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