DD Wiz wrote on Jun 12, 2008 4:35 AM:The published letter from Thomas Cowan Jr. excellently sets the record straight on many points for which Neocons love to try to blame him for, which actually originated with Tricky Dick Nixon.
Another big one, that Cowan did not mention, is that Carter is largely blamed for stagflation, but we all know the Fed Chairman has more to do with such economic indicators than the president. While the president does get to appoint the Fed Chair, their terms of office are not the same, and Carter inherited the Fed Chairman Arthur Burns who had been appointed by Nixon and held office until the last year of Carter's presidency, when Carter appointed Paul Volcker, who served through most of Reagan's first term and turned the economy around, for which Reagan, of course, unjustly got much of the credit.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:19 AM:The news is reporting that "Texas executes first prisoner since court lifted moratorium"" Did you see the cute liberals outside of the prison walls, with their pink candles singing Kumbaya and We Shall Overcome. And those same liberals are demanding that, on demand, doctors must jam a catheter in the brainstem of a fetus and suck the contents down the drain, and naturally the procedure must be paid by the government or their health insurer. Did you know that big businesses in San Francisco cant get a business license unless they provide sex change and partial birth abortion coverage.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:21 AM:>>>Scott McClellan is doing media tours supporting his book>> I dont think he even wrote the book. He was paid handsomely to consult on it. It was published by a company owned by George Soros, so McClellan was basically paid to supply dirt that is either false or that he was part of.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:23 AM:>>>I am so proud of what Hillary has accomplished>>> Mrs Foster isn't

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:34 AM:>>>I just received a letter from Duncan Hunter explaining that he is an original co-sponsor of HJ resolution 89, a constitutional amendment to make marriage a union between one man and one woman. Every time I read that a congressman is proposing a constitutional amendment, I immediately think pandering>>>>
Then what would you call Mayor Sanders sudden change in heart about gay marriage. He promised to oppose it, but then when his popularity started to drop, in a blubbering press conference, he changed his mind and is now enthusiastic about it, along with San Diegos designation as a "sanctuary city"

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:38 AM:>>>As time went on, I saw North's side of the story. Later, events proved that their action to circumvent Boland was correct.>>>>
The liberals were just outraged that Oliver North picked the back pocket of their hero, the Ayatollah, and diverted the money to the cause of democracy in Central. What could possibly be more hateful to liberals like Ted Kennedy.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:51 AM:>>>Check the facts on Carter's legacy>>> I did: 21% interest rates, 18% inflation, the Ayatollah moking the US for 400+ days with the hostages, 71% top income tax rate. And he's even better now. Whenever possible he travels abroad to bash the United States to collect millions in speaking fees. (along with that weasel, Madeline Albright)

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:58 AM:>>>Obama's announcement that no more lobbyist and PAC money will be accepted is such a great, positive, immediate move>> It is? He's having fund raisers in China, Soros is his main contributor, with Hollywood a close second. And if you're a union member you money is going to Obama whether you approve or not. Lobbyist and PAC money is alot cleaner than the Hefty bags of cash being delivered to Hussein. It brings back images of Gore opening the trunk of his car, to be filled with $5 million in cash from Buddist monks. LOL. And you liberals believed that one. LOL

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:17 AM:The news is reporting that "Bush urges Europe to more aggressively partner with U.S." LOL. What a crock. For 8 years Bush has done exactly what the Mexicans and the European union has told him to do. He's weakened the dollar, done everything possible to get $5 gas prices, left the borders wide open, exported American manufacturing, and sits back while the EU spits on and prosecuted the IP rights of American businesses. He has been a president for the other world leaders, not a president for the American people.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:31 AM:The news is reporting that the liberals on the Supreme Court have come down on the side of terrorists. (Gee, what a surprise)
• "Supreme Court: Guantanamo suspects can challenge detentions."
That is sure to have Congress, the teachers unions, San Francisco and Berkeley and the ACLU dancing in the streets

Ms M wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:40 AM:Good Morning Chuck - in my very humble opinion I think you need to switch to decaf - have a great day - chill!

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:07 AM:>>>Good Morning Chuck - in my very humble opinion I think you need to switch to decaf>>> Me too, but a large Starbucks (without all that foo-foo stuff in it) at 5:05 am, on the way to way to work is too good to pass up

Thats how wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:13 AM:So many of us have wondered how to get our posts put up regularly. I guess the answer is: imitate Chuck! Is it his brilliance? Is it his lack of repetitiveness? The absence of name-calling? The presence of important truths (like writing "Mrs Foster" whenever Hillary's name comes up)? I suggest that we all study the blogs of Chuck to learn how to reliably get our posts posted here.

Alf wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:21 AM:I knew it, "Chuck" is in league with the devil, Starbucks, and their evil, overpriced flavored, caffeinated water. Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:24 AM:The news is reporting that Ten U.S. airports will begin employing security devices that can see through clothing.
One thing for sure, that will get the perverts off the unemployment line into TSA uniforms

chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:28 AM:>>>So many of us have wondered how to get our posts put up regularly. I guess the answer is: imitate Chuck!>>> I doubt you would be overjoyed with my 50% rate. Just do what I do, be in the office at 5:30am, look at the news and type away

McClellan wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:33 AM:McClellan hoped to make big bucks for his book. He might have had help writing it. So what? Rush Limbaugh works for nothing? George Will doesn't use an editor? Don't you get sick of people who, unable to address the content of books like McClellan's, just say anything about the person, as if this had anything to do with the matter at all. Even so-called "proven liars" like Clarke and Bush tell the truth sometimes. It's the truth (or not) of what they say that matters. McClellan's accounts are so in line with so many other accounts, along with piles of corroborating material that the biggest problem with his book is that nothing in it is new to us.

Reardon wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:41 AM:Today, at MCRD, a Sgt. Is going to say to his recruits: ”The Supreme Court has ruled that if you bring in a prisoner, that prisoner get a lawyer, and access to all of the federal judges and Courts of the U.S. Do you know what that means?”

And a recruit from Tennessee is going to reply: “Yes, Sir! It means I don’t take prisoners!”

And the Sgt. is going to feign shock! “I didn’t say that!”

And the recruit is going to say, “No Sir! I did!”

In future wars, and in the remainder of this one, they will not make “white flags” white enough, or large enough to be seen.

Let me give you the first excuse: “Hey, Lt.! They were not trying to surrender! I thought that was their dirty underwear they were waving at us in defiance!”

Oh Ficere wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:42 AM:"The dictatorship running Nicaragua"? I strongly recommend that Mr Ficere dig in the archives to learn about that period in Central American history. The Ortega government in Nicaragua was democratically elected. No one claimed that there was anything rigged about the election: Ortega was the guy the people wanted in office. That was unacceptable to our dear, democracy-spreading President Reagan. So he funded, trained, and armed terrorist groups made up of people who had been in the government of the real dictator that preceeded the democratic regime. It was the dictator that Reagan liked, the one that played ball with the big corporations and brutalized the people of Nicaragua. So he sponsored terrorism to undo the democratically elected government. Reagan also blockaded the major ports of Nicaragua, which was against international law (according to the World Court) to fiercely punish the people of Nicaragua for having had the gall to vote for someone Reagan didn't approve of. The people of Nicaragua know and remember the sheer brutality of the American government under Reagan. One of the most shameful episodes in our history. Look it up. Defenders of Reagan usually say that because Ortega was a socialist, Nicaragua got what it deserved, and Ficere takes this nonsense even further, making Ortega into a "dictator". Please, read about that period and find out the truth for yourself. We have been a terrorist nation. That's a terrible truth, but a truth nonetheless.

OBAMA wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:42 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:58 AM: The majority of contributions come from individuals through the internet. "Yes we can."

Concerned One wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:49 AM:Ladies and Gentlemen of the Blogesphere, I am reporting a serious issue with the Blog editors. It seems my political candidate is being censored here. All this jabber about Obama and McCain and my very serious posts about my, albeit write-in, candidate gets trashed! Rex now knows how Ron Paul feels! Regards, C-1.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:54 AM:Cara Lou Wicks is right that things are bad right now, but her letter offered no solution other than a vague call for "change.(twice in one letter)" Her letter is typical of many Barack Obama supporters: they call for change but don't define what that would entail. My question to people like Ms. Wicks is: What specific proposals are you suggesting? Tell me what you mean by change; otherwise, it's just a meaningless slogan.

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:20 AM:The money grubbing hack Scott McClellan is hocking his book. As far as I know, capitalism is not "yet" a crime, Garth Gregory Hansen.
As Mr. Hansen says: "The book is "supposed to be" an insider look at the mistakes and deceptions of the Bush White House."
What this is.. is.. a liberal ranting from the likes of liberal publisher Peter Osnos, funded by George Soros.
While this is lamentable, telling lies in a book is not a crime. My example?
My Life, by Bill Clinton.

I have no wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:27 AM:choice I either vote for Ron Paul or I pick a democratic liberal from McCrazy or Osama.

Floyd The Future Blog Editor wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:27 AM:You have to realize that we are here for the entertainment of the blog editors. Be creative, make a point, add to the conversation! And I'm still soliciting "references" so I can apply for the blog editor position and so I can bring happiness to all the reg'lars.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:29 AM:>>>All this jabber about Obama and McCain and my very serious posts about my, albeit write-in, candidate gets trashed! Rex now knows how Ron Paul feels!>>> Don't get your panties in a twit, all candidates get trashed on this board. Your problem should not be with the NCT, it should be with the major media. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN won't give Ron Paul the time of day, until it gets close to the election. Then, he'll be all of the liberals media outlets if they feel he can sift votes away from McCain

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:43 AM:In most fascist movements are a type of "cult of personality." The most used examples are in the cases of Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler. It is a movement defined by the masses believing in a "Messiah", of sorts. A single person who can deliver them from their crises.
George Orwell coined the phrase: Liberal Fascism in repsonse to a question, said he perfered a type of "Nanny State." A kind of "soft" fascism.
Today, who most resembles this form, this idea of authoritarian personality? Why.. Barack Obama, of course.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:44 AM:>>>Let me give you the first excuse: “Hey, Lt.! They were not trying to surrender! I thought that was their dirty underwear they were waving at us in defiance!”>>>
Unfortunately, dregs like Murtha would torture this Marine and slam him in full body chains to make him admit that he actually shot a terrorist

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:58 AM:Those liberals who loved the socialist dictatorships in Central & South America, pulled away the masks for the first time, and showed us all who they really are. And even today, we still see the likes of the Michael Moore's, and Danny Glover's, and Sean Penn's, the Cindy Sheehan's, who go and cuddle up to these socialist dictatorships.
When you love this ideology, you can not love this country.
Oliver North is seen by many as a patriot, and is respected by many who know that the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime was KGB financed. The Boland Amendment is correctly seen as the "help the Socialist/Communist grab another foothold in this Hemisphere" amendment, backed of course, by the liberal socialists who love these regimes.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:32 AM:>>>The majority of contributions come from individuals through the internet.>>> But not the majority of the money

to Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:39 AM:Your 8:07am post indicates that your prolific posting is done at work. Does your boss know this is how you spend your time?

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:40 AM:Yes, Ali Karbassi.. it is the "perfect system" of transportation, if your a lib. They never earn money, nor break even. They always raises the rates, and still don't break even. And in human terms, they take huge amounts of time away from productivity. You know, it is said that people sitting on the freeways waste about 62 hours each year.
Divided by the number of work days, that would be about 24 minutes each day. Let's say you need to drive from North County into San Diego each day to work, about 35 miles. At 60mph you could expect to get there in about 35 minutes, even with traffic adding the extra 12 minutes, would make your total comute time 47 minutes, or just under an hour. Plus, you get to leave from your own hom, and you get to drive right up to your location.
Now, let's say you take the Sprinter from the Vista Transit Center, to Oceanside, then hop on the Coaster to go to Sorrento Valley.
According to their own trip planner, the time would be 1 hr. 33 min.
So, to review... in your own car 1.5 hrs a day, with bad traffic. On public transportation, 3 hrs. a day, not including getting to the Vista Transit Center, or getting from the Sorrento Station to your job. My guess would be, if you actually worked close, I'd add another hour for walking.
Now, I do this to prove one time, if you have the time, Ride the trains, you'll spend less on transportation, because those who drive are subsidizing your transportation. {Man, only a lib could think of a system such as this!}But, if you have a family, especially with young kids, your probably paying a sitter, or childcare. That is hugely expensive, and not worth the trade off in time.
Not to mention, time away from your family, taking them to soccer practise, swimming, or whatever. And, if your child gets sick in school, the return trip would be at least another 1hr & 33 minutes, not including getting to the school to pick up your sick child.

Judgment wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:42 AM:The Supreme Court ruled against Bush's idea of justice for the third time. McCain has voted for Bush's view of detainees consistently, for denying them habeus corpus rights, etc. Obama has voted against the Bush view. As with the invasion of Iraq, Obama nailed it, Bush and McCain blew it. When I vote in November, it's going to be for the person with a demonstrated track record of good judgment.

Asteroid wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:42 AM:Maybe Ms M should have a cup of coffee so she can better absorb Chucks common sense point of veiw. You go Chuck!

Spreading democracy in Iraq wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:50 AM:From the InterPress service QUOTE FALLUJAH - Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say. The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after “special weaponry” was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004. After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah. In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tonnes of DU in Iraq thus far. Many doctors believe DU to be the cause of a severe increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq, as well as among U.S. veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War and through the current occupation. ENDQUOTE It will take Iraq decades, at best, to recover from our invasion and occupation. A large part of the professional class has left. The infrastructure is still in shambles. The government is allied with Iran. And we see how our "shock and awe" has victimized babies and induced cancer in the civilian population. And McCain says, "Stay the course." If we were accused of being a terrorist nation by Muslims, how could we refute that charge?

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:53 AM:Today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of enemy combatants getting free legal defense by the ACLU is just one more reason why we need to elect Obama President. When he’s elected he’ll pack the courts with liberal anti-establishment activist jurists. All the work of our brothers and sisters from the 60’s, the SDS, the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc., will finally start paying off. Power to the Peeps!

snerd wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:56 AM:I see this blog continues to be a "Confederacy of Dunces".

Focal Point wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:09 AM:REARDON: If you had ever endured USMC recruit training, you would know that your little scenario is absolutely ridiculous.

Bucky wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:10 AM:Demand and stand for change

What garbage. Democrats have been in charge of the Senate and the House of Representatives for two years, what have they done, NOTHING.
It has been two years of whining and back complaining but no action at all.
All the Dem's solutions involve raising taxes and more government control of your life. They are so out of touch at the top that even many of their party members won't vote for their nutty agends.
Speaker Palosi, two years ago you announced a pl;an to lower gas prices, then $2.50, now at $4.00 what happened to your PLAN?
Obama says he thinks higher gas prices are the right thing. Democrats for the little people, balogna!

Focal Point wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:11 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:31 AM: Me too, Chuck. I support the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution of the United States.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:28 AM:Wow, what fiction we encounter today.

DD, let's set the record straight. Jimmy Carter gave away billions upon billions of dollars to bribe Egypt to sign a pact with Israel. Equal billions were given as bribes to Israel.

So far, at $6 billion a year, Carter has given way $180 billion of our tax dollars in bribes to Israel and Egypt.

Certainly Carter's "brilliant" diplomacy didn't do much "harm."

Let's see, he gave away Nicaragua to the communist Sandinistas by cutting the legitimate government off from arms to fight the communists with.

Then there is Iran, the writer was right. If Carter hadn't given away Iran to the radical Islamists of Ayotollah Khomeni, many Americans would still be alive today.

Hezbollah and Hamas, both killers of Americans, wouldn't exist today for they wouldn't have Iranian money to finance them. And, we wouldn’t have a million Iranians living in Southern California. Carter can take the blame.

And, of curse, there is Carter's deep-rooted anti-Semitism that has flourished in recent years.

As for "Oh Ficere's" fiction, the Sandinistas eliminated by force of arms and murder their democratic partners who helped overthrow the Somoza regime so they couldn't participate in an election.

Then the Sandinistas decreed that 16-year-olds could vote. They won that election with no opponents. However, rebel groups sprung up and started fighting the communist Sandinistas. We helped them. They were called the Contras. They were not what communist Sandinista propaganda said they were.

They were so well supported in the countryside that when the Sandinistas made the mistake of conducting an election with opponents, the Contras won the election and held power for almost twenty years.

Ask President Violeta Chammorro who defeated Fidel Castro puppet Danny Ortega in the first open election ever in Nicaragua.

“Oh Ficere,” the people of Nicaragua know what happened when the communist Sandinistas ran the country. That’s why they voted them out of office.

While true that Danny Ortega recently won election to the Presidency, his communist Sandinistas gave up their communist and Castro affiliations, Ortega will fail again as his brand of socialism will fail as it does elsewhere.

Ms M wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:31 AM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:43 AM: It is a movement defined by the masses believing in a "Messiah", of sorts. A single person who can deliver them from their crises. Ron I am an Obama supporter, but I don't think of him as a "Messiah". I do think that once he is elected he will have an administration that will change the direction our country is going. You know I hear a lot of negativety from folks who voted for Bush not once but twice so I really don't put to much value on their opinion on who should be president.

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:33 AM:And again, I must correct the disinformation posted by my good buddy the Wizzer {Jun 11}@8:58 PM. He says:
that I have "economic ignorance" in regards to my statement:
"I've never gotten a job from a poor man." "Poor" is a relative term, as we all found out from Bill Clinton, in regards to "the Rich."
No, wiz I perfectly understand that all jobs are based on a need, or a demand for a particular product or service.
But, in some cases, it's faddish, and driven by advertising, as in the case of Global Warming.. but I digress..
In fact, in the circle of friends I travel in, all of us have at one time been one guy with an idea. All of us got tired of working our butts off, to make the other guy richer. So, with a little money, borrowed or saved, we started, usually in our own garages, while still holding down a regular job. In the process of hard work, staying faithful, and giving good products & service, we were eventually rewarded with success, usually beyond what we had even hoped. This is the miracle of America. As my workload increased, I then needed to hire someone. With that person doing more, then I needed another, as business became more available, I hired more. This is generally a short history of every single business in this country.
Other's buy existing business's built by another, but the main point is, I know how this is done.
When I started, did I run to the government to ask for money, or help?
No, "by the sweat of my own brow" I built it, brick by brick.
Now, it is about that time you guy's step in, and try to start running my business for me, by proxy. You guy's never seem to be around when I was struggling to grow, but the tax guy nevr missed a payment. No, you guy's weren't there when my family was eating macaroni & cheese 3 times a week, nor when my electric bill went unpaid for 2 months, and you certainly weren't there when one of my machines broke and I fell behind in production, and lost customers. No, you guy's always seem to come in after the fact, when I got some money that you need. You know, starting a business is like giving birth to a child, and helping it grow, is a kind of parenting you liberals will never understand. And since most liberals have never run a business, made a payroll, or suffered due to government interference, this discussion is mostly lost on people like you. Kind of like Barack Obama, the only thing that guy has ever run is a school newspaper. But, then again.. he never had to pay his staff, buy the paper, the ink, or make tax payments.

MsM wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:38 AM:Asteroid
[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:42 AM:Maybe Ms M should have a cup of coffee so she can better absorb Chucks common sense point of veiw. You go Chuck! COMMON SENSE - Chuck! OMG hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah LMAO Thanks Asteriod you made my day.

Apollo wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:43 AM:Re: Bucky (11:10 a.m.)
Bucky erroneously states that the Democrats have been in charge of the Senate and House for two years.
They were sworn in January 2007, so it is one year five months of the current term.
They are in charge of the House.
They are NOT in charge of the Senate; they do not have a majority.
There are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents in the Senate.
The 2 Independents (Lieberman of CT and Sanders of VT) caucus with the Democrats, so they have a majority for purposes of committee and leadership positions, so they can control the flow of business.
But they do not have a legislative majority, especially since Tim Johnson (D-SD) has been sidelined with serious illness, and since Lieberman votes with the Republicans on Iraq.
Not only that, but Bucky obviously does not understand that you need 60 votes to override a filibuster and 67 votes to override a Presidential veto, so there is nothing close to a legislative majority while a Republican is in the White House.
Please, get your facts straight!

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:48 AM:Hey Dwain Deets. Let us know when he gets to 43 days. Sharpton held out for 43 days, and personally, I think the guy looks better now.

nicaragua wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:58 AM:I would invite anyone to look up the history of Nicaragua in the 1970s and 80s. Look up Somoza, who was the leader before the socialist revolution there. Look up how Somoza came to power, how he was "elected", how he ran the country. Then look up how Ortega came to power. My guess is that you will find that Somoza was put into office with US military assistance and that he stayed in power via an election widely known to be rigged. He was, in fact, a dictator. But not a communist, so he and the US got along beautifully for 40 years. When he was overthrown by the socialists, the people then elected Daniel Ortega. It's true, of course, that this was a socialist regime. But to call Ortega a dictator is a flat out lie, and to say that Somoza's government was the legitimate one is also a flat out lie. The Contras, labeled "Freedom Fighters" by Reagan, were people with a vested interest in bringing Somoza-style dictatorship back into power, despite the democratic will of the people. They were illegal terrorists, much as are some of the groups we currently fight in the middle east. I don't "love Ortega"...how I feel about Ortega is absolutely irrelevent. That's one of the points I would make: that how any American "feels about" another country's leader shouldn't be very important. The other point is that Ortega was democratically elected. If the people of Nicaragua wanted a socialist government, I would not expect the US to be its ally, but I would expect a nation with our values to respect the will of those people. I would expect a nation with our values not to promote terrorism against those people for having voted that way. I would expect a nation with our values not to break international law for the same reason. But we were trained like Pavlov's dogs: if anyone was labeled a "communist", anything, legal or not, moral or not, was permitted and considered heroic. I find this chapter of our history perfectly disgusting. When you ask "Why do they hate us?", this is the kind of answer you get, a truthful answer.

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:02 PM:Now, see??? This letter from Cara Lou Wicks confuses me. I get the rant about the war, I get that.
But, then.. she goes onto say:
A "bad economy with high gas/food prices!"
Huh????
She wants change, change in her pocket.
Obviously a Obama supporter, does she not read what this guy is pushing? What he is saying?
Barack to Care:
"Hey Cara, you eat too much, drive too much, and you use too much power.
We need to cut all that back, cause it ain't fair, you see."
We aim to take some of what you got, and then we'll decide who we will give it to, you know.. to even it out."
"Instead of meat tonight, eat a salad. And take the bus tomorrow, your using too much gas driving your kid to the doctor. And put a sweater on, in fact, buy another.. cause I'm gonna give some of your power to your neighbor."
Oh yes! You can "Stand for Change", but will you be able to "stand the change?"

Oh raoul wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:05 PM:How consistent you are retelling history for your ideological purposes. Chammorro was indeed elected, beating Ortega. Read interviews with Nicaraguans of that period. I remember them well. They said, "We have to vote for Chammorro...it's the only way we can get the US to stop the violence it's causing here. It's blockade of our harbors causes us to starve and die of sickness. It's terrorist contras are murdering civilians. We have to vote for the US-backed Chammorro if we want to survive." Raoul: if Ortega was a dictator, how in the world did he wind up running against Chammorro in a general election? I thought dictators did away with real elections? Reagan was at war with Nicaragua, using Contras and the US Navy against its people, and eventually "winning". Criminal from start to finish.

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:08 PM:Just because they vote for it, "Oh Ficere" @8:42 AM.. doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship.
Why heck!
These days you can even vote for terrorists to run your country. Does voting for them, also NOT make them terrorists?

In case you missed it wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:15 PM:I hope everyone here saw Errol Morris' movie "The Fog of War" when it came out a few years ago and won the Oscar for Best Documentary (it also won "Best Picture of the Year" in a Washington Post poll of 100 film critics). It's a long interview with Robert Macnamara, a biography of him, and focuses on the Vietnam war. In the film, Macnamara says, very clearly and straightforwardly, that if you want to start a preemptive war, and most of your allies disagree with you, then you better go back and rethink it, because if nations that share our values disagree with the war, we're probably thinking of it incorrectly. He also says, very clearly, that but for fortune he himself and a few others were certainly war criminals for what they perpetrated in Vietnam. What to make of this? Shall we try to accuse Macnamara of being a liberal? That would be laughable. If the architect of the Vietnam war admits this, and has this to say about preemptive war, I would think that even the neocons might listen for a moment and think. After all, conervatives at the time (and since) were fierce defenders of Macnamara. Now he says that he was wrong and that hundreds of thousands died for his errors. Powerful stuff.

Oh Ficere wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:18 PM:Thanks, raoul, for addressing my earlier post. Your record for dishonesty here is so long that I know that when you counter my statements, it's virtually proof to the objective reader that I was correct. But, as I said in my post, please do look up the history for yourself. Thanks again, raoul.

Publius wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:27 PM:Marky Marx and other apparently don't know that the Founding Fathers made the judiciary one of three equal branches of government precisely so it could stop the other two from violating the Constitution. Furthermore, most members of the U.S. and California (gay marriage decision) Supreme Courts are very conservative judges who worked their way up through the system and were appointed by mostly Republican presidents and governors. True patriots should salute them and blame the president and congress for their outrageous and shameful violations of rights. The writ of habeas corpus goes back to 1066 and is a foundation of the rule of law, but it got in the way of the Bush Gang. Do any of you so-called "patriots" care that we have criminals in the White House, or are you just spineless sheep, afraid to think for yourselves or oppose the powers that be?

Heckuva job Dick wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:28 PM:From the journal Foreign Policy in Focus, QUOTE According to “Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs,” a March GAO report, the Pentagon had 75 major weapons programs in production in 2000. Collectively, the programs were $42 billion over-budget and behind schedule by an average of 16 months. Today, there are 95 major weapons programs, which are $295 billion over-budget and 21 months behind schedule. Ouch. “This would never be tolerated in the private sector,” lamented Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Maybe so, but when the private sector moves into the Pentagon in a period of “more-than-enough-to-go-around” military budgets, it seems like they have no problem spending the public’s money hand over fist. In Iraq, private military contractors like Blackwater and Kellogg Brown and Root are doing soldiers’ work for many times the pay. PMCs — as they are called — are so ubiquitous that the United States can no longer go to war without them. According to “Additional Personal Conflict of Interest Safeguards Needed for Certain DoD Contractor Employees,” a March GAO report, the Pentagon can’t do its paperwork without private contractors either. In offices throughout the Department of Defense, cubicle mercenaries are working shoulder-to-shoulder with uniformed military staff and federal employees.
In fiscal year 2006, the Pentagon spent more on contracting for services with private companies than they spent on weapons systems or other equipment. Over the past 10 years, contracts with private companies for services have increased 78% in real terms — to a total of more than $151 billion.
ENDQUOTE I wonder how conservatives feel about this. On the one hand, since it's all about spending for war, they'd applaud the whole thing, throwing tax dollars for the purpose of killing our alleged enemies. On the other hand, it's all a great example of government spending our money poorly, wastefully, perhaps criminally.

Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:28 PM:>>>>Your..(Chuck) 8:07am post indicates that your prolific posting is done at work. Does your boss know this is how you spend your time?>>>>. Most of my posts are done before 8am, and the rest in-between appointments. My boss has read every post I've ever made. That often happens when you have your own business.

Get to Work wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:32 PM:Chuck says: "I doubt you would be overjoyed with my 50% rate. Just do what I do, be in the office at 5:30am, look at the news and type away." I wonder if you boss reads these blogs?

To Jack_D wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:37 PM:Jack_D
[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:54 AM:
Cara Lou Wicks is right that things are bad right now, but her letter offered no solution other than a vague call for "change.(twice in one letter)" Her letter is typical of many Barack Obama supporters: they call for change but don't define what that would entail. My question to people like Ms. Wicks is: What specific proposals are you suggesting? Tell me what you mean by change; otherwise, it's just a meaningless slogan."

Jack, you could take some personal responsibility in educating yourself but I will repost from yesterday's blog to save you some time:

Obama calls for a "bottom up prosperity," based upon his version of putting people first. He wants to invest in education and training. He'd generate millions of new jobs in a concerted drive for energy independence. He'll create a national investment bank to rebuild and modernize our aging infrastructure, and put people to work. He'll help make college more affordable. He'll offer middle class families (generously defined as making under $150,000) a tax break, while raising taxes on the wealthy, shutting corporate tax loopholes, imposing an excess profits tax on the oil and gas companies, and using money saved from ending the Iraq war to invest here at home.

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:38 PM:Absolutely correct, Thomas Cowan Jr.!
But, let me.. as I always do, fill in the blank you purposefully left out.
All run by Democrats in Congress.
Now, why would you leave out them?
That's right! To leave the impression that it was only the President's fault.
I just love lib's!
You go back and look who has been running this country via the Congress & the Senate thru those years, and you will find DEMOCRATS!
I will give Carter his due on a peace treaty, he provided Camp David.
But, nowadays.. he likes hugging Hamas.

To Chuck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:39 PM:"Chuck
[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:32 AM:
>>>The majority of contributions come from individuals through the internet.>>> But not the majority of the money."

Ever try a dictionary, Chuck?

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:43 PM:Question, Joanne Goodwin?
How in the heck do you get both John Dean & "with no more secret back-door decisions..." in the same post?
Oh, that's right! He did a Scott McClellan, and now the left loves him.
See? Logical!

snerd wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:48 PM:Just returned from Nicaragua. The country is still in a shambles compared to it's neighbors because of the illegal war Reagan used to overturn a democratically elected government. Whats interesting is after all the fighting Daniel Ortega is still a powerful figure there. When will we learn that it is not our place to "dictate" to other countries? Through it all though the people I met there still like Americans, they just hate our government. Sound familiar?

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:55 PM:I just can’t wait for Obama! I just heard him say that he would eliminate the Bush tax code that “rewards wealth”. By this time next year all you who have been hording the peoples money and property will get your come-uppn’s

snerd wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:55 PM:What's funny about Ron talking about a "cult of personality" is that he is an extreme example of a person who is under the sway of a "personality". That is, of course, W. Ron has spent the last 8 years in man-love with Bush. Ignoring all his faults, praising him endlessly and attacking viscously anyone who disagrees with Bush. I guess Ron, by your own definition, you are a fascist.

Oh Please wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:59 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:32 AM: Again wrong. The majority of the money comes from individual contributers on the internet.

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:03 PM:snerd
[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:48 PM:
I'm sure the good people of Nicaragua really appreciate you reasurring and encouraging their hatred of the evil United States. I'll bet if you return in another 20 years it'll still be in shambles (because of Ronald Reagan's illegal war). Thanks snerd. Power to the Peeps!

Oh Please wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:04 PM:Bucky[-] wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:10 AM:
Its just your international free market at work. Why hasn't Bush said or done anything? OOPs forgot he is an oil man with a big veto. Besides, I thought people like you and Ron,oil man, was against a nanny state.

Snerd is half wrong wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:09 PM:While I appreciate your noticing the irony of Ron being critical of the cult of personality, I must correct you. It's not W that Ron worships, but Ron. Ronland is a fascist nation with a population of one (or maybe his family has a dual citizenship) and the greatest leader ever to walk upon the earth. The smartest, the cleverest, the never-wrong. The economy of Ronland is strong because of its oil-investing and war profiteering, and its favorable trade agreements with the USA. LOL

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:22 PM:Absolutely right, "Bucky" @11:10 AM!
These Democrats know darn well they are doing nothing, in fact... that is THE PLAN. "Nothing." Remember back when House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said "Good News for Iraq Will be Bad News for Democrats?"
It's like that. Good news of lower gas prices for Americans would be bad for Democrats in November. This IS THE Democrat plan, do nothing, make you suffer more, and hope to gain seats in November.
This is what the real deal on "Hope & Change."
They HOPE they'll gain seats in Congress, and gain perhaps the White House. The CHANGE is simply a shifting of political party's.
In the mean time, you will suffer. Your family will suffer, and the misery you will feel is part of the receipe they see as a part of gaining the Congress, perhaps the White House. They'll do nothing, nothing meaningful.
Oh sure, they'll sue OPEC, or at least talk about it. And they'll bring Oil Exec's in front of panels and claim they are the reason. And yes.. they'll continue to bash Bush.
None of this will reduce the price at the pump one cent. In fact, after the elections, {and you Democrats really ought to be doing your own homework here} they INTEND TO RAISE GAS PRICES by taxation. There's no lower price in your future with them.
So, to review... they will fein anger, "feeling your pain", and all that nonsense. All the while, Acting {and they have the nerve to call Reagan an actor} ACTING like they give a damn, when they intend to do nothing. Now THAT takes some skills, like I said: slick marketing & packaging.
They know now what needs to be done, but it won't be.. BECAUSE political gain is more important to them than your piddly concerns. And THAT'S the real story here.

As weve said before wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:24 PM:Predictable response to the Supreme Court's decision today. As I've said here many times, there are people who think of themselves as the "real" Americans, the patriots, who in fact despise our Constitution! They want to live in a country where everyone thinks and behaves like they do, and dissenters are punished severely, where "bad" people have no rights. They believe that America is such a country, and then are shocked and angered by actions such as the Court's. They are the people who are always telling those who disagree with them to "get out of my country". This is ironic because "their" country would, if it was up to them, be about as un-American as a country could be. No dissent. Only loyalty to the leader. No respect for the rule of law, only for the rule of the strong over the weak. Nothing but utter contempt for those who are different from them. Sounds like Burma to me, or the old Soviet Union.

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:38 PM:Then Sir... I mean this with all due respect, you have not been reading my posts, then have you? You are one of those people who shout about Fairness Doctrine, then skip over all my posts, aren't you.. "snerd" @12:55 PM?
Let me make this simply, K? I read your posts, you read mine, and then we have a conversation about ideas. OK? Clearer now? You can't very well know what I'm saying if you purposely skip, or avoid my posts, now can you?
But, to your point...
I have been one of those conservative who has openly critical of George Bush on a number of his policies, starting with this new drug benefit. His policy on Amnesty is abhorrant, and floudering in Iraq beginning with the de-Bathification of the military.
So, where have you been? Oh, right's right! Ignoring my posts!
Little piece of advise....
Read everything, including stuff you adamantly disagree with. In the long run, you'll be better informed, and it might just produce a little critical thinking on your part.

Chuck aka Homer Simpson wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:38 PM:Hey Chuck, Sorry to interrupt your coffee,crispy cream,blogging job, And you made some good points today, But the lights and sirens are going off there at the reactor plant, Don't you have to push a button or something before you get back home to Marge and the kids?

Watch out Democraps wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:43 PM:your leader is going to shaft you before he is even voted in. Posted: 06/11/08 07:48 PM [ET]
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning. If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

Chris to Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:45 PM:Concerning your blog for 9;58. Just another worthless blog from you.

Marx Attacks the American Dream wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:16 PM:To: Marky Marx @12:55, I hear your Mother Russia calling you. Go Home!!

Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:25 PM:You know... being called a "Herbert Hoover" is probably the worst thing you could ever call a politician. George Bush has been called Hoover lately by some Democrats, but who really is being more Hooverish?
When the stock market crashed in 1929, Hoover did some bad things.

One was he called business leaders together and said, "Don’t drop wages or prices." He didn’t give business a free rein to handle the downturn.
Currently, we are watching as the Democrat Congress is doing just the reverse, "lower prices or we will take you over." "Socialize" you, as Maxine Waters said.

In 1930 Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which raised tariffs to historically high levels. That sent a terrible international signal. He thought a high tariff was good for business.
Currently, we are watching as Democrats, and Obama are fighting any new trade deal which would include the lowering of tariffs. In fact, Democrats are calling their version "Fair" or "Fairer" trade. They love protectionism, because it protects voting blocks.
And they've been knocking NAFTA, note to lib's: we get nearly all of our oil from either Canada & Mexico.

Hoover created the Reconstruction Finance Corp. to help home builders, families and farmers.
Currently, we are watching as this Democrat Congress is churning out some kind of sub-prime mortgage bailout, a bailout of a policy began by Bill Clinton in 1995.
On a side note: Did you know that 40% of all these loans are through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, all government backed loans?

Hoover raised taxes in a downturn. Even English majors know you don't do that.
But apparently, and obviously, Barack Obama & these Democrats can't be bothered with history, and facts.
They say openly they will raise taxes in a downturned economy.


This is just a quick comparison, but who is closer to Hoover, or being Hooverish? If it looks like a Hoover, raises tariffs like a Hoover, raises taxes like a Hoover, bails out mortgages like a Hoover, and doesn't allow business & the market to correct price flucuations... It's a Hoover.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:32 PM:Chuck, I was of course was referring to my dog Rex as my choice in November, but you make a good point. If the liberal press starts covering Ron Paul to take votes away from McCain it might just give him a chance. I've voted for the less of two evils too many times. I'll write in Paul if he has a chance, otherwise I'm seriously voting for my dog. Run Rex Run! Regards C-1.

Cluck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:46 PM:I can't think of anything so un American as support for Ollie North did. And these filthy conservatives consider him a hero. Just goes to show their contempt for the United States of America.

Cluck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:56 PM:The desperation of these stupid conservatives gets more palpable by the day. How else can you explain some of the ever more rediculous inane straw man arguments and outlandish claims made with increasing frequency. Some of this stuff is way past tin foil hats and old men yelling at clouds. Is it any wonder conservatism is dead in this country? They are starting to realize it's demise and starting to understand that everything they believe is wrong. And it's making them seriously crazy. I love it.

Cluck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:07 PM:Boy this blog is starting to look more and more like the Ron and Chuck show. The represent their conservative peers well; trying endlessly to prove to themselves the validity of their own dogmatic worldview and shaking their fists and foaming at the mouth blaming everyone else for their problems and taking no "persoanl responsibility". While the rest of us laugh at them. Yep, typical conservatives.

Cluck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:10 PM:The terrorist accused of the world trade center attacks want to be given the death sentence. They don't want attorneys from a country that allows gays to marry. Gosh, iRONic how much these terrorists have in common with conservatives.

Reardon wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:12 PM:Excelsior (Mexico City) 6/11/08

(Quote)Narcotraffic killers executed four persons late Tuesday evening in front of the city hall of Xochitepec, Morelos. One hundred fifty-six shell casings from AK47 and AR15 rifles were found at the scene. And a “Ministerial Police” agent was killed by AK47 gunfire Tuesday evening in Chihuahua City as he left his house for work on the night shift.(Unquote)

There is a slo-mo civil war in Mexico. If you want updated information of the subject, Google M3 Report of the
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERS. You can subscribe to their reports.

Cluck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:20 PM:Jack D wins today's commedian of the day award. Thanks for begging such an easy question and throwing a lob for anyone to knock out of the park. Okay here's a few things meant by change:
honesty
personal responsibility
a president who can read, write, and speak clearly
integrity
morality
someone who inspires rather than embarrasses
a smart wife
world respect
a plan
has a grasp of reality
will not let the vice president dictate policy
end the war victoriously and now
put the wheels back on this bus called America that came off about 5 years ago and has been barreling out of control since
Yes, I can see how some might be confused by an idea of "change" and call it an "empty sloagan". For those with empty heads, hearts, and souls it's very easy for me to understand indeed.

Cluck wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:25 PM:I love how these double speaking hypocritical conservatives(I know I'm being redundant by using all those adjectives) can try and paint the Obama's as "elitist." Boy are we gonna hear that word a lot in the coming months. Take a look at their backgrounds. Cindy is an heiress and former rodeo queen, and Michelle is the elitist because she came from a working class family and made it to the ivy league? LOL!!!! These stupid conservatives tell you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and label you an elitis when you do. Golly, the desperation is embarrassing.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:35 PM:If Ortega was elected in a legitimate election (which he was, according to all the international agencies at the time) and if he did not banish elections, then I would say that by definition, he could not have been a dictator. Please look up "dictator" and let me know. Someone who is elected can certainly BECOME