SOLON wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:14 AM:= Gay Marriage INITIATIVE
Word comes today from the CA Sec. of State that the initiative to ban gay marriage has qualified for the November ballot. So, if gay marriages are now constitutional and legal, as ruled by the CA Supreme Court, until such time as a voter initiative may make gay marriage unconstitutional, the question becomes: What happens to those marriages prior to that time?
Let us pose the question in this manner: Suppose the CA voters pass a constitutional amendment banning racially mixed marriage, what becomes of all those marriages prior to that time? Simple. Such marriages remain valid, as they were legal at the time.
Just this week the State of CA urged the Court not to delay marriage of gays until after the November election, because to do so would be an arbitrary presumption that the initiative will pass in November. Would it not be just as justifiable of the Court to presume that the initiative will fail? Actually, the Court cannot make such presumptions. It can only interpret the Constitution as it now stands, and as of now marriage of gays is constitutional. And those marriages will remain legal.

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:10 AM:Yes, Murel Fisk, The world is mired in a food crisis brought on by the global warming Kool-Aid drinkers, who decided to profit with commodity speculation, so the liberals decided to exaserbate it by handing out subsidies for farmers not to grow. And in addition, the liberals sit back as China and India slant drill for oil 50 miles off the Key West Coast, and then they tell Bush to stick it when he asks for more drilling to save US jobs and halt the oil and commodity inflation.

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:14 AM:I see the news is reporting that "Teens attend senior prom in outfits made from duct tape" I'm sure the same public school parents make their sons pin condoms, instead of corsages, on their boyfriends before leaving for the prom. As George Zimmer says: "You'll look great in your prom outfit, I guarantee it"

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:39 AM:Dear me, Chuck, what did you have for breakfast? What a strange post.

Up Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:07 AM:Well, Vista Granny, if you tire of Chuck's incoherent rants try this:

Click on the minus sign in brackets [-] below "Chuck".

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:09 AM:huck[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:10 AM:
More repetitive drivel from Chuck.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:10 AM:Vista Granny[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:39 AM: Excellent observatin from Granny. I find all his posts strange and repetitive.

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 AM:>>>Let us pose the question in this manner: Suppose the CA voters pass a constitutional amendment banning racially mixed marriage, what becomes of all those marriages prior to that time?>>>> LOL. Here's another one that cant figure out the distinction between same sex and inter-racial marriages. This will keep the divorce lawyers busy. I wonder which one of the cute couples will get to keep the house?

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:15 AM:>>>>Chuck, what did you have for breakfast?>>> Love potion. It keeps me ultra-tolerant

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:24 AM:>>>Did you honor those men and women who have given their lives in duty to our great nation, or did you forget the reason for this day?>>> No Heather, everyone knows what Memorial Day is, unless of course, you attended a public school in the last 15 years. You'll have to give them a pass. And you'll also have to forgive Hussein Obama, who said in his speech: "We have to remember our fallen heroes, many of whom are in my audience today, as I visit my 57th State of this Union"

estebaN wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:35 AM:What does that minus sign do anyway?

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:37 AM:The news is reporting that Cheney calls proposal to suspend federal gas tax a 'false notion'.
Thats fine Dickie boy, but how about offering an alternative solution to this job killing problem, that is also causing starvation and food price inflation???

SOLON wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:40 AM:= CRAZIES on the Right:
The alternative to Impeachment is truly crazy, Mr. Fisk (letter today). For if the alternative is to take impeachment off the table, and simply run out the clock on the White House war criminals, we are complicit in these war crimes. Taking impeachment off the table means there is no limit to the Bush team’s depravity, and that torture will continue in our name. The American people have an immediate choice ahead of them. They can continue to be shamed as a nation of torturers, or they can put a stop to this administration’s ongoing crimes against humanity. Abusing and terrorizing innocent people doesn’t make us safer. It engenders bitter hatred and desire for retribution against our nation. We have a choice to seek restitution of our good reputation, or institutionalizing such criminal behavior as acceptable for our leaders. To choose to follow the path of decadent imperial Rome is truly crazy.
Submitted 3:23am= resubmitted 7:40am

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:44 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 AM: More drivel. Its not the difference. Its the common denominator of discrimination.
Here is Chuck again who does not understand equal protection under the law.

SOLON wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:52 AM:= Poor Chuck (7:13 AM) … He cannot understand “equality under the law”.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:55 AM:Murel Fisk's letter-although I agree with him on the farm bill- was tendentious and poorly argued. Declaring your opponents mentally unstable doesn't prove anything. No doubt many liberals consider people like Mr.Fisk crazy. Mr. Fisk contends a letter writer calling for Bush's impeachment and execution is a lunatic. Sure, that's a strong opinion, but is it necessarily insane? Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has an excellent book out advocating the prosecution of Bush as a criminal. Is Bugliosi just out to lunch, or is it just possible that he has a point or two? Either way, you can't settle the point by simply declaring mentally unstable.

If many New York Times letter writers are nuts, which may be true, what about fans of Michael Savage and other right-wing talk show hosts? It takes about five minutes of listening to the callers on those shows to realize they're not completely rational or well-informed- to put it politely. Here's a test of Mr. Fisk's political fairness: when Ann Coulter said about Bill Clinton, "Question: impeachment or assassination," did he object to that? (to take one of many outrageous far-right statements I have heard).I would bet every cent I have that he didn't.

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:56 AM:The news is reporting that GM is closing four truck and SUV plants in North America. Lets thank the global warming nutcases for another 50,000-150,000 direct and indirect jobs gone becuse of the liberal nutcases

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:58 AM:>>>Well, Vista Granny, if you tire of Chuck's incoherent rants try this:
Click on the minus sign in brackets [-] below "Chuck".>>> yea, that will allow you to join the "liberal only" cabal of America haters, so you only hear what you want to hear

George wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:26 AM:When will the NCT report the DA's full investigation report on the Old Town shooting involving Scott Dibble? Has the DA charged Scott Willis and the others that took part in the beating?

John wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:30 AM:Yes Chuck, let us blame the "global warming nutcases" for GM closing plants. Surely the precipitous and unprecedented drop in sales of gas-guzzling vehicles has nothing to do with record-high gas prices.

But hey, why employ common sense when we can prop up a liberal straw man to assail?

Ron wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:40 AM:And all of this stuff you wrote today, Bob Harvey? Exactly what does this have to do with Palestinians teaching their own children to strap on bombs, and blow up little Jewish children?
ZERO... that's what it tells us.
When the Palestinian cause got hijacked by the likes of Arafat & Hamas, they have become the terrorists.

Pointless Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:42 AM:I think it's best just to ignore Chuck. He's bitter and unhappy about everything - literally everything. Not ever one positive thing to write about, but more importantly, never anything solutions. I'm quite sure Chuck isn't out there trying to make this a better place. Because they ramble, are all over the place and are non-factual, his posts do not serve any purpose whatsoever other than to serve as a humorous side show. Stop posting Chuck and go do something constructive.

Ron wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:51 AM:YOu know... the first thing I thought of after reading Derek Palmer's letter today was...
That he was having a "Sally Field's" moment? But upon further review, I realize he is a Hillary supporter, and knows her campaign is doomed.
I wonder if by men, he includes the Obamaman?

Nick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:13 AM:Now more on the Paris Club of Creditors and Iraq.

The Paris Club of Creditors, a cartel of most of the world’s major creditors (including all the G8 governments and the governments of other wealthy countries), agreed on November 21, 2004, to cancel 80% of Iraq's debt of about $39 billion to Paris Club members, in three steps. The terms of the cancellation are that:
* 30% of the debt would be cancelled outright;
* 30% would be cancelled "as soon as a standard IMF programme is approved," according to the Paris Club press release announcing the move, essentially conditioning debt cancellation on the subjugation of Iraq's economic policy to the IMF;
* Another 20% would be cancelled after three years, subject to the IMF Board’s review of Iraq's implementation of the terms of the agreement, further binding Iraq to IMF conditions.

Two things about the Paris Club "deal" are noteworthy. First, Iraq's debt to the IMF is only about 1% of its total Paris Club debt, and yet the IMF gets to determine the conditions for most of the debt cancellation being offered to Iraq. This shows that the political clout of the IMF is way out of proportion to its financial clout.

Secondly, the Paris Club made it clear that the offer of debt cancellation was because of "the exceptional situation of the Republic of Iraq and... its limited repayment capacity over the coming years." While the initial rhetoric of the Bush administration had focused on the principle of odious debt, the Paris Club was careful not to set a precedent for acknowledging this principle, lest they face pressure in the future to cancel the debts of other repressive regimes such as the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia, the notorious Duvaliers of Haiti, or the Mobutu regime in Congo. Denying the odious nature of the debt also provides the Paris Club political cover to keep 20% of Iraq's debt off the table. Even the Iraqi National Assembly, a body that rarely contradicts the United States, has publicly condemned the Paris Club deal for failing to recognize the odious nature of Iraq's debt and consequently requiring Iraq to repay a fifth of it.

In this manner, a move that appears on the surface to be beneficial for Iraq - debt cancellation - is being used as a tool of control by the World Bank, the IMF and the wealthy creditor countries. What is more, it is a tool of control that will last long after the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.
Cheers, Nick.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:18 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:56 AM: Chevy stated that it was shutting the plants due to lack of profit. It was switching to producing smaller cars in view of the market. Its just the great ole free market that conservatives brag about at work. Liberals had nothing to do with it. There aren't any liberals who are nut cases.

Puh-lease wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:44 AM:I see that John McCain says Obama is too "weak" on Iran. This coming just days after a moderate Iranian, the opponent of Ahmadinejab, was elected to head the Parliament. If McCain would read the newspapers of 2008 instead of rereading stories of the Vietnam war, he might come to understand that the vast majority of Iranians want to replace their Bushian President and want closer and friendlier relations with the US, whose people they say they admire enormously. There are great opportunities to forge progress in that area without a war, but McCain only seems to know one tune, the march. Let's vote for someone who has the intelligence and judgment and range to be successful in the 21st Century instead of someone who insists on replaying 1972 until our egos are soothed.

Back in the USSR wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:54 AM:I've been reading about how Putin has been shutting down the voices of opposition in Russian media. Interesting to see many Russians responding to this as a good thing. They say it's worth it to be protected from the influence of American propaganda and to have "the good life". Some say they have nothing to hide so what's the problem. Chavez is doing similar things in Venezuela. As a liberal, I utterly detest these infringements on freedom of expression, of course. But I thought about how some of our usual posters, for all their talk, would really prefer living in places like Russia and Venezuela, where the voice of "liberals" (or whoever the opposition is) is silenced. Our posters, too, say that warrantless searches are a good thing and shouldn't bother anyone who has nothing to hide. They say that liberals should "leave their country", just as Putin does. They seem to want a kind of freedom that means "free from the likes of you"!

Greenergy wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:59 AM:Chuck at 7:56 a.m. bemoans the loss of jobs at GM's SUV plants.
Boo hoo.
He does not talk about how opening a new plant by Aptera of Carlsbad to produce electric and serial-plug-in hybrids will create thousands of new jobs to pump up our economy right here in North County, or the fact that maybe GM will be transferring those jobs to new plants producing its own serial-plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt.
Chuck is one of those who would have been weeping and wailing over all the jobs lost in the horse and buggy industry, crying and blaming it all on those gosh-darned newfangled horseless carriages.

Floyd wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:00 AM:If you think the Letters page at the New York Times (or, say, the entire San Francisco Examiner whose front page headline today is "It's Election Day! Who The Heck Cares?") has problems, you'll really get lathered when you read some of the actual news items! There is a bill in Sacramento to tax shopping bags 25-cents each that actually passed in the Assembly and is under consideration by the Senate. In Ohio you can be fined $450 and jailed 30 days if you fail to mow your lawn. In Texas, if two trains are approaching each other on the same track, each must come to a complete halt until the other has gone away. The lunacy starts at the top and trickles down to the rest of us, which is what makes the Letters page so -- ah -- interesting to read.

Nick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:01 AM:How about all my posts Mr Ed?

bodecea wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:04 AM:To Chuck,

Does this country only count civil rights based on skin color? OR does it also count gender, age, handicap, and religion?

My partner and I will be getting our license on June 17th. Between now and November, we will be visiting everyone we see who has an "anti-gay marriage amendment" support sign on their front yard. We want to meet them face to face and let them see us face to face. If you are going to vote to limit fellow Americans' civil rights, you need to know them personally. Maybe I'll be coming to your door.

SOLON wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:08 AM:= Chuck heard a news brief and added his own erroneous meaning to it. The is the news release from Bloomberg: QUOTE “General Motors Corp., struggling to return to profit amid record gasoline prices, said it will close four truck plants, make more small cars, and may drop its Hummer brand of large sport-utility.” END QUOTE Chuck’s conclusion is the global warming nutscases are responsible. Bloomberg says it is the gasoline prices. Hummm-m-m-m-m. I don’t know about Chuck.

Ron wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:20 AM:"SOLON" @7:40 AM seems to infer that it was conservatives who have prevented impeachment. I would remind my good friend, that it was Nancy Pelosi who said: "Impeachment is off the table."
The Democrat leadership has decided, regardless of what you want or think, that the impeachment of George Bush is not good for them, as a party. Just as they have determined that any progress in Iraq was not good for them, either. Your frustration is about those you elected, is obvious. And quite frankly, righteous. Afterall, they lied to you, about Iraq, about healthcare, about gas prices, about all kinds of things.
I have repeatedly tried to tell you back in 2006, it was slick marketing & packaging. But you just would not listen. So, who really is at fault here?
Them for the lies? Or you for buying them?

to bodecea wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:27 AM:Congratulations. It's about time the discrimination ceased. I'll think of you two and lift an imaginary glass of champagne to your health and longevity as a couple. I have many friends and acquaintances who have been denied important legal and financial rights due to their gender, and am thrilled that finally, this will end. Good luck to you!

GAY MAN wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:37 AM:~ to bodecea (10:04 AM) ~
Congratulations to you and your partner. I had to wait over 30 years to marry my partner … but sadly he passed away last year. I rejoice for the younger generation. If I am lucky in love, I will still be able to marry. Love knows no age. I saw where this couple in Camarillo, both age 95, got married last week. It is so heartening that the right to marry is being extended to us all, finally.

jvc wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:45 AM:No Reardon blog today?

Chris to Ron wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:47 AM:I guess that the letter from Bob Harvey is way over your head. I am glad that Harvey is telling everybody what I have been telling them. First of all how many suicide bombers have you heard about lately. But yet you keep talking about all these palestinians who teach their children to strap on these explosive belts. Just what the Zionist did the the Pasestinians might have something to do with why there are suicide bombers in the first place. After all Palestinians don't have F-16s or tanks and helecopters so they do with what they have. But Ron, as I said Harvey's letter is way over your head.

Chris to Nick and others wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:49 AM:I have had some of my blogs not posted and then I sent an E-mail to the blogeditor and put in some words from my blog and it wasn't long before they appeared. You might try it.

GFN wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:45 AM:How come the web comments aren't put on this site anymore??? Anyone know?

Nick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:55 AM:Thanks "Chris", I'll give it a try. As usual, the Blog Ed's posted one of my posts but NOT the rest.
Of course it is the 2nd part to a 2 part series, so it doesn't make any sense.
Thanks for nothing Blog Ed's !

Bob wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:01 PM:When you read Chuck's 5:10 AM post: "...the liberals sit back as China and India slant drill for oil 50 miles off the Key West Coast...", please try to remember that these evil liberals under Chuck's bed are very real to Chuck. Apparently, some literate person frightened Chuck as a child. He needs sympathy and understanding.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:34 PM:jvc[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:45 AM:Left the premises last night.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:59 PM:I get a kick out of the letter from Murel Fisk. He or she makes a good point about our law makers. They are just as much to blame as our bogus leaders (all of them!). I'm not voting anymore. In fact, I voted but left some blanks on today's ballot. Issa did not get my vote. Others as well. I may consider writing in my dog's name for president in November. He has just as much chance as any other totally honest, intelligent, and trustworthy candidate! (that would be no chance)

Dwayne Not Reardon wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:33 PM:The "Breaking News" says that Clinton would consider a VP nomination to accompany Obama's presidential bid. Up until now, there has been a strong division between the two based on sex and race. Now we have a unique choice in the November elections -- a sexist racist ticket from the Democrats or a normal ticket from the Republicans.

Roger wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:39 PM:Where's Reardon when we need him?

With his engineering expertise he could help out with explaining Chuck's 5:10 AM post where we learn China and India are slant drilling for oil 50 miles off the Key West Coast.

Have gotten as far as locating Key West, China and India on mt globe here. It looks highly problematical.

Ms M wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:21 PM:Dwayne Not Reardon
[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:33 PM: a normal ticket from the Republicans. Roger, hate to break it to you but there has been nothing NORMAL about the cons in the last 7 plus years. With McCain as your candidate do you even know what he stands for AT THIS MOMENT? Answer real quick 'cause he changes his mind minute to minute.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:33 PM:Dwayne Not Reardon[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008
How is the Republican ticket normal?

Nick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 2:41 PM:To Roger: I hope this helps you out amigo.

The Cuban government is to allow China to station 12 oil rigs in its waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Fidel Castro's government has stepped up work on 36 new oil wells in partnership with Chinese and Canadian companies, officials said on Thursday.
The Cuban government is generally silent about oil matters, but this week Communist Party newspaper Granma also reported that Cuba had drilled its deepest oil well yet near Varadero, east of Havana.
Diplomatic sources said Indian, Norwegian and Spanish companies would begin searching for crude oil in the gulf.
Cheers, Nick.

to Dwayne wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:01 PM:Well yes if a very elderly person with post-traumatic stress disorder and anger management problems is your idea of a normal ticket. See, the thing about Obama is that he is bright, has good judgment, and is living in the 21st Century, none of which apply to McCain. If you want to continue fighting the Vietnam war, and if you think Bush's Presidency has been awesome, then McCain is your guy. Otherwise, no-brainer, Obama.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:11 PM:Dwayne Not Reardon[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:33 PM: You could have the dog cather and a trash man running against McBush. Your normal ticket is still doomed to utter defeat. Just wait for Obama to turn his attention from Clinton to McCain. Fur gonna fly, my fiend.

More interesting association wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:15 PM:While the neocons are all agaggle over Reverend Wright, in a short time the press might, if it does its job, tell us about the relationships between John McCain, Ahmad Chalabi, and McCain's campaign chief Charlie Black. You recall Chalabi: he's the Iraqi who talked the neocons and Bush into invading Iraq (with a long list of exaggerations and lies), hoping himself to gain enormous power there. Turns out Chalabi and McCain are very good pals. And that McCain's guy Black was a lobbyist for Chalabi's organization. In other words, McCain is up to here in lobbyists and in particular lobbyists who were salesmen for the Iraq invasion. This is more than simply casting a Senatorial vote to give Bush permission to use force. McCain and his pals were among the chief hucksters for that bogus invasion. The more we learn about this, the more good reasons we will have to question McCain's judgment, especially in things military. No, Obama was the only one who got it right, and is not up to his bank accounts in "relationships" with people who merrily sent our kids to die so that they could attain power and money.

Oh Obama wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:33 PM:If you are going to twist my arm, I guess I can be your V.P. if Bill approves! But just remember who is really in charge!

Im with Reardon wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:49 PM:Like Reardon and others of you, I can't for the life of me figure out what the editor's decision rules are, if s/he has any. This is seeming more and more random to me, though it appears that a few posters get post after post after post put on the screen. Wouldn't it be better if the editor could put his/her guidelines out here where we can see them so that we can tune our posts (or at least our expectations) to her/his reality? That would be considerate of the NCT, acknowledging the apparently massive frustration experienced by those of us who come here to play.

Wouldnt it be better wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:53 PM:I can see the appeal to some for Hillary as veep. But this would be a ticket of Chicago-NY. Doesn't the ticket need to reach out across the US more. Maybe a Gov Richardson for the southwest and Latino votes he'd bring? Or one of the Senators who has a lot of experience in foreign affairs and the workings of Congress? Limit the ticket to one "unusual" candidate? What do you all think? Can Obama do better than have Hillary as a running mate?

Hey Dwayne wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:06 PM:Will Charles Keating be the vice president on your dream ticket? He's not only older than McCain, but may be even more dishonest (barely).

Roger wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:09 PM:Thanks, Nick.

To wouldnt it be better wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:16 PM:It is not hillary you are bringing in as V.P. it is Bill Clinton who would be running the show over Hillbilly and Osama. No, I don't think so, unless the democrats are willing to lose the presendicy.

Oh Heather wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:23 PM:The United States may have been One Nation Under God. However, it is debatable as to whether or not we still are. A certain person in the military (private Dean Bailey) said that at the rate we're going without Him, the U.S. will one day cease to exist as a nation.

Wouldnt it be better wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:31 PM:I must say that I don't get how people attribute so much power -- almost to a magical degree -- to Bill Clinton. If he's anywhere near the White House he'll run the country, etc. Was Bill a veteran of the Senate or House the way, say, Lyndon Johnson was, so that he had alliances in Congress? Not at all. Did he have the support of Congress? On the contrary, he was impeached. I understand that a lot of Americans liked him and that he was a terrific speaker and persuader, but this makes him President? This gives him sayso over Obama or even Hillary? How? Where do people get the notion that he could exercise this kind of authority? Seems bizarre to me...

Concerned One wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:41 PM:Remember folks if you want a real honest, hard working, trustworthy and loyal president, vote for Rex!

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:45 PM:Wouldnt it be better[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:53 PM Hillary wuuld make an excellent Vice President. but, I think that Gov Richardson would be a better choice since he is Latino, from the southwest and has foreign relations experience. Besides, I feel that Bill would be butting in all the time, advising Hillary and the Clintons just might try to make the VP office more that it is or should be. You know. Just like Dead Eye Dick did.

Bob wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:19 PM:Does Richardson have the "photo op under heavy sniper fire" experience?

Bill wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:25 PM:Solon

All that space you used whining about Bush could have been used to lay out your plan to stop terrorism.

Just like your ilk, you have no plan.

You just whine and cry about the guy who is protecting you from those very terrorists.

You obviously care about terrorists more than you do your country.

Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:32 PM:Oh Heather at 4:23 p.m. says we maybe used to be "One Nation Under God." Actually, the Founders were Deists and had no intent of making this a Christian nation. Even the Declaration does not refers to God or Jesus, but a vague, amorphous "Creator" or "Nature's God," something akin to Mother Nature, clearly a figurative reference. The Constitution doesn't mention anything at all, figurative or not.
And the "Under God" thing is actually quite new. Perhaps this post was by someone to young to remember the original pledge, which was written by a Baptist socialist named Ralph Bellamy in 1890 WIHTOUT THE WORDS "UNDER GOD" which were added in the 1950's during the McCarthy Red Scare era.

OhBill wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:57 PM:Your post about terrorism is plain silly. As a matter of fact, many nations have had plans for dealing with terrorists for years before we Americans woke up on 9/11/01. It was a plan involving complicated internationally cooperative police and undercover work, and while not perfect, many, many destructive plots were stopped, with many arrests. There have been a number of successful such operations since 9/11. But too many Americans share your foolish idea that the only way to solve a problem is to shock and awe everything around it into oblivion. That's fine if you are fighting a specific nation with a specific army. Against this criminal network and belief system, it's dumb. You say it's worked, but as before 9/11, there have been both successful and unsuccessful attacks on our allies while we've been trying to make sense of Iraq. And all agree that Afghanistan/Pakistan is more dangerous to us than it was 5 years ago. Bush has been the dream recruiter of bin Laden, I'm afraid. Every decision he's made has been according to the playbook that is used to prove to once-neutral Muslims that the US hates them. Our "success" against this population has very little to do with whether some particular attack here or there is successful. That has a lot of luck involved in it, as we've seen often. The real battle is about ideology, and Bush has been a disaster on that, the real front.

to Bill PS wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:59 PM:Your hero Bush cares so much about the war on terror that he would rather boot homosexuals out of the service even if they are fluent in Arabic than have them serve. Now that says one whole lot about Bush's priorities. Namely, the votes of his homophobic faux-Christian "base" means much more to him than fighting Islamists effectively.

Chuck wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:07 PM:>>>And the "Under God" thing is actually quite new.>>> And too often, the very ones demanding under God removed are those demanding same sex marriage rights

To Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:08 PM:The Founding Fathers were not Deists. The capital city (Washington D.C.) is full of Biblical symbols. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court Building has several displays of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. In addition, the cap on the Washington Monument contains the words Laus Deo (latin for Praise be to God). The floor of the National Archives also has a display of the Ten Commandments. In addition, there is the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. It contains the words from Leviticus 25:10.

jvc wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:09 PM:What are we going to do without the intellectual prowess of a Reardon?

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:20 PM:Bill[-] wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:25 PM: GWB has never protected the American people from terrorism. Terrorists can strike any time and any place in this nation if they so desire. Good God Almighty, thousand of illegals pour into our country at night. Would not take much for some Arabs to do the same. Fighting in Iraq or in Afghanistan do not protect the American people from terrorists. I am sick and tired of you Bushies making claims like Bill does. Heck. We stand more chance from one of our own committing an act of terror. Remember Oklahoma City. How about all the high school slaughters. What about VPI. Lastly, we do not whine. We contend and combat the conservative lies, misrepresentations and distortions of the Bushies and the Conservo righies. Bill go peddle your load of horse manure some where else. In November, you and your ilk will know that the American people are not interested the manure you peddle on this blog.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:21 PM:Just an Observation: I think "Bill" is a new handle for Chuck.

Three D wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:00 PM:The post at 6:08 p.m. addressed to me does not understand allegory or use of figurative metaphors. Washington DC is also replete with symbolism from Greek and Roman mythology. The Founders were mixed. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Franklin were DEISTS. Washington, Adams and many of the citizens of the day were Christians.
The Deists were also shrewd politicians. They allowed passive, literary, allegorical references to Biblical and mythological themes. Don't read too much into it. You have an exaggerated sense of your own literalistic ideological support. Read the actual writings of the Deists.

Nick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:18 PM:To all my fellow bloggers.
I made a call to the NC Times today to see what the heck is going on with these blogs.
I was told that the website they use to store all of our posts on and pull them from has been down or working veryyyyy slowly.
I'm not sure what that has to do with blogs being posted or not, but that was the answer.
I'll give you a perfect example. Only 2 out of my 6 posts made it on the website today.
If you note my earlier post to "Chris", they posted the 2nd part of a 2 part post, but not the 1st part.
While talking with a Blog Ed this morning, she said that was weird and would get it posted.
Guess what? It still didn't happen.
I don't know what to tell all you folks, other than don't stop trying.
Cheers, Nick.

jvc wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:57 PM:Why does everyone keep referring to Obama as the first Black candidate?
He is not Black or African-American!
He is an African-American AND Euro-
American!

Bill wrote on Jun 4, 2008 2:42 AM:Terrorists can strike the US at any time?

Why havent they?

Huh?

Their assets are frozen and AQs Shiite factions have sold them out. bin Laden gets his money from Hawala brokers and from illicit drug profits. However, his organization is busy engaging the USA in Iraq and losing. His top officers have either been killed or have been captured. Sunni and Shia tribes are at war with each other and their worldwide support has dwindled.

They are not nearly the threat that you say they are.

Not now at least.

Recruiting foot soldiers is no big deal. Its the masterminds that worry me and our worldwide efforts have disrupted their operations and hurt them bad.

The fact that they can attack middle east targets isnt news.

Hitting a US target is.

Why havent they?

Are they just being nice?

Bushs plan has worked thats why!

When we attacked, you liberals guaranteed that we would be hit again.

We havent been hit have we?

Bill Clinton treated the threat as a law enforcment issue and guess what happened?

At the trial of the 93 WTC conspirators, the defense lawyer called the architect of the WTC as an expert witness and guess what he revealed in open court?

Exactly how to bring the building down.

I like the idea of treating them as war criminals and not giving them those kind of opportunities.

But thats just me.

Thank God we dont have a current president that is that reckless.

To Nick wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:44 AM:I have posted numerous blogs that haven't been posted, but if I reword them, they go through. We alway have to look at it from NCT's view. If they let us all say what we really want to say, they would have a line of sleazy attorneys at their door sueing them for comments that NTC didn't monitor. Now a days the 1st amendment and the freedom of the press seems like it is on shakey ground.

To jvc wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:05 AM:Not all of us were as impressed with Reardon's posts are you and Reardon were. Try to move on.

To To Nick wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:09 AM:Though you are correct, we have a problem on this board with uneven handling of censorship, with no particular rhyme or reason, as though various monitors, each with their own standards, post or omit randomly.

Yokozuna to TO Nick wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:13 AM:"Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one."A. J. Liebling of the New Yorker

Rebecca wrote on Jun 4, 2008 9:40 AM:My letter about respect for the veterans had a section left out. I made the comment that Mayor Pfeiler dressed in a casual manner... looking like she just got done with her morning run. The veterans were there in their uniforms, their wives dressed smartly and respectfully as well. The members of the city council that attended were well dressed. I was surprised to see the lack of respect shown by our city's highest representative.

I guess someone at the Times thought that was a bit too critical to post. So much for "Freedom of the Press."