George wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:46 AM:The Oceanside Elks Lodge will be celebrating Flag Day and the public is invited to the pageant and history of each US flag.The program starts at 10 AM 444 Country Club Lane

Go ICE wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:59 AM:I didn't realize we had ICE agents on duty at our jails 24/7 to tag all the illegal criminals that come through each day and night. That is good to know. Looks like things are slowly getting better. For a while it seemed like America was being overrun, but the Administration finally got the message and is enforcing our laws.
Its a start anyway.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:26 AM:I agree 100% with Richard's Boonstra's letter. Polygamy will be legalized by some court, if not here, then somewhere else. Let me make a few more predictions, going by what I've heard at this site over the last few weeks. First, we'll hear the same specious analogy to interracial marriages. And, of course, once a court rules in favor of polygamy, we'll hear how backwards and hateful everyone opposed to polygamy is- and how the Court is not making law, it's just following the Constitution (as the Court and its leftist supporters see it, of course).

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:34 AM:>>Secret language used by women makes comeback in China>> I wonder if its the same language thats used at McDonalds and Subway these days, or the same the teenagers use after four years in the public schools???

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:56 AM:As we commemorate the 64th anniversary of the DDay landings in Normandy today, I can't help but think the reaction of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, Al Goreleone, Barbara Boxer and Feinstein upon hearing of the German carnage on the bluffs due to allied soldiers, sailors and airmen. They'd scream that the infantry and Rangers got what they deserved when they came ashore as occupiers and they's spew from the mouth at the environmental damage from the oil spillage, bombs and bullets and spew their predictable America hate. Murtha would have a fuild day, putting Allied soldiers in chains and solitary confinement for shooting Germans. And, no doubt, CNN would have found some disgruntled Allied general, who would have spilled the beans about the invasion planned by Allies, and Anderson Cooper, Wulfie Blitzer and Christianne Ammanpour would have whipped out their cell phones to warn their good friends, Hitler, Rommel and Von Runstad of the coming attack, just to be fair to the their Nazi buddies.

Theyre Here wrote on Jun 6, 2008 6:50 AM:Blackwater is already up and running in San Diego. How did this happen?

Rush wrote on Jun 6, 2008 6:50 AM:It's always great to hear from Junious, whether he has anything to say or not.

Happy to hear AM radio reception in Carlsbad is doing well.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:02 AM:Phil Epstein, I think given the current political environment, using Israel as their personal "whipping boy" is in vogue these days, sadly.
And it is unfortunate when Chris Pulse,
William Dreu, and Eric Parish, et al.,
say publically the exact same things as
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah, Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniyah, Mahmoud Zahar, and Bashar al-Assad. And no one questions it.

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:23 AM:>>>CommonSense[-] wrote on Jun 5, 2008 12:58 PM: Is there now ample 24 hour electricity available in Baghdad?>> Why should liberals care about the amount of electricity in Baghdad. They spend most of their day fighting energy production in the US, to make sure is hard to get and amazingly expensive

Bob wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:40 AM:G. Jean Snyder's rant on Jimmy Carter points out that during his administration we "had gas lines. odd/even days to fill up and gas going over $1 for the first time in history."

Actually, we had all this during Gerald Ford's administration, prior to 1976.

chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:54 AM:Liberals celebrate the soaring oil prices as jobs here get decimated. They refuse any talk of drilling as China and India sit 50 miles off Key West slant drilling into our supplies, and refuse any notion of nuclear power. I wonder how they are going to explain their totoal lack of concern for American jobs when McCain grills Hussein about it

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:02 AM:I'd personally like to thank Bob Hughes for his facts, & history on 241 toll road. I didn't know that bus loads of union members were on the side of progress? As he says: "...large groups in bright shirts that were on buses provided by unions and the toll authority to carry signs and campaign in support of the road."
I certainly hope this is a sign of good things to come, unions supporting capitalist progress. As I have said, it is not in the unions best interests to side with those on the left who seek to stop growth, production, or capitalism.
In the past, unions were a mainstay of the Democrat party, competing within the party for an equal share with environmentalists. The two are not compatable, and the environmental end is winning. One seeks to stop maufacturing, coal mining, power production, construction, virtually every that is made, while the other needs it to survive. I've always been puzzled by this, why they did not see this eariler? With the leftist wing in control of the party, I believe the writing is on the wall for these union guys.
Less production means fewer jobs, and unions can't have that. While there may be a few jobs created by these so-called "green" jobs, we still need these older sectors. I think the unions are catching onto this, and that they are on the losing end within their own party. Quite frankly, I'm heartened to see this, and hope this will be the first of good things to come.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:15 AM:I think your right, Judith Leggett. People need to "lighten up."
Now, see... I just went and did it again.

GFN wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:22 AM:Some help please!!! Why is it that I can not find the front page story, "Report: Bush distorted intel to expedite war.", on the NCTimes web-site?? I looked everywhere; home; RSS; military; headline alerts; top stories...why would the NCTimes not have the front page, banner story on its web-site??? Editor? Anyone? Please.

[Editor's note: The story you are looking for is a New York Times story and we are not allowed to run their stories online, just in print.]

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:27 AM:>>>It is perplexing how Rep. Brian Bilbray can repeatedly vote against any reasonable timeline to bring our brave men and women home from Iraq>>> If that is perplexing, ask yourself why liberals repeatedly vote down every attempt to drill and refine our immense oil supplies, and any attempt to build nuclear power plants in order to help our energy crisis and stop the massive job loss and commodity inflation.

Thanks Mr McFadd wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:30 AM:It was good of Ed McFadd to show us some of John McCain's voting record. McCain and his handlers, as they review the polls and focus groups and triangulate to capture a base, will be saying anything during the campaign. We are lucky to have a very clear voting record, which is McCain's real stance on things. He will be waving the military flag as few have done between now and November. Let's keep this voting record of his front and center. I saw today, too, that McCain agrees with Bush's policies and legal interpretations for warrantless wiretapping. If you think Bush has been a great President, McCain is your man. Otherwise, it's gotta be Obama. No-brainer.

To Jeff Schwilk wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:59 AM:Your letter ends with this statement; "Together, we are making a difference!" I do not agree with your tactics or your antics. I feel something needs to be done about illegal immigration but I doubt your methods are the way to go. I am an American I love my country, but please do not consider that you represent the large majority of Americans. I have read many articles about you and I do not want to be included in your "together". I feel you, your groups and other like you, and yours are a detriment to society. I believe in the rule of law but your lawbreaking tactics just don't cut it for me. I will celebrate when the laws are enforced by law enforcement and not vigilantes such as yourself. When laws are passed by those we elected to do so based on what is best for the American people not because of pressure from groups such as yours.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:05 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:23 AM More dirvel from Chckie. The only question I have about you and your drivel is what shrink authorized your release from the insane asylum? The amount is electricity is an example of services available to the Iraqi public in their own capital. If it is less than 12 ours after 5 years, then the program is a FAILURE.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:06 AM:Thanks Mr McFadd Hey Nick. Can yu find out if MCCain controlled by the Trilateral? I am serious/

Focal Point wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:07 AM:Bob[-] wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:40 AM As I remember, it was Arab punishment for American support of Israel. Kinda like now.

Apollo wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:09 AM:Re: Richard Boonstra (letter) and Jack D (1:26 a.m.)
Here we go again, with the predictable outcry that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, with the mindless "ditto, ditto" echo from Jack D.
Can we just discuss the current issue instead of trying to transmogrify it into something else?
Get a clue!
Same sex marriage deals with discrimination against a type of person (qualitative).
Polygamy deals with quantity (quantitative).
Got the difference? One is protected by the Constitution, the other is not.
They are entirely different issues.
The real problems with polygamy deal with the fact that its normal practice involves women, often underage, being denied equality of opportunity and being oppressed by dominant males. If you can ensure that no child molestation is involved, that women are treated equally, and that numeric constraints are the same for women (polyandry) as for women (polygamy), then frankly I don't care who does what with whom - it doesn't affect me or my marriage.
But the two issues are separate, and I suspect the real reason you have to confuse them is because you are completely out of serious ideas on gender discrimination against same-sex marriage.

Submitted 7:14 a.m. - resubmitted 8:19 a.m. - third try 9:09 a.m.
Why do Ron and Chuck get repeated posts accepted and mine skipped over? Balance, please!

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:20 AM:>>>Why is it that I can not find the front page story, "Report: Bush distorted intel to expedite war.",>>> I cant find the one that reports Hussein raised his hands and the Red Sea parted, as the liberals swoon at his very presence, although they cant tell you of one single accomplishment of the man

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:21 AM:Did everyone see the AP article "Connections could compicate Obama campaign this fall" on page A9 of this morning's North County Times, highlighting every possible controversial contact they could dredge up out of all the people Obama ever met in his whole life? They can't find anything of substance to pin on the man, so they have to try and find some gaffe, not from himself, but from others he has met before.
My question is, where is the equal treatment? McCain has far more questionable contacts who have done and said far worse, who were directly tied to his political activity.
Tony Rezko? A marginal character who, like thousands, did some fundraising. Why no mention of Phoenix-based Charles Keating, who was instrumental in shaping McCain's early career, and who, through McCain, managed to poison the well of the Keating Five, spreading his cancer of corruption to senators from other states?
Rev. Wright? A religious contact, never sought for political advice. Where is the mention of Rev. Hagee, Rod Parsley, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who made far worse incendiary comments, and who McCain specifically sought out for POLITICAL influence.
Did the North County Times demonstrate bias in not running the balancing piece from the AP? Or did the AP demonstrate bias in not providing it? And if the latter, why did the NCT play along?

On a different note, the primaries are over and it is time to unite.
I've heard all the reasons why Obama should not pick Hillary for VP and many have merit - for a lesser person who cannot deal with a strong rival-cum-ally. Lincoln and Kennedy were given the same warnings, but showed their leadership by rising above it to embrace rather than eschew strong rivals. This is an opportunity for Obama to demonstrate the highest measure of leadership and show he is not threatened by strength, but will embrace it.
Hillary for VP!

First submission 7:46 a.m.; Second submission 9:20

Chuck is Right wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:40 AM:Can't wait for McBlunder to grill Hussein Obama. That'll show him!

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:44 AM:Yes, it is perplexing how you, Vickie Petrus and your ilk, can repeatedly vote against our brave men and women in Iraq. Yes, very disturbing...
And, also very disturbing, but not perplexing is why it was done now.
It's an election year. So, in one fell swoop you want us all to forget all the times our troops were called: murderer's in cold blood per John Murtha. Nazi's per Dick Durbin. Targeting innocent civilians per Dennis Kucinich. And terrorists per John "I spent Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry who said "kicking down doors and terrorizing Iraqi's in the dark of night."
We all know why they tried to do this now, it's an election year.
When they quit calling our troops names, and comparing them to strom troopers, then they can be believed.
It's a campaign trick, and election year gimick. Nothing more.
As I have said, should the Democrats gain seats in the Congress, and potentially the White House, we will all sit and watch as they down size the military. Including these new benefits, as did Jimmy Carter.

To Obamacan wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:47 AM:While I agree that Hillary is a strong candidate the only real benefit she would bring would be the support of her Clintonistas, and they have already decided to support McCain instead of Obama. In my opinion, there are several very good choices for VP Obama could bring to the table, including Biden, Webb, Richardson, or Sebelius, to name just a few. Why limit himself to more Clintons in the White House? I am afraid this would only energize the Republicans to come out in droves just to vote against her.

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:48 AM:I guess most folks have a hard time grasping the fact that GWB invaded Iraq Illegally because Saddam was realeasing oil in Euros and NOT dollars. It WAS NOT because he was worried about WMD's. That was a lie and we all know it.

Now the talk has shifted to Iran, and once again GWB is lying to us all by trying to say that Iran is working on Nuclear Weapons. The part about Iran and Nuclear Weapons is true, but that is NOT the reason we will go to war with Iran.

The reason Bush will go after Iran is because Iran is going to flood the market with cheap oil VALUED IN Euros.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market.

I keep trying to tell you folks, but no one seems to grasp the truth. Yes, GWB is at the helm, but there are more powerful people pulling his strings.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:56 AM:You know "Chuck" @4:56 AM? Nancy Belosi all ready beat it you to this one, friend. Much like they would have abhorred the carnage of German innocents on D-Day, she has already beaten you to it. In fact, back on 5/28 she said: "The surge has failed to accomplish it's goal. And that part of the credit for the success of the surge was due in part to the "goodwill of the Iranians." And that it was them who were repsonsible for the reduction in violence in Basra.
Wouldn't that be like, complimenting Hitler on.. not fighting so hard?

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:00 AM:>>>While I agree that Hillary is a strong candidate the only real benefit she would bring would be the support of her Clintonistas>>> Hussein better have a long conversation with Mrs Foster before he puts Hillary on the ticket

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:08 AM:Can you just feel the "love" and "tolerance" from Joseph Kraatz today? I know, I can.
Apparently, and unfortunately,
Mr. Kraatz must have attended the Rosie O'Donnell school of tolerance.
You know, that's the school of thought that thinks free speech by religious folks is unconstitutional? And interestingly, he can't seem to tell the difference between those who would simply hand you a bible track, and those who would cut off your head.
It should concern anyone who believes in free speech that preceding all socialist dictatorships, is the clamping down on free speech, especially enemy's of the state, i.e. the religious folk.

To Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:18 AM:We have discussed the Bilderbergs and Tri Lateral on this blog before, I am surprised you are just catching on. While Obama is not a Skull and Bonser, I am certain he has been approached by the Tri-Lat and the Bilberbergs, just as has McCain. The only person whom you could reasonably vote for at this point who has proven he cannot be corrupted by The Powers That Be would be Dr. Ron Paul, who has spoken against the World Bank on many occasions.

I too wondered, when I first began to speak of this behind-the-scenes action, why no one seemed to pay attention to me. I believe it's because people fall into two catagories: those who understand that it is inevitable that the power players of the world would group together to make world policy, and those who refuse to believe that they are caught in a true life Matrix. Choose your poison.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:26 AM:I read with great interest your post "Apollo" @9:09 AM. But, one part of your post still puzzles me, perhaps you could clear this up?
You start off with: "Here we go again, with the predictable outcry that same-sex marriage will lead to...."
Some other definition, by those outside the gay/lesbian lifestyle. Simply, It Will. Logically, and Legally you can not argue it differently. If you change the terminology to "persons", it opens up the definition to interpretation by lawyers. It will be challenged, mark my words. If not on the "interpretation" of marriage, but also in conjunction with certain religious rights. Which will make the case even stronger, stronger, in fact, that what is currently being argued about gay relationships.
And secondly, why would you thwart others from seeking their own sense of equal rights? That is hardly a liberal attitude. I think Jack_D nailed it, it will be challenged. No doubt about it.

But you go onto to say:
"The real problems with polygamy deal with the fact that its normal practice involves women, often underage..."
Now, this line of argument I find ridiculous. If your willing to hand birth control to girls as young as 12, then why would you have a problem with those they choose as mates? We have a history, a tradition in this country of young girls marrying older men. In fact, in most countries, this is normal.
So, I guess my question is: Who are YOU?
to say, these people do not have the exact same constituitional right as you do, simply because you disagree with their chosen lifestyle?
And lastly...
I see your re-Submitting again, and again... Do I need to review with you, how peer-review works?

Apollo wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:37 AM:Re: Ron (10:26 a.m.)
Understanding the issue of eliminating sex discrimination from marriage is just completely beyond Ron's ability to understand.
He equates the elimination of discriminatory definitions with a "conjunction with certain religious rights." No, Ron, the point is to separate religion from the issue. You can believe whatever you want and observe whatever religious rituals you choose for yourself. You do not have the right to require everyone else to conform to your religious beliefs or practices. The fact that you even make this point proves that opposition is a religious matter, and confirms the need to legally remove mandatory imposition of your religion on everyone else.
Equating availability of birth control with marriage further exemplifies your desperation.
Marriage is a life-long commitment. Unwanted pregnancy is a negative consequence of an irresponsible act. Guess what, Ron, children - being immature - do make irresponsible decisions. This is exactly why they are not allowed the right of adult consent, whether in contracts, or sex (thus adults who engage them commit rape), or in marriage.
Thank you for revealing to all that you do not understand this at all.
It puts everything you write in crystal-clear perspective.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:40 AM:I more than sure if they had the ridership they might consider increasing Coaster runs, Robyn Hill.
Currently, none of these mass transit systems pay for themselves, a rise in rider fees needs to happen.
I would suggest the reasonably priced "weekend pass" should run about $20 bucks. And that's still a bargin.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:52 AM:That's right, Robert Anderson, We all are required to legally work and pay our own way. Ask the Obamaman. Didn't i hear him say, yes.. we will give you stuff, but we will also require you work for them?
I also have no problem with anyone who wants to be legal, work the same as I do, and pay their own way. No one has given me anything unless I have worked for it and paid my way. I believe everyone has a right to better themselves, legally.

to Obamacan wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:58 AM:I agree with you. We must be sure there is a perpetual stream of simple, factual information about McCain's record as a Congressman. His relationships with lobbyists. His close connection to Chalabi and participation in selling America the bogus Iraq invasion. His gold star rating by pro-life organizations. His votes against the GI Bill and for torture. I believe that if the facts are out there, the American people will certainly not want what McCain has to offer.

Chris to Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:06 AM:The last I saw it was confermed that Iran stopped work on nuclear weapons in 2003. Anyway there is no evidence of them working on nuclear weapons only enriching uranium. Of course Bush doesn't care about evidence all he has to do is make up stories and the American people will buy it.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:06 AM:You know what has occured to me, Junious
Montgomery? The Democratic race is so representative to that of an affirmative action policy practised by many colleges. I mean.. think about it for a second...
You got Hillary Clinton, with more time in the Senate, is a former First Lady. And then you got Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois. Two year of Federal experience, and nothing to show other than his claim that "he's the Outsider."
I guess in this case, race has trumped gender, as he appears to be their candidate. Maybe the point system need an adjustment? I don't know. But, it does seem to me that while Obama led in delegates, she did win the majority vote? I'd call that a stalemate.
Oh, but then we have the SuperDelegates, and the Super-DuperDelegates who put him over the top. I would consider them, more or less, a type of affirmative action committee, of sorts. On what basis did they affirm their decision? What kind of point system, if any, was used? It also seems to me that, she did carry every State needed by any Presidential candidate, while Obama carried other, lesser states. These are just some of many questions I have for my Democrat friends.

Why not wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:08 AM:Ron and others talk about how if gay marriage is permitted, who knows what else might be. They talk as if this is obviously and naturally a terrible horrific thing. But why is it? How many times in history has a person or a society realized that certain things that have always been done a certain way can be questioned? Sometimes good reasons are found to continue, other times not. When the founders designed the Constitution and celebrated individual rights and liberty as much as they did, few even thought that these ideas applied to women and black people. In time, the questions were asked: hey, aren't women people? aren't blacks people too? And the Rons of that age sounded exactly like they do now. "Women vote? What next! Give the vote to chickens?" So as always we must ask what justifies the legal and financial benefits of marriage only for hetersexual couples? And if someone cries, "What next? Polygamy?", the answer can be, "There are no rules that prevent us from asking questions." In a free society, with our national values, this is a good thing, remember?

I agree with Jeff wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:55 AM:of the Minutemen. While they are busy doing what they can some of us are sending news clippings to employers that we know hire illegals showing employers now face prison plus fines, with the warning next call goes to homeland security.

To Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:59 AM:I just have to ask you, why is it you are so keen to make the case for underage females and legal age males? You are kinda creepy, Ron, sorry to say. One can only wonder what kind of websites you visit when you are not blogging here.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:02 PM:Oh boo hoo hoo, Chuck is saying bad things about Liberals again. Oh my oh my he's so provocative and seems so nasty. Oh whoa is me. What ever will we do. LOL!!! Seems the Chucks of the world are becoming increasingly desperate and ever more abundant in their daily whinings about the all evil Liberal. Like I said yesterday even the typically articulate Ron has been reduced to backing up the inane ramblings of his new mentor. So sad. I guess it's just more typical "conservative personal responsibility" as more and more things go wRONg to place the blame on the liberals. And now if we have control of everything after the election and if things turn around they will be proven wRONg about everything they believe in. It's no wonder they say these hilarious things they do about cheering oil prices and D Day. I'd say it was despicable, but it's really just typical. Is it no wonder that conservatism is dead in this country? Personally, as always, I thank them for their contribution to it's demise

Yokozuna wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:04 PM:Regarding Same Sex Marriage. Most of the time when a proposed law is debated the subject matter is replete with speculation. We are really lucky with the Same sex marriage situation. In less than two weeks we will see marriages performed for these couples. Then we will have nearly four and a half months to evaluate the speculations of the pseudo intellects, bigots, fear mongers, followers of mythology, etc. and vote accordingly. Hopefully by then the acceptance will be at the same level as interracial marriages, women's right to vote, and other equality driven legislation.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:05 PM:The only thing that McCain't is gonna grill for barak HUSSEIN obama is his steak dinner. And he'll probably screw that up, too. Especially if he asks the shrub how to cook it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:07 PM:Oil surged to more record highs today and the conservatives are celebrating in the streets. Now they can justify military action against Iran. and blame the liberals. since they don't take responsibility for anything. Which is typical.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:10 PM:Jobless claims rose to record highs again today and the filthy conservatives are celebrating in the streets. Nothing the conservatives like more than people out of work and on their way to the poor house. That's why they always create more poor people when they are in office. It makes them feel better about themselves to see people with less.

Apollo wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:12 PM:Re: Ron (10:26 a.m.)
["favorite son" Ron's seventh post of the morning - all immediately posted while liberals go to the back of the bus]
Understanding the issue of eliminating sex discrimination from marriage is just completely beyond Ron's ability to understand.
He equates the elimination of discriminatory definitions with a "conjunction with certain religious rights." No, Ron, the point is to separate religion from the issue. You can believe whatever you want and observe whatever religious rituals you choose for yourself. You do not have the right to require everyone else to conform to your religious beliefs or practices. The fact that you even make this point proves that opposition is a religious matter, and confirms the need to legally"favorite son" remove mandatory imposition of your religion on everyone else.
Equating availability of birth control with marriage further exemplifies your desperation.
Marriage is a life-long commitment. Unwanted pregnancy is a negative consequence of an irresponsible act. Guess what, Ron, children - being immature - do make irresponsible decisions. This is exactly why they are not allowed the right of adult consent, whether in contracts, or sex (thus adults who engage them commit rape), or in marriage.
Thank you for revealing to all that you do not understand this at all.
It puts everything you write in crystal-clear perspective.

Second submission 12:12 p.m.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:15 PM:The energy cris looms and the conservatives are taking to the streets and waving their Bibles in orgasmic glee. For they know that if poor people can't afford to pay their bills they will die of heat stroke and they think there are too many of "those" people anyway. With less of them around they think their taxes will go down and this is almost too much for them to handle.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:18 PM:The California supreme court makes a ruling that gays can get married and conservatives are dancing in the streets in queer merriment. They think that this will turn out the evangelicals and other hate groups and secure McCan't a presidential win. Since the conservatives make up the real Gay Mafia they think it might work. But the closeted queer conservative gay agenda doesn't stand a chance now that the light has been turned on.

Cluck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:23 PM:Shrub and McBush are determined to have a conflict with Iran and the conservatives are bending over backwords with joy. Like real revival time ecstacy. They are so determined to hasten the End Times that they won't let a little thing like Hope get in the way. By golly, they've been going to their McChurch for years and making their donations to buy their way into heaven, and no amount of inspiration from a real leader is gonna stand in their way. They just hope they have time for one more combo meal and a giant jumbo soda before the spaceship takes them to heaven.

To Jeff Schwilk wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:46 PM:I agree with you, some of us unlike lawbreakers do report crime where ever it is found be it someone in the country illegaly or someone robbing a bank. Remember lawbreakers, a crime is a crime, is a crime. We report all crime.

Bilbray wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:51 PM:Just another Bush Clone. Time to clean house.

Hang on folks wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:57 PM:we are going from a recession into a depression. NEW YORK (AP) - Wall Street plunged Friday on two troubling economic developments: oil prices that surged more than $10 a barrel to a fresh record and a jump in unemployment that was much larger than the market anticipated. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 360 points.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:04 PM:As for the unseen powers that be (Bilderberg, etc), I believe the Dums and Repugs are all the same and they are puppets for the unseen handlers. I also will focus on what's in front of me and not on what I can not affect. With that thought in mind, I've nominated my dog Rex as a write in candidate for president. Rex is honest, loyal, compassionate, and smart. Better than I can say for any of the politicos in Washington (Ron Paul excepted). A vote for Rex is a vote for nothing, but at least you can feel good about yourself!

GFN wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:05 PM:To Editor: Thank you

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:29 PM:To To Nick: I guess I missed those discussions before. The more I dig on these issues, the deeper it gets. I don't know if you got to my posts the other day, but I mentioned that I was for Ron Paul. Not because he was better than anyone else, but because he understands who the real threats are to us and the rest of the world.
It is good to know that you and I are on the same page on some of these issues and you actually understand the behind-the-scene players.
I am willing to bet that Obama has been approached by the Tri-Lats and The Bilderberg. McCain is a former member of The Trilateral Commission, and The Clintons are as sleazy as they come.
I trust neither of the 3 to steer this Country in the right direction.
Your last sentence really rings with truth, because until the majority of Americans open their eye to the truth, we will continue to be controlled by The Elite. Unfortunately, most Americans are not going to be able to grasp the truth and think that Obama is the answer, and he will just keep leading them right into the trap that was set into motion long ago.
Cheers, Nick.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:29 PM:Haven't you learned yet that when you make your slippery slope arguments about gay marriage, you are, in fact, claiming that a homosexual adult is, as far as a marriage goes, not really different from a 12 year old (or, in the past, an animal). Can you imagine that this might be insulting and idiotic? Listen carefuly: Some people HAVE tried to make the argument that children should be free to have sex with adults (there are even organizations to this effect), and our society has replied with a resounding "No" to them, using as an argument the many ways we treat children as a different category from adults, as well as many facts about child development. So our society has quite frequently considered the matter and proven that your slippery slope does not exist. Each possibility is considered and judged on its own merits, and what might apply to one certainly does not necessarily apply to others. Now if you were rational, Ron, you would read this and admit that extending the argument to children or animals has been shown to be erroneous. You'd not make these claims any longer. But, astoundingly, I predict that you will repeat your claims without regard for the counterargument at all. This is why so many people here have said they've stopped reading your posts.

SOLON wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:41 PM:= Ron spoke of Israel being the “whipping boy” (7:02 AM). After the devastation in the markets today, I think the United States has been made Israel’s whipping boy. America’s richest lost tens of billions in equity today after Israel rattled its fierce war sabers today, declaring that an attack on Iran is inevitable. When you are rich and have a wayward child who threatens neighbors with lethal weapons, it can cost you a pretty penny.

SOLON wrote on Jun 6, 2008 1:55 PM:= Nick, you are on top of a hot one about Iran’s biggest threat: to the Petro-dollars. (9:48 AM). When oil producing nations start demanding yen, Euros and roubles instead of dollars, the US is finished. Iran does not need nuclear weapons if it can sink the dollar. A war without Iran firing a shot, except the US will start a hot war first. More about this later. Have to do some updated research first.

SOLON wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:23 PM:= There was panic on Wall Street today. The DOW closed down more than 400 points, the NAS down 75. DOW transports suffered their sharpest one day decline since 9/11. All the major banks closed negative. And word comes out that the banks are back in trouble again.
WHY? OIL OIL OIL
Oil shot up a record an enormous $10 plus today, closing at more than $138 bbl for crude, also a new record, and is rumored to be headed shortly to $150.00
WHY? ISRAEL. ISRAEL. ISRAEL.

Israel rattled its war sabers ominously today, declaring that war with Iran is inevitable. This means nuclear weapons will be used.

Look for $5.00 gas with two weeks. If the US or Israel launches an attack against Iran, gas could go to $7 or $8 a gallon overnight.

We have such prudent and intelligent men in the White House.

Hey how come none wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:24 PM:of my pearls of wisdom get posted? Don't like my IP addy? Let me know I can change it.

Good Grief Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:25 PM:You are actually defending Bilbray's vote against the troops and trying to turn it around and make it the Liberal's fault? Time to wake up and smell yourself. Maybe it would help if you read your posts outloud to a trusted friend before you hit the send button.

Bill wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:27 PM:Chris buddy

Put that in the context of the stuff they have said about Israel and its not hard for most people to figure out that theyre going to make a bomb at some point in the future.

DUH!

Ya know Chris?

Just like your claims ad nauseum that the Palestinians only wanted their land so they can live in peace.

How does turning over the Gaza to Hamas accomplish that?

You sure have a lot of faith in the words of those who want to kill you and no faith in those that want to protect you.

Do you want to be fair or do you want to be alive?

Im not sure you understand the difference.

Your ilk are dangerous.

Irans nukes wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:27 PM:Thanks to Chris for mentioning what we actually know about Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration constantly made claims about Iran developing nuclear weapons despite Iran's insistance that it's programs were non-military. Finally, the facilities were inspected and the facts were made clear that any weapon-related programs ended 5 years ago. Incredibly, Bush's people and Israel have simply continued to make their same claims as if that inspection had never occurred. As with Iraq, the war-mongers will repeat its claims endlessly, carefully choosing words to escape the charge that they are technically lying. Most Americans will come to the conclusion that Iran is moving towards nuclear armament. When Bush or Cheney will be challenged about this, they will say "We never said they had weapons..." Crazy as it sounds, we are watching them do with Iran exactly what they did with Iraq, but with even LESS justification. And, like Iraq, whenever anyone questions them, they say "Ahmadinejab is evil" exactly as they said Saddam was evil, and for many Americans, no further explanation is needed. McCain wants to stay the course.

To Concerned One wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:30 PM:You have mentioned your dog Rex several times as running for president. Actually, my dog Kai is smarter than your dog Rex and would make a much better candidate. Would Rex consider a VP spot?

Grumpy Old Men Part III wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:32 PM:Staring former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton! :)

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:41 PM:Hello, Mr Ed. Where is my last post to my amigo "To Nick"? What on Gods green earth could you possibly have found wrong with it?
Or is it something personal?

John wrote on Jun 6, 2008 2:46 PM:Ron sure does a fine job of defending his values. They need defending because they are in decline. I wonder if he'll go down with the ship.

Olaf wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:19 PM:Seems like the doomsday’ers (cluck, solon, nick, etc…) are more excited about the Israelis rattling sabers then the conservative here are. It is funny how you guys seize more pleasure out of bad news then any news that might come out that might be good. Work yourselves into slather it might get bumpy. Maybe that is why most think the news is slanted; all they do is predict bad things, even in good times, sort of like you guys.

What do you do wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:20 PM:As gas prices climb, I wonder about all the commuters on the 15 corridor. All those people who chose to commute that far because it was the only way they could afford the kind of house they wanted. Surely the direct and indirect costs of gas are having a dramatic impact on many lives right now. How are you folks managing?

Irans nukes PS wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:25 PM:I invite you all to look at Bill's 2:27 post as an example of how folks like Bush and Cheney get their power. The president of Iran, whose days in power are numbered, so disliked is he by the Iranian people, makes a remark about Israel and this is all it takes. For Bill, it's proof that Iran would like to have nukes sometime in the future. And their wanting nukes sometime in the future is reason enough to bomb them now. Cheney weeps with gratitude when he hears the Bills speak. Innocent Iranian civilians tremble in terror.

Re Nick pm wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:42 PM:It is unfair to the voters to not know about these inside, behind the scene schemes that are going on, that are not released to the public by the media. This one world government,Council on Foriegn Relation (CFR)and the New World Order are all set up for the rich and elite working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, and taking away the middle class completely among other destuctive agenda.
I would urge all that are voting would take a good look at any CFR sites and see just what is intended by our elected officials and all that are behind the scene.
The only one that is not being bought by these rich is Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:45 PM:I'm really glad you asked me that question, "To Ron" @11:59 AM!
I'm sorry if my question creeps you out, but I'm glad to know you have limits to what you would allow.
Now, no one here is talking about children here, we are talking about women. My definition of women just happens to be based upon very liberal approaches to birth control. I mean..
If she's old enough to know about sex, and old enough to have sex, and old enough to use birth control... In my opinion, then she is old enough to pick who she will have sex with. It's actually a very easy concept. You see.. in the liberal mind, shes definately old enough for all these things, except having sex with who she chooses to?
You give her ALL these tools, and then say.. Don't touch? That's a very odd appraoch, wouldn't you say?
Now, I'm certainly no advocate for these type & kind of sexual behavior, I just really like throwing this idea up in your face, cause I know there is someone out there who does think this ia a good idea. Just as teh polygamists will argue later about marriage. Just because your uncomfortable with it, does not mean other's don't see this as normal. You catching my drift here?
You guy's want to be progressive, I say let's be Super-Progressive, and give everybody what they want. And you guy's blink. Why? Are you offended? Does this shock your sense's?
So, like any good little liberal, I will ask you the same question you ask us, ok?
Who are YOU to say, these people do not have the exact same constitutional right as you do, simply because you disagree with their chosen lifestyle?
That is it? right? You disagree with their chosen lifestyle? And if allowed, will that also hurt your marriage?
As you can see... two can play this game.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:55 PM:To To: Is Kai house trained? That alone would make him better than current candidates. I'll consult with Rex about the Veep spot. Hobie the Cat has been vying for the position, but then who would ever vote for a cat? Way to libral. Anyway, maybe we're in luck. After today's close on the stock market the whole country is going to the dogs!

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 3:56 PM:Again today I'd like to submit for the groups approval, another prize for the best post today! My buddy "OBAMACAN"
@9:21 AM! Here are just a few highlights:
"Connections could complicate Obama campaign..."
"..controversial.."
"..dredge up..."
"..gaffe.."
"..Tony Rezko..."
"..A marginal character..."
"..fundraising..."
"..cancer of corruption..."
"..Rev. Wright..."
"..religious.. incendiary comments..."
"..bias..."
"...time to unite."
Can I get a second?

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:00 PM:Your post at 3:45 rests entirely on your decision to say that liberals define a 12 year old as a woman if we say she may use birth control. This, of course, is prepostrous and if you don't allow that claim, the whole post falls apart. It is a biological fact that from menarche until menopause, females can conceive children. In every other way, however, our society is clear about considering under-18's children and a different legal and moral category from adult. As far as I know, taking the position that there should be no such categories is not associated with any liberal position. You know all this of course. Oh, Ron, what lengths you will go to, what nonsense, to avoid appearing wrong. And failing at that so frequently!

Similar but different wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:05 PM:The other day I posted a message that "showed" how the rise of gay liberation correlated well with the decline of the divorce rate, and "claimed" that this proved that homosexual marriage was good for heterosexual marriage. I did this tongue in cheek, of course. Yet Ron uses similarly absurd logic when discussing the issue of gay marriage, making all sorts of crazy analogies and reasoning. But the difference is that Ron is not posting tongue in cheek. Big difference! LOL

As far as gay marriage goes wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:10 PM:leave it to the voters to decide. When the results are in I wonder how fast it will null and void any marriage between the same sexes, I would imagine immediately once the voters vote.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:22 PM:Chuck writes: "The last I saw it was confermed (sic) that Iran stopped work on nuclear weapons in 2003. Anyway there is no evidence of them working on nuclear weapons only enriching uranium. Of course Bush doesn't care about evidence all he has to do is make up stories and the American people will buy it."

This is typical of uninformed opinion based on wishing not facts.

If Chuck is right, why is the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations with a Muslim it's top official so concerned about Iran's nuclear push into areas that are needed to produce weapon grade uranium?

Is that agency a Bush agency? Naw, it's just a UN agency trying to collar a rogue state's push to develop and create nuclear weapons.

This is a country that wishes to wipe Israel off the map. What with…? Nuclear weapons, of course.

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:26 PM:I am glad to see that others such as "To Nick", "SOLON", and "RE Nick PM" are taking notice of the real threat to our once great Country.
As "SOLON" pointed out, Iran itends to sink the U.S. without even firing a shot. All they have to do is flood the market with cheap oil in Euros, and we are finished.
Many folks think that Ron Paul is a nut job or anti-government, but they couldn't be further from the truth. Ron Paul know who the REAL threats are and he is ready to take them head on. He is THE ONLY hope we have as a leader because he WILL NOT be bought off by the Powerful Elite.
"SOLON" also mentions the secretive and very scary Council on Foreign Relations. These same folks were put into play by GWB to ramrod the Security for Prosperity Partnership of North America down our throats without anyone the wiser and bypassing Congress. It is the 1st step to a North American Union and than a One World Government.
I am glad to see others here are not being fooled either. I have been spreading the word to all I know and they are finally starting to figure it out as well. We all need to do the same and stay on top of this before it is to late.
Good work amigos, and keep it up!
Cheers, Nick.

Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:30 PM:I think you hit it, "Oh Ron" @1:29 PM.
While you lament my "slippery slope argument", you really are kind of stuck, aren't you? About gay marriage being the defining moment of totally redefining marriage even beyond your concepts and limits, doesn't it?
As you say: "Listen carefully: Some people HAVE tried to make the argument that children should be free to have sex with adults (there are even organizations to this effect), and our society has replied with a resounding "No" to them..."
Exactly! Society has said NO!
Which is exactly the case regarding same sex marriage.
Now, follow my logic...
At one time, homosexuals were thought of as sick, in some cases, they went to jail. In 1972, the mental health issue was removed, and we are where we are now. All I'm suggesting to you, is that this IS a slippery slope. In the same way you see other practised forms as being sick now, down the road, they will have their day in court too.
These laws about age of consent were adopted for this age, it never used to be this way. This may offend you, it does me. But, it is the liberal insistance that has brought us to this point in history. And I don't really think you truly understand, what you have done. Now, you can say I don't want people to marry because I hate what they do, but isn't that what your also saying about these other's who simply want to have personal, private relationships? The bottom line is: You and me are the same. We have our own sense of what's right and what's wrong. Your's runs a little more to the left, but not really that far. Because your willing to hide behind a law about age, or your own preconceived notions about what a relationship should look like.
Isn't this what you are accusing me of too?

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:33 PM:Oil MacroEconomics (PartI)

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the spring of 2003, Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports - although the oil pricing for trades are still denominated in the dollar. [4]

Therefore, a potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create of an Iranian oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
More to come.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:36 PM:Oil MacroEconomics (Part II)

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).

Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX),

One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in 2005 or 2006, when it appears international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $50 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €37 - €40 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar - and assumes that some sort of "intervention" is not undertaken against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades
Cheers, Nick.

Olaf wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:39 PM:Did Olaf just call some of us naysayers? Like whiners? Come on Olaf, you're gonna have to try harder than that sweetheart. "Whiners" is so 2006. Try to keep up. And "saying" oil went to new record high is not "predicting". That's a fact. And it's unfortunately not good news. Granted your confusion is understandable; conservatives have little use for "the facts." Part of being a typical conservative. And thanks for confirming my observation of how "gleeful" the conservatives are about all the "liberal biased bad news media". Some folks aren't all that happy about it. Enjoy the dancing in the streets, the spaceship will be here soon.

John wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:46 PM:Ah Ron - the games people play. You roilled snake eyes.

To Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:51 PM:I understand you are for Ron Paul. I understand a lot of us are for Ron Paul. What I don't understand is why Ron Paul only has 14 delegates when he could navigate circles around McCain with his expertise on the economy and foreign policy. I voted for Paul in the primaries and donated to his campaign. Anyone else? He has not yet dropped out of the race. Expect to see him at the Republican Convention.

To Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 6:07 PM:I read an interesting theory that because the dollar is failing (due to the mechanics of those very people you are talking about) one day we will wake up and our dollars will have been converted to Euros overnight and we will have become the North American Union. Fait accompli. Don't think it can't happen. PS I am glad we are finally talking about this as well.

Paul '08

To Concerned One wrote on Jun 6, 2008 6:16 PM:Kai is not only house trained but he can run a herd of cattle without guidance. He would be happy to have Hobie in his cabinet but understands that cats do not answer to anyone but themselves.

Kai/Rex '08

sdraoul wrote on Jun 6, 2008 6:45 PM:Nick has yet to produce any elected public official who espouses MECHA platitudes expressed by MECHA punks years ago.

His attempt to say that LA Mayor Villaragoisa is one who espouses MECHA baloney isn't correct. He can't produce and statement any quote or video of the Mayor stating MECHA principles.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:07 PM:Not that I'm surprised but you pretend to not get it. Naturally, you didn't quote my entire point. As I said, society has decided (at this time) that children cannot be adult sexual choosers, AND we make this argument by looking at the many, many ways that we consider children unlike adults, as well as facts about child development. It's certainly true that somewhere, sometime this could change...what else did you think any of this was but societal? So we say to the nation, as we did with women and blacks, prove to me why homosexuals should be discriminated against. With children, the nation responds: here's the reasoning. With gays? Well, what IS the reasoning, Ron? When I say that society determines these things, that doesn't mean it's by majority vote. As I said, society's argument is based on a thousand ways that children are considered a different category, backed up by facts of biology. (Interestingly, the attack on the concept of "children" is most seriously coming from the right, when it insists that some minors be tried "as adults" for crimes. If you want to look for a slippery slope that leads to children choosing sexual partners, that's the place to look. You conservatives say that when they are at their most depraved, children are adults...so why aren't "normal" kids?) But of course, as I always say, Ron knows all this.

can we do it wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:12 PM:OK, folks. We know that the Democrats have a fabulous track record of blowing elections that should be easy wins, but 2008 is their greatest test yet. We're stuck in Iraq and almost 70% of America is against this war, as are the Iraqi people. We are about to invade or bomb Iran for similarly concocted reasons. We are failing in our fight against those who attacked us on 911. The economy is a disaster and worsening by the week. The Republicans offer a candidate that is gung-ho for both wars and admits he knows nothing about the economy. Is it remotely possible that under these circumstances the Democrat can lose?

Exhibit B wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:29 PM:As Dick Cheney reads this blog, he again is moved to tears as our pal raoul chimes in for war against Iran. Cheney has such a wonderful strategy: do everything possible to terrorize and threaten Iran. Then, when they have the nerve to worry about us and ready to defend themselves, tell the world that Iran is an evil aggressor. Here is Bill. Here is raoul. They love this argument. It's straight from the schoolyard bully vocabulary that they fawn over. Ahmadinejab is a careless, egomaniacal jerk. His people know this, as reflected in the polls and in the fact that his opponents, moderates, have been increasing their power via the electorate. But Cheney will never say this to Bill and raoul. When we hear the word "Iran", Cheney wants us to only hear "Ahmadinejab" and "..wipe Israel off the map..." Bill and raoul say, "Yes, master, that is the whole truth. Let us kill them all!" Do the Iranians know that if one tiny nuclear weapon was used against Israel their country would be anihilated? Of course they do. Cheney and McCain don't want Bill and raoul to think about this, only on the terrible threat to the world that Iran is, so we can kill them. Bill's and raoul's response to Cheney make him weep with joy and gratitude. Life for Cheney is easy, isn't it?

Long list or short version wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:51 PM:Ron loves to compile lists of phrases that seem to be negatives for Obama, or at least can be used that way by those that already dislike him. Surely he must know that a similar list for McCain would be easy to compile. But those of us who support Obama have a much simpler way of reminding people about McCain's negatives: he wants us to stay the course.

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 8:43 PM:To To Nick: It is about time we are all starting to talk about this. Hopefully we are not to late.
I am also wondering about Ron Paul and his delegates. The only thing I can surmise is that the majority of delegates have NO clue what a waste of support it is for McCain, Obama or Hillary. They have no clue of the path in which The Elite are taking us.
That, my friend, is truly scary. Those who are supposed to help choose the ones to lead us, couldn't find the neighborhood store if it was lit with neon signs.
The majority of Congressman and Senators are fools and idiots, or actually know the truth and are part of the very problem.
It is high time Americans rise up and take our Country back, and that is the reason for the Interment Camps that are being built and refurbished by Haliburton.
You see, those that know of the subversion of our Constitution and a New World Government are already preparing for us Americans to figure it out and fight back. That is the reason for wanting to take our guns away and build places to put anyone who would stand up to those who would subvert our Constitution and our Country.
Ron Paul knows the truth and we need to spread the truth and get people behind Ron Paul.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:10 PM:One more thing "Raoul", you always act like the stern Constitutionalist when it applies to your rhetoric about the Illegals you love so dearly, but when it comes to the abuse and subservency of GWB and the Illegal war in Iraq, but claim blind Conservative idiocy.
You seem to think there really is a war on terror, and we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. You would think that someone as educated as you would know better, and it astounds me that you don't.
You spew Republican Party Line rhetoric like it's the Gospel. If you really love this Country and The Constitution like you are always claiming, it's time for you to put aside the Party Line nonsense and stand up and be a man.
It's time for you to realize that GWB is just a puppet of The Elite and he's selling us down the river along with a handful of others.
We are both Marines "Raoul", and I would much rather stand beside you in taking back this Country from those who wish to erase our Constitution and our Freedom, than I would stand against you in our feelings about Illegal Immigration.
The time is near "Raoul", and your smart enough to know it.
Cheers, Nick.

Chuck wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:59 PM:The news is reporting that Cuba approves free sex-change operations for citizens. How cute. The usual suspects will now be demanding the same for free, all over America

Nick wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:45 PM:What's the deal Mr Ed? Where is my first response to "Raoul"? There was absolutely NOTHING out of the guidelines in that post.
The censorships in these blogs is beyond tiresome.
I guess invective is not allowed unless it serves your own personal bias.
Sad, but typical.

From Beth to Phil E wrote on Jun 6, 2008 11:30 PM:Good job! Just the facts man

Cal wrote on Jun 7, 2008 12:46 AM:Sexuality, love, marriage - it's just your DNA at work trying to replicate without regard to social structure or custom. Don't matter what anyone says or blogs - the work of our DNA goes on in the background.

John wrote on Jun 7, 2008 12:48 AM:Whoo-hoo Nick 9:10!!!!

from the back gate wrote on Jun 7, 2008 7:16 AM:Once again we hear Mr Hortons stupidity rise out in the news about Tri-City Hosp. He fails to believe that in a very few years the hosp will be required to close most or all of its services. Hope you all dont have a heart attack and have to ride in an ambulance to Palomar Hosp. in the middle of rush hour. By the way, where is your running mate Joe. Havent heared from him lately. You two deserve each other.

from the back gate wrote on Jun 7, 2008 7:31 AM:Once again we have voted on a school bond and past it. Most people have failed to look at what it will really cost us. If my memory serves me, it will be in the area of 34.00 per 100,000.00 appraised value. Seems that will be quite a bit higher that the Hospital Bond was and will be if it is past. I for one have never used the Oceanside school district with my three children, and voted against it. I dont see any return on my investement except for new group of gang bangers who still cant spell or write well. It is amazing that we will spend all that money on nice looking schools to be painted on but we wont look at building a new hospital that is truly needed and more inportant than worrying about teachers unions and there little perks. Teachers are no more important to this world than anyone else even though they tell us they are because they teach our children. They need to do their job and stop complaining. If a new hosp is not built in north county, where will we take all the shooting victims from our highly educated youth. You teachers dont seem to be able to get the job done, Tri-City does and it deals with all walks of life. What is you excuse.

Roberto wrote on Jun 7, 2008 7:31 AM:Nick still speading garbage about mexicans...Nick has yet to produce any elected public official who espouses MECHA platitudes expressed by MECHA punks years ago.

"His attempt to say that LA Mayor Villaragoisa is one who espouses MECHA baloney isn't correct. He can't produce and statement any quote or video of the Mayor stating MECHA principles."...good job exposing this cyberbabble

Nick wrote on Jun 7, 2008 9:44 AM:Yeppers "Roberto", you are so right as usual. Just because someone is not a member of a race-based, only for one race organization, they are not a racist anymore.
Using your logic, if Tom Metzger stopped being affiliated with The Aryan Movement he would stop believing in the supremecy of the white race.
As usual, you and "SD Raouls" loging just doesn't work.
At least you didn't use "xenophobe" for the 1000th time.
Did you finally figure out how to use a thesaurus?

But Nick wrote on Jun 7, 2008 10:34 AM:Your analogy to Tom Metzger might make sense if you could produce things that Villaragoisa has said that are consistent with Mecha's philosophy. If Metzger left the Aryan movement and, for decades after, no one could find a single racist remark of his, at some point you'd wonder if he should still be associated with the behavior of his youth. In other words, the challenge stands: show us what Villaragoisa has said or done that are Mecha-consistent.

Ron wrote on Jun 7, 2008 11:17 AM:In very typical liberal fashion, my good buddy "Oh Ron" {Jun 6} @7:07 PM, has just gone into circular reasoning.
The argument from the gay's is that this a constitutionally protected relationship, and not to be determined by society's wants or desires.
When we argue about "other" sexual behavior, then you give me the "society forbids it" argument. Man, make up your mind. If the State can not determine who shall marry who, then everyone is welcome to their own interpretation, constitutionally speaking.

increasing Coaster wrote on Jun 7, 2008 3:56 PM:Where has anyone been. NCTD is hurting people not helping. Fight for bus 101 they pnan to run it from Oceanside to Del Mar and that is all. Fight for bus 101 that goes from Oceanside to UTC. I would take a day off of work to fight. NCTD wont have meetings in the weekends because all you workers will show up and that fears them.

Nick wrote on Jun 7, 2008 4:53 PM:To "But Nick": Mayor Villaragoisa runs a Sanctuary city and oversees it's Sanctuary policy. He does not need to speak, for his actions and non-actions speak volumes.
Special Order 40 was issued on November 27, 1979 by the Los Angeles Police Department under a directive by the Los Angeles City Council. It forbids the LAPD from arresting someone for being in the country illegally AND it forbids the LAPD from COOPERATING with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

This is the wording, which pertains to cooperation.
"That no officer of the Los Angeles Police Department shall cooperate with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to: inquire into the immigration status of an individual, EXCEPT AND Unless (underlined in the text) required by city, county, state or federal law to inquire into the immigration status of an individual seeking LAPD employment."

This is unconstitutional.
How do I know?
On November 19, 1992, California Attorney General Dan Lungren issued a legal opinion.
In brief, it said:
Question:
"May a city prohibit its officers and employees from cooperating in their official capacities with Immigration and Naturalization Service investigation, detention, or arrest procedures relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration laws?"
Conclusion:
"Due to the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, a city may not prohibit it officers and employees from cooperating in their official capacities with Immigration and Naturalization Service investigation, detention, or arrest procedures relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration laws
That was not enough for the L.A. City Council to act. They refused to rescind Special Order 40.
Then in Proposition 187, which was passed by 59% of California voters in November of 1994, it says, in part,:
"Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws."
That was not enough for the L.A. City Council to act. They refused to rescind Special Order 40.
Then, the Congress of the United States passed HR 2202, the immigration reform bill, which specifically requires cooperation between local law enforcement and the INS.
That was not enough for the L.A. City Council to act. They refused to rescind Special Order 40.
Then, on May 9, 1996, Guy Weddington McCreary, a VCT member, filed a lawsuit against The City of Los Angeles seeking the recision of Special Order 40.The city did not answer the lawsuit and McCreary moved for a Default Judgment. Judicial Watch also filed suit against the City of L.A.
Is that good enough for you?

To Open Border Goons wrote on Jun 7, 2008 5:53 PM:Oh yes, we speak for 90% plus of American citizens and we are 100% law-abidding and peaceful. Nice try as always. You are losing, just go away. America is tired of your lies and garbage. You have nothing useful to add to the argument! - Jeff S.