 84, I have a new one for you. Do some research on the Homeland Security Plan called "Endgame".
The contract of the Halliburton subsidiary KBR to build immigrant detention facilities is part of a ten-year Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists." In the 1980s Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld discussed similar emergency detention powers as part of a super-secret program of planning for what was euphemistically called "Continuity of Government" (COG) in the event of a nuclear disaster. At the time, Cheney was a Wyoming congressman, while Rumsfeld, who had been defense secretary under President Ford, was a businessman and CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle.
These men planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any "national security emergency," which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: "Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States." Clearly 9/11 would meet this definition, and did, for COG was instituted on that day. As the Washington Post later explained, the order "dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans."
What the managers in this shadow government worked on has never been reported. But it is significant that the group that prepared ENDGAME was, as the Homeland Security document puts it, "chartered in September 2001." For ENDGAME's goal of a capacious detention capability is remarkably similar to Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" for COG in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.
I'm diving deeper into the mole hole amigo.
Cheers, Nick.

Oh Ron wrote on May 13, 2008 6:50 PM:Sorry, you once again either missed the point or just went elsewhere. My point (Harvard factoid) was simply that Harvard (like just about every university) has a rich, Republican, conservative tradition. You guys are so used being knee-jerkers about education-liberal that you don't bother to look at the institution itself. I'm sure you will find many Senators, Representatives, lawyers, doctors, CEOs, etc, including the leading conservative brains of the land, with degrees from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, and Cornell, among other places. The conservative knee-jerks can't even hold to their own party lines without contradiction. Always accusing the liberals of living off welfare instead of working, then talking about how we are all millionaires, flying around in our private jets. You guys are pretty pathetic.

Reardon wrote on May 13, 2008 7:29 PM:The post on Harvard was simply to tweak and then get a rise from the predictable liberals.

Now here is another tweak – Sir Paul McCartney, ace environmentalist, was really happy to get his new hybrid -- a Lexus 600 series – which, to quote the Daily Telegraph: “Paddy Gillett of the anti-aviation lobby group Plane Stupid, said: "For anyone to pretend that a private limousine is in any way eco-friendly is like pretending a private jet is. It's total greenwash."

Lexus even flew the huge car 7,000 miles, which was too much even for Sir McCartney – because as the newspaper said, that plane trip had 100 times the carbon footprint of a ship delivery.

It is hard being green, when you are also filthy rich. Ask the Hollywood bunch.

DD Wiz wrote on May 13, 2008 7:29 PM:The post from "Ron" (4:26pm) simply makes stuff up that he claims are policy proposals of the dreaded "libs" -- nasty stuff he can argue against, but not based in fact or substance.
For example, he claims: "One of the 'loop-holes' these lib's want to close is mortgage interest deductions on home loans."
I'm a "lib" and I don't support eliminating this "loophole" that favors the middle class and encourages more people to embrace the American Dream, and I do not know anyone who does.
So if "Ron" is going to claim these views of "libs" I suggest he cite the specific proposal he is referring to, either by its pending bill number, or if it is from a book or speech or article by a "lib" tell us who proposed it and where it came from.
Or admit that he got caught making stuff up again.

GWB wrote on May 13, 2008 7:56 PM:Ron Paul, the only "right"-in choice.

Bill wrote on May 14, 2008 12:15 AM:Here come the predictions.

If Conrad Burns had gotten 800 more votes in Montana, it would still be a Republican house.

There was no mandate but rather just the normal party in power losing seats ina mid term election.

Like thats never happened before.

Democrats cant take advbantage of a weqak president which shows the sorry state thewy are in.

Yeah, the dems are going to run the table for 20 years.

Yeah right, congress poll numbers and madam Speakers are lower than Bush's.

Oops, it appears that has been buried.

Nothing indicates any of what was said above to be true in any way.

But keep telling yourself that.

Nice Reardon wrote on May 14, 2008 7:00 AM:Re: Harvard. So lemme get this straight: whenever you get caught posting something dumb, your reply will be, "Oh, I was only kidding"? You oughta send that one in to Rev Wright, or maybe go into politics. Plausible deniability, unfortunately, needs to be plausible. LOL