To Joyce Wilson wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:44 AM:While I'm all for decency, morality, and common sense, I don't see this as a 'christian' issue. 'Decency, morality, and common sense ' should, and do, transend specific religions. Christians don't have the market cornered on positive values. Bible-thumpers - please get a clue. The world encompasses more than your small vision. We all matter!

To Reardon Please Check Your Sources wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:45 AM:I really want to respect your opinion, you come across as fairly intelligent, but I have to wonder why you would use a biased source for your post yesterday on Al Gore? You must realize in this age of the internet we can google resources for ourselves, so why embarrass yourself? No credibility for you, sorry.

"In a March 1 Washington Post article, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) was referred to as "a Nashville-based think tank that advocates 'limited government through policy solutions,' according to its Web site." But the TCPR's agenda apparently goes beyond limiting the size of government. Like other recent reports on the TCPR's attacks on former Vice President Al Gore's purported home energy use, the Post article did not note that TCPR has reportedly joined the "Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change," which claims to have "been established as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for urgent action by governments."

"Furthermore, the Post and other media have not reported on the backgrounds of TCPR's "Staff & Scholars," several of whom have supported anti-environmental causes or received support from anti-environmental groups."

the dude wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:48 AM:to joyce thank my god im not a narrowminded christian

Chuck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:16 AM:Much to the disgust of Pelosi, Murtha, the liberal media and the liberal America haters Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani in the Haditha incident.You know, the case where Murtha took statements terrorist sympathizers instead of gathering evidence and called the Marines cold-blooded killers. His hate of the Marines helped him get the dream job from Pelosi, and in the meantime he had the Marines build a $1 million media center to cover the trial and spent $36 million dollars and used over 60 CSI agents and still could not produce evidence to convict Chessani. I cant wait to see Murtha in chains for this--the same chains he used on US Marines, as one by one trials cleared their names.

HusseinsClarification wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:22 AM:Recently Hussein Obama claimed he had visited 57 states and Fox News tore into him for not knowing that there are only 50 states (he probably went to the public schools or a madrassas). It now turns out Hussein did not mis-speak. There are exactly 57 Muslim states.

Pulling Tails Off Lizards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:40 AM:Yesterday's Chuck Confession allows that he delights in posting nasty slurs against those who do not agree with him. Chuck sees this as a form of "entertainment".

One must conclude that Chuck is a real riot at parties.

Chucks News Source wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:46 AM:Hot off the Presses from Rush Limbaugh, Fox's most credible news source:

RUSH: Hey, folks, you want to tweak the Drive-By Media with me right now? Want to participate in tweaking the Drive-By Media? You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this? And everybody chalked it up to, "Well, he's tired." You know, this is a Dan Quayle moment. I mean, Dan Quayle goes out there and misspells potato, and we still get jokes about it. Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a printout from a website called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. "Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations commission on human rights called combating --" yes, H.R., get ready for the phone calls up there.


We're participating here in a tweak of the media. Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. "Every year from 1999 to 2005, the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states," this is from the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And the title of the piece here is, "How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council," and there are 57 of them. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen? Obama's 57 states, not just a simple gaffe. He might have been thinking of the 57 Islamic states when he said he was going to campaign in all 57 states. (laughing) Can't wait 'til the Drive-Bys hear about this.

to elaborate wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:46 AM:on To Joyce Wilson @4:44am, so-called "values Christians" have been MIA during this criminal, murderous war on Iraq. And now they are blubbering about joyous couples violating their narrow religious beliefs. These terrible, misguided values come from reading the Bible to fit their backward political agenda. Back to the Dark Ages!

Not only that wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:12 AM:I saw a photo of Obama chowing down on a burger the other day and you know what? He was using Heinz ketchup on it! You know, "57 varieties"? What does that tell you? Obviously, a Muslim terrorist. (Plus, we know who the Heinz family is, don't we? There you go!)

Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:14 AM:Poor Reardon claims he is a mere messenger who doesn't deserve to be questioned when he brings us something true. Reminds me of the post about Rush today. Blame Rush? Why? He only reported the true statement that there are 57 Islamic states. Puh-lease.

Chuck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:19 AM:>>>One must conclude that Chuck is a real riot at parties.>>> I just try to be fair and balanced

Chris to Shawn P wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:21 AM:These "insurgents" are Iraqis and they are in their country. They have every right to attack our troops. Our troops invaded their country. What part of that don't you understand. Why should I be upset about the American soldiers that are dying. They voluntaraly joined the military but the Iraqis were living in their country and our military went in and killed a bunch of them. I just love how you just flip off the so-called colateral damage. These are men,women and children that died because the US went in and killed them. As far as Somalia goes that was a UN deal and our great military decided to hot dog it and got what was comming. They went into Somalia the Somalians didn't come over here did they. I stand for what is right and wrong and if we do wrong then I will not support criminal actions just because we did it.

Chuck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:21 AM:>>>Obama's 57 states, not just a simple gaffe. He might have been thinking of the 57 Islamic>>> or John Kerry's ultra rich wife from the 57 Varieties fortune,(that she shields offshore from US ytaxes

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:29 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:16 AM:
What a real stinker load. Murtha is a former Marine. Chesny was indicted by the convening authority based on biased or incorrect information from the legal advisory. I read the story. Did you?

hey Chucks news source wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:51 AM:Yeah, Obama misspoke and said he'd been to 57 states, when he meant he'd been to 47. He said he had one more to go and could not make it to Alaska and Hawaii, which if you tally up that mistake = 60, not 57. Obviously there are 50, and the Harvard Law graduate misspoke. Let it go.

Obama is a great speaker, but he is human. It amazes me how some people can acknowledge that he is a great speaker, but to them his words are just that: words. Then when he has a gaffe like this, suddenly his words are put under a microscope to give them all sorts of crazy sinister connotations. Ridiculous.

John McCain confuses Shia and Sunni, Iraq and Iran. And how about those Bush gaffes? Enough to write novels! Yet Chuck voted for him not just once, but twice! Like this hilarious gem from 2004: "We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."

Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:09 AM:To Reardon: The Tennessee free-market think tank that I used as a source is the SAME source that CORRECTLY outed Al Gore's previous year's usage. They have a track record for accuracy on this issue.

The think tank used public records, so what is your beef? That the TCPR is wrong? That they are correct, but they are biased? That I was wrong to have posted the information? That Al Gore is a God, and does not have to answer for his hypocrisy?

(None of the above?) (Some of the above?) (All of the above?)

I write a column for a newspaper, but in doing research I often run across arcane information I love to share on the Blog, but most of which I will not be using in a column.

I thought it was an interesting "factoid." Didn't you?

(Apparently not.)

To Joyce Wilson wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:11 AM:Let me just WOW!!! Where to start my goodness? How dare you try to equate the murders Scott Peterson committed to an abortion! Scott Peterson killed his lovely wife and unborn child that is called murder! A better analogy to use to support your retroactive active abortion theory would be the case of Susan Eubanks who killed her four children, why is she in prison? Joe Arapao is a cruel horrible man not one anyone should choose to emulate. You seem to NOT have any problem with exercising your First Amendment right. Do you really honor and worship the name Jesus, because I find you to be offensive. Joyce says in her letter " People, wake up! Christians, get to work. Let's get this country back to decency, morality and common sense! It is sadly lacking in all three." you are correct about that but if the Christians you are waking up are anything like you, I hope they stay asleep. You lack common sense.

Huh wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:13 AM:Steven Drake is, apparently, persecuted. It is not particularly clear why, or by whom, much less who cares.

Observation wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:19 AM:Obama leads in key battlegrounds
Boston Globe - 1 hour ago
For the first time, Barack Obama leads John McCain in all three key swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, according to new polls released today.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:25 AM:From yesterday, "sdraoul" at 11:17PM said "stay the course, alf? it means we haven't been attacked sicne 9/11, or didn't you notice?". We have lost the lives of over 4,000 American Troops in Iraq alone in GWB's Quixotic "War on Terror" and are hundreds of billions of dollars more in debt with the dollar at pretty much an all-time low around the world. Or didn't you notice? We have lost more lives in this charade of a "war" than were killed on 9/11. Or didn't you notice? Your logic is flawed at best. Your rationalizations for torture, as are GWB's, are no more than pathetic excuses for Sadistic behavior. McGWB aka McCain does not stand a chance. Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:28 AM:Re: SDRaoul (6/17 - 11:17 p.m.)
Yet again, evasive Raoul changes the subject, as he insults the memory of Max Cleland, a true military hero who sacrificed much for this country.
It is true that Cleland's terrible injuries occurred in an unfortunate accident, however it was in close proximity to the battlefield and would not have occurred in a non-combat environment.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
I did not even mention Cleland's injuries.
I referred to his extensive medals and honors, including the Bronze Star and Silver Star, which were issued for courageously risking his own life, under fire, to save others.
The slimy attacks of character assassination that spew from the hateful keyboard of North County Republicans is absolutely beyond disgusting.
Question for you Raoul:
Why are you so determined to hatefully denigrate those who earned real military honors, just because you disagree with them politically?

Two left wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:30 AM:Yes, Chuck, the Mrs Kerry joke was already in the earlier posting. But now that we have a Democrat with a ketchup fortune and a Republican with a beer fortune, all we need is a burger fortune and a bun fortune and we're set. (Hold the tomatoes, please)

Let me know wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:33 AM:When Christians start expressing their outrage about people not turning the other cheek, not loving their enemies, and not treating others as they wish to be treated themselves, I will start giving them some slack on gay marriage. Till then, fuggedaboudit...

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:41 AM:When people like Maggie Owen write letters saying they "have yet to hear what [Obama] wishes to change," they only reveal their own ignorance.
With all the TV, cable and print media coverage, plus the Internet, including Obama's own extensive website, if Owen can't find Obama's extensive policy proposals for exactly what he intends to change as well as his bipartisan strategy for how he will get his programs passed, then she is really not trying or is in worse shape than we imagined.
And Husseins Clarification post at 6:22 a.m. shows the absurdity of pure fabrication that underLIES the smears and baseless attacks on a fine candidate.
There were exactly 57 primary contests (including non-states such as Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and Obama clearly made a one-time slip of the tongue which he immediately corrected. This pales in comparison with McCain repeatedly stating, over and over, confusion about Sunni and Shia relations in the Middle East, and (Shia) Iran harboring (Sunni) Al Qaeda, until corrected by Joe Lieberman.
As for being "exactly" 57 states in the Muslim world, again, someone just made this number up to match Obama's slip of the tongue. Including states within the nations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and all of the rest of the smaller gulf nations and those in North Africa, there are far more than 57. I challenge this previcator to list exactly which 57 he was referring to, and which nation(s) they are within.

Just wondering wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:48 AM:Do conservatives EVER object to government spending on military-related things? Is there no limit to the weapons, salaries of merceneries, star wars research that any of you find excessive, even as we live in a world without truly military enemies? Do you guys just assume that if it's for such things, it's for our protection, no questions asked? All the suspicion and skepticism you have about rip-offs, corruption, wasteful spending, governmental incompetence...you're just willing to toss all this out the window if the expense is said to be "military"? Why is that?

chuck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:48 AM:>>>North County Forum will do what it can between now and November to educate the public on the proposition that would amend the Constitution to allow discrimination>>> The public doesnt need your education (agenda of filth) nor do they want it

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:51 AM:"Marriage rights for all!" I couldn't agree more Dick Eiden. I too wish to
Congratulate all same-sex couples, and hope that now, we can move on to all the other's who want to be empowered and affirmed by the California Supreme Court. It will truly be a great day when we can add Party C, D, E, & F to the marriage roles.
I'm sorry that some misguided people would try to ruin a persons pursuit of their personal marriage definition and
impose their narrow beliefs, religious or otherwise on everyone else.
As Our own Founding Fathers declared, it is for each individual to define their own pursuit of happiness {and marraige} to help us all evolve our own personal concepts of freedom, justice and equality under a living Constitution.
My hope now is that those who have broken through the barrier, in this long, hard, and tough fight, will not now impose their own sense of bigotry onto other's who may see marriage defined differently. Afterall, They are people with equal right as well, with their own sense of right & wrong, and Constitutionally should not be prevented from pursuing their own happiness.

One theory wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:54 AM:I've always wondered about why Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan, where our true enemies were, to fight in Iraq instead. I see that the British are pouring troops into Afghanistan now to bulk up NATO's fight against the Taliban and the real al Qaeda. Know what I think? The lesson from Reagan was that the US can overcome its Vietnam syndrome by being gung-ho to fight wars, provided the wars are easy to win. Reagan was deemed a hero (by some people) for his successes in, um, Panama and Granada. Now we all know that Afghanistan is a remarkably tough fight. Ask the Russians. Bush, even though this was the moral and right fight, didn't have the courage to risk what he thought might be a losing effort. So he turned Afghanistan over to NATO as soon as possible and high-tailed it to Iraq, which his advisors said would last only a few weeks and be a cakewalk. The show on the carrier deck was part of this script. Man, did that idea go south! On both fronts. Now we are desperately needed in Afghanistan because, as we all knew, it turned out to be one tough fight. But our forces are thin and worn out from the Iraq that was not supposed to be. Heckuva job, W. And McCain wants us to stay in Iraq indefinitely, saying "we will never surrender". Can you imagine a bigger disaster of foreign policy?

Brilliant wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:03 AM:The NY Times ran an article about John McCain's 1974 thesis about the Vietnam war. One reader (Joseph Pequigney) responded with a brilliant letter worth sharing QUOTE Among the “welter” of emotions revealed in John McCain’s 1974 thesis was “a sharp impatience with the American government” during the war in Vietnam “for failing to ‘explain to its people, young and old, some basic facts of its foreign policy.’ ” I welcome these words, and I only hope that the nominee still harbors the same feelings. For the Bush administration has failed much more grievously to explain the basis of the foreign policy that led to the invasion of Iraq.
[...] Now we have good reason to assume, on the basis of his own words, that [McCain] will at last provide the electorate with a full and clear account of just how and why this country got bogged down and remains in the mess in Iraq. ENDQUOTE Wouldn't it be something, to see John McCain address the nation and spell out, clearly and persuasively and truthfully, why we are in Iraq. My money will be on the bet that he couldn't do it...that no one could. Those of us who saw the "reasons" at the time, and since, as desperate propaganda without basis in truth or reason, knew better and got it right, Obama among us. McCain at the time, a good buddy of Chalabi, was one of the chief cheerleaders for the invasion. Americans are still waiting for a true and good explanation. Ain't gonna happen.

Another on US health care wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:16 AM:Fascinating article in the NY Times on surveys of doctor satisfaction with their profession today. Seems that dissatisfaction is growing steeply and steadily and many physicians are bailing out of the field or shifting to practice based only on cash payments. They are fed up with the growing non-medical demands of their jobs. Every prescription they write can be second-guessed by an insurance company. One said that a third of his referrals for hospitalization have been denied. Fees for service are being cut. Their relationship with their patients is increasingly compromised by profit-based demands of insurers who insist they know better what treatment should be provided, even though they never have seen the patient. There is a crisis in some fields, such as primary medicine: fewer people even want to go into these fields.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:26 AM:Not only that[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:12 AM: There is also pictures of Barak Obama filling sands bags in Ill. What does that tell you?

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:29 AM:Here's the deal, Maggie Owen. The Obama campaign motto shouldn't be "change, change, change." It should be "More, More, More." You know, when I look back at the beginning of the GWB administration, I see cooperation with the liberal side. I see a huge new drug benefit written by Ted Kennedy. Not since LBJ and the Great Society have we seen such a huge increase in entitlement programs. You'd think liberals would be happy? But, they were not, it was not enough. Then, we had No Child Left Behind, another piece of legislation written by Ted Kennedy, allowing the Central Government even more power over local school districts. And again.. they were not happy. It was not enough.
You see, with liberals, it's alway more. They always want more. The utopia has to be built, and they just don't have enough right now. They need more.
In steps Barack Obama, the prototypical liberal, complete with Marxist training, and Alinsky agitation skills.
His goal, to make you think you deserve more. And not more freedom or liberty, more stuff. Stuff is what he hocks, to gain your vote. Now, of course, it won't exactly be what you want, it will be what he, they, the lib's want to give you. I like to call this the old liberal okie-doke. Oh sure, the lib's will promise you healthcare benefits matching their's, but when it is all said and done, you'll be waiting 18 weeks to see a doctor, and waiting in abulances. But you'll have healthcare. Why get picky, right?
He, they, the lib's will promise to make you feel better by "going after" the well to do, and they'll even kick you down a cool $1,000 bucks ta boot.
There are just so many exciting things coming with the utopia. You'll have a new "Green job" in the rice paddies that they will supervise. Of course, retraining to do such work will be included at $4,000, but you'll have to work the paddie to pay it back. That means, for free.
And of course, free speech will have to be rolled back for the sake of the utopia. A Fairness Doctrine will need to be installed to shut up right-wing talk radio, religious broadcasters, and "other's" who don't buy into the utopian ideal. This will ALL be for the good of the utopia, you see. Afterall, He, they, the lib's can't have a proper re-education plan if opposition is allowed to air their viewpoints.
Oh, there is just so much I could tell you Maggie Owen. You will get more, that is certain, it will be stolen goods, but that's not your concern. You'll get your cool $1,000 bucks, be happy. And don't question their authority.

To Chris wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:31 AM:Re; Chris to Shawn P
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:21 AM:These "insurgents" are Iraqis and they are in their country. They have every right to attack our...
Man are you out to lunch! The Iraq invasion was authorized by the U.N. but not backed by the same morons that you support from the first Gulf War, read your mandates. You must also be in the know about who is blowing up who in Iraq. Are you for certain that they are in fact Iraqis and not from, oh lets say, Iran, Syria, etc..? You and Pulse must scratch each others backs.

to to Chris wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:47 AM:Well let's see, as I recall we started the invasion with a shock and awe bombing of Baghdad, the large capital city of Iraq. I suspect there may have been a couple of Iraqis killed at that time. Otherwise, your picture of Iraq is fascinating. Somehow you see our bullets only killing foreign fighters, and only foreign fighters killing Iraqis. These Iraqis are something, in your view, more innocent and incapable of violence than Tibetans. Just to start you thinking, remember the uprising in Sadr city a few weeks ago? Those folks were Iraqi followers of al Sadr, an Iraqi. Read about that and go on from there. Also look up "insurgent" and see what you come up with. And finally, remember that Congress and the UN might have said Bush was permitted to invade, but only Bush is responsible for actually invading. No body told him he had to.

Artsyrat wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:51 AM:To Joyce Wilson.
How do Christians reveal the truth without offending those who don't agee it's the truth?
Ask God.

I wasn't always a believer in Jesus. When I started to believe in the Bible, Jesus and God it was something I wasn't expecting. I'm not ignorant, I'm not a goody two shoes, I'm just very fortunate to have become a Jesus believing Christian. Yes, I'm a little more narrow minded (pr: the dude) but that's because I have a little more self control and purpose than I did before. I'm not a party animal any more, the needs of the people mean more to me now, I love the hope that Jesus gives us for the future.

Being narrowminded isn't so bad, being closed minded is.

God is real and he loves His creation. Even if a person does not believe in Him or His son Jesus, God still loves that person. God created the heavens and the earth. Wow, who else can do better or more than that?

Give me God anyday. With God there is HOPE.

Sorry Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:51 AM:The slogan "more more more" is already taken: by McCain. More war, more torture, more warrantless wiretaps, more tax breaks for the rich, more more more of the same. If you think the Bush presidency has been a great success, you should probably vote for the more, more, more of it that McCain promises. Otherise: Obama. No-brainer. The fact that the right is already using such desperate tactics against Obama is telling: it's all you guys have. "Hussein", "Communist", "Fifty-Seven", "Reverend Wright", "Elitist". When all your opponent has is perfectly empty name-calling instead of reasoned arguments, and when your opponent cannot say anything positive about their guy, I'd say you were in the driver's seat.

Cluck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:55 AM:Boy oh boy. Is Joyce Wilson the wife of Chuck? Or maybe a relative. Old woman yells at cloud today. Typical McChristian attitude: Preach and don't practice. Let's break down the whiny complaints:
1. Gays want to get married and straights don't? Thanks for pointing out that gays are saving the institution of marriage.
2. Prisoners are treated like pampered guests? Remind me never to accept an invite to your house.
3. Why can't drivers use their signal? Liberals fault. Oh wait isn't the conservatives that have a "me first, me now, me last" attitude? OOPS
4. The First Ammendment doesn't apply to Christians? wRONg! Stupid straw man argument. First Ammendment applies to all Americans. You know it.
5. Foul language, indecency, and immorality are protected by liberal Democrats? You're welcome. Because if it weren't your type would be in trouble because the tripe you type is considered by some to be foul, indecent, and especially immoral(see #7 below).
6. Why is Scott Peterson charged with double murder? Because it's the law. What part of "illegal" do you not understand?
7. Why is it acceptable to use the Lord's name as a cuss word but to worship Jesus is offensive? What a sad and inaccurate thing to say. Do you find it offensive to worship Mohhamed? Using the Lord's name as a cuss word is using the Lord's name in vain. Worshipping Jesus in the name of a political agenda is the more accurate translation and transgression of this COMMANDMENT. And these McChristian's do it here daily. Taking the lead of their fearful leader GWB. And it isn't important if it's offensive to any people. What they should concern themselves with is whether or not it is offensive to God. Read your bible. Better yet, try to UNDERSTAND it. Typical conservative.

Teh next Commander in Chief wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:00 AM:While Obama was making speeches calling the Afghanistan war good and necessary and the threatened Iraq invasion "bogus", here's McCain around that time, from the LA Times QUOTE McCain [...]when asked why he and nine other Congressional leaders urged President Bush in a letter dated Dec. 6, 2001, to next target Iraq since the Taliban regime had collapsed in Afghanistan. It is "imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq," the lawmakers wrote. "We believe that we must directly confront Saddam sooner rather than later." Later that day, McCain told MSNBC that it is "possible, if not probable, that internal opposition forces can prevail over time." Asked if it wouldn't require 100,000 U.S. soldiers as occupation troops, McCain demurred. "Oh no," he said, "I don't think so at all." ENDQUOTE There you go. One got it right, one got it completely wrong and furthermore was among the loudest and earliest screaming to invade Iraq. I know which one I want to be our next commander in chief, the one that displayed good judgment and a keen intelligence. The one that got it right.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:01 AM:I response to "Pulling Tails Off Lizards
@ 6:40 AM: today". " One must conclude that Chuck is a real riot at parties.". Agreed, I think that most posters here would be a riot but Chuck would definitely stand out in a crowd.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:02 AM:You know, it is just insanity the lies these liberals will tell. Take Paul Cavanaugh today. He purposely wants to leave the impression that "the Rich" could care less, and do not pay their fair share to help this country succeed.
It's pap, it's baloney, and it's a lie.
The fact of the matter is, "the Rich" carry this economy by virtue of all the taxes they pay.
For example, the Top 1% with an AGI Threshold of $364,657 pays 39.38% of all income taxes in this country. Folks, that's nearly 40% of all income taxes just from the top 1%.
The Top 5% with an AGI of $145,283 pays
59.67% The Top 10% with an AGI of
$103,912 pays 70.30%. The Top 25% with an AGI of $62,068 pays 85.99%. And rounding out, the Top 50% with an AGI of
$30,881 pays 96.93% of all the income taxes in this country.
Now, what do these taxes pay for? they pay for all things commonly used by our society, be they hosptials, roads, bridges, our military, and yes.. all those welfare programs. For those who pay least, 3% of taxes, into our system.
In California, 80% of all State income taxes are paid by those who make $500,000 a year or more. That's puts everyone else who makes less into the 20% range. Should we assume that since they only pay 20%, they should only receive 20% of all benefits? Only drive 20%, only use a bridge 20% of the time?
No, we share these things.
And the minority pays the lion's share of maintaining the infrastructure.
And it is just so fitting that Paul would include in his diatribe this nonsense about Bill Gates & Bangladesh.
That's a funny thing, ya know?
Given all the money, 50% of our State's budget in California, we are not turning out the engineers that Bill Gates requires. I wonder why? Could it be the decades of Liberal Insitutionalism that has been running it into the ground? I think so..
So Bill Gates is hiring in Bangladesh.
A place where they lack all the goodies we have, and yet... they are producing qualified engineers? Now.. how can that be?

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:05 AM:Re: Ron (9:29 a.m.)
Ron compares proposed increases in public health to LBJ's attempt to establish a "Great Society."
Oh yeah, by having public policy to proactively act to prevent problems when they are small, Ron forgets that this was the last time we had a balanced budget (budget surplus) until Clinton came along.
This despite the enormous costs of the Vietnam War, the successful "can do" APOLLO space program and, yes, the efforts toward a "Great Society" that were promptly dismantled by successor Nixon.
Ron complains about a government that offers more.
But as Al Gore promised in 1992, and then delivered with Clinton/Gore, the balanced budget was by greater efficiency and rooting out Republican fraud, corruption and waste - a government that costs less and does MORE.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:16 AM:Mark Payne's letter is just more flat-earth blather from another victim of Big Oil's anti-science propaganda.
He says global warming is a way for governments to gain more control, but misses the fact that the only consensus is among scientists, where the issue orignated, not in the political arena. Among politics, even among liberals and environmentalists, there is not agreement on what corrective policy steps should be taken nor on strategies to implement them. The only consensus that has emerged is from the scientific community, in identifying what the problem is and backing it up with solid science that none of these armchair amateurs can deal with.

Thoughts to ponder wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:18 AM:Why aren't letters by Joyce Wilson promoting a rigid hateful version of Christianity relegated to the Faith and Values section so I won't have to read them?

hardtack wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:20 AM:Just as some of you are skeptical of Big Oil’s motives, I tend to agree with Mark Payne. I’m more skeptical of Big Government’s motives and their anthropogenic climate change (ACC) hoopla. Moreover, I am just as suspicious of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on ACC as I would be of any Big Oil sponsored report on ACC. Where Big Oil has big investments and big profits at stake, Big Government has even bigger taxes and regulatory power at stake. Personally, I am more persuaded by the following “peer reviewed” statement regarding the effect of CO2 on global climate change:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release fo carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."

The above statement, circulated by the Global Warming Petition Project (you may Google it), has been endorsed by 31,072 American scientists, as of May 2008.

Nor am I deterred by the fact that “American scientists” could represent a rather heterogeneous “peer group.” The Project assures us, (Quote): many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. (End quote).

One does not have to be a climatologist or geophysicist to appreciate that the statement “contribute to” does not mean “cause;” that correlating data are not necessarily related; that “climate change” is not the same thing as “anthropogenic climate change;” and, that the word “event” does not automatically translate into “disaster,” except in the minds of some people.

Three D wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:23 AM:Joyce Wilson in her letter complains that the First Amendment does not apply to Christians, and that it is offensive to worship the "precious name" of Jesus Christ.
She does not seem to understand that the First Amendment ensures your right to practice your own faith, but does not confer the right to force others to practice your faith, and especially not to use public resources to do so.
And she does not understand that there is no one who finds it "offensive" when Christians use their own resources to observe their own rituals. What is, indeed, offensive, is when they try to force others to worship that "precious name" or use public resources to force others to practice her faith.
As I have asked many times, why are Christians so insecure with their faith that they place more trust in the government to legislate their religion than in ther priests, pastors, families and churches?
Faith is a personal matter - it is not a matter of public policy.

To Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:24 AM:Your "interesting factoid" came from a biased source with an agenda against Environmentalists and Al Gore in particular. Your failure to note this bias is also your failure to research and report truthfully. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact that you must use tainted information to make your point indicates you cannot find any valid sources and therefore what you post is wRONg. Not that you care. So give yourself all the credibility you want, but outside of Ron, Chuck and jvc, no one else believes anything you say. Sorry.

Chris to to Chris wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:29 AM:You are the one out to lunch. The current Iraq war was not authorized by the UN. Who are the same morons that I support from the first gulf war? All the intelegence has led to the conclusion that forgign fighters in Iraq are only a few percent of those who fight our troops. Quite frankly I think you are on something.

Cluck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:33 AM:Come on, Maggie Owen. Take some "personal responsibility." If you don't know what he is talking about when he says change, what his plans are, etc, you are just not paying attention. And apparently haven't been paying attention for years. You're going to have to do better than that, otherwise you just look foolish, and uninformed. Typical of a conservative.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:34 AM:Another on US health care @ 9:16 AM:

At my last physical I asked my doctor what she thought about nationalized health care. I found out that her husband is also a doctor and they have close friends that are doctors in Canada. I got an earful of usefull info. I suggest that everyone ask their doctors what they think about Nationlized Health Care.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:36 AM:"Thoughts to ponder @ 10:18 AM:"

Here's a thought to ponder. You don't have to read any letters on this blog or letters to the editor. Why not just read letters that you agree with?

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:39 AM:To Reardon
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:24 AM:

Don't forget me on your list.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:43 AM:Cluck
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:33 AM:

Typical of you cluck to lump all conservos into one group. Does your theory pertain to libs also?

Chuck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:43 AM:The news is reporting that Democrats reject Bush's call to lift ban on offshore oil drilling. We all knew they would. What do liberals care about choking gas prices, commodity price inflation and the staggering amout of jobs being lost. They want you to put your cute wind and solar panel on your roof and ride your bike. This will be a massive election year issue

Floyd wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:48 AM:Iraq thumbed it's nose at many UN resolutons over a period of ten years. Finally, the UN said "comply or face serious consequences". Iraq did not comply. Serious consequences ensued.

Another on US health care wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:50 AM:Karl, you might notice that my post was not advocating anything. I am sure that many American doctors would dislike the systems of other countries: MDs there might make less money. So? I'd rather look at the big picture of patient care in the entire population as the measure of a health care system. My earlier post had little to do with this, only that more and more doctors are getting turned off our system as well. I know that in mental health care, increasingly psychologists in private practice are also shifting to not taking insurance because it compromises their practice so much and entails so much time on paperwork. One consequence of this is that only a very few of the wealthier class will be able to afford psychologists. That doesn't lead to a net gain for our society as a whole. As this decision moves to include more and more of medical practice, the rich will get good care, the poor will get lousy or no care. Go read Dickens to see what that's like in a society.

But Chuck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:53 AM:You fail to mention that until yesterday, Bush and the Republicans also didn't care about any of those things. Why only blame the Democrats when so many, in your view, should share this blame? When Bush had the Congress as his rubber stamp for all those years, why didn't he do this then?

sdraoul wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:57 AM:Max Cleland was thrown out of office by Georgia voters for the simple reason that he wasn't up to the job of representing the people of Georgia; he was stuck on representing the Democratic National Committee.

AS for Alf and his petulance, store it, Alf, the 4000 dead Americans in Iraq are actually less than American
service men who died under Bill Clinton during the same length of time and other than bombing Chinese embassies and Bosnia the only things Clinton has to show for all those dead were nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran.

As for insurgents in Iraq, who says they are local? We were roundly criticized for drawing so many foreigners into Iraq to fight us that the world was convinced that the entire Muslim universe was there fighting us.

Wrong! They can't fight us because they are dead.

Again, not a single attack on us has oocured in the USA or even against U.S. targets around the world as we suffered under the Clinton Justice Department and its briefcase carrying "soldiers" who bravely fought terrorists in the courtroom.

Cluck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:57 AM:Thanks Karl. So I guess you disagree with Joyce? If so I stand corrected.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:58 AM:To all those who delight in pain and misfortune suffered by conservos. I will be in the desert this weekend to play pasture pool in the 16th annual Roger Clark Memorial. When my friends and I started this thing some 16 years ago I was 38 and could drink beer and play golf all day in 100 to 120 degree heat (it's a dry heat you know). Well the forecast for this weekend is 114 degrees and I will be on the golf course for only 4 hours in the morning and will be drinking a lot of water, iced tea and jumping into swimming pools that line the golf course.

If you don't here from me again at least I croaked doing something I enjoy immensely.

Peace

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:58 AM:The post from "Chuck" (10:43am) continues to perpetuate the myth that high gas prices are caused by those who rightly want to limit future drilling in sensitive areas.
Let's look at the actual factors with which the Bush administration has forced prices up to benefit their oil cronies, as well as some that have nothing to do with Bush (or with new drilling sites):
1. Fuel diverted from general supply to war in Iraq
2. Oil production greatly reduced, contrary to pre-war predictions that it would increase and pay for the war, because we were NOT "greeted as liberators" but rather as despised occupiers with intentional disruption of production and delivery systems by those seeking to expel the occupiers.
3. Increased demand from China and India
4. Increased demand from gas guzzling SUV's and the lack of fuel efficiency standards
5. Profiteering allowed for Big Oil by lax oversight from cronies in the Bush Oil Administration
6. Speculative investing in oil futures.
7. Devaluation of dollar against other currencies (such as the Euro) by the Bush Treasury Dept.

And here is the big kicker: WE DO NOT NEED MORE DRILLING SITES.
The problem is not the lack of sites to drill on, but that Big Oil won't even use the ones they already have! According to Senator Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, out of 41 million acres ALREADY CURRENTLY LEASED; Big Oil is "sitting on" 33 million acres that they could be drilling on, but are not. Info at the Senate ".GOV" site:
http://bingaman.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=297673

And I have a question for those who want to let more PUBLIC LAND be allocated for drilling: if public policy legislation is passed to enable access to resources on public lands, should public policy also dictate that all energy produced from such leases be limited to satisfying needs of domestic consumption?

Floyd the Scientist wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:59 AM:Consensus is politics. Fact is sciencne. A consensus of scientists is still politics. The global warming crowd claims the rising temperature is caused by humans, but there has been no verifiable proof that humans are causing the global warming verified to exist on Mars. However, there is evidence that the global warming crowd does not understand grade-school concepts such as the idea that "climate" is derived from "weather". Calls for political action due to "global warming" are based on junk science and should be rejected.

TO Not only that wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:02 AM:At 7:12AM, But did you also know that 57 happins to be the number just after 56 and right before 58! How can you trust Obama now? LOL.

hardtack wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:02 AM:I believe homosexuals want to have the right to pay a fee and get a license for the same reason that some people get tattooed.
In both cases it is significantly less expensive to just do it, rather than invest all the time and money it would take in professional counseling sessions to convince them that they don’t need it.

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:04 AM:Re: SDRaoul (10:57 a.m.)
There goes Raoul again, always beating up on heroes who have already been defeated, always fighting the last campaign.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:06 AM:Another @ 10:15 am,
You might notice that my post was not advocating anything except asking the opinion of someone in the profession. My doctor started out by telling me that she was not in it for the money. She is truly a caring person and after having known her for 12 years I believe her on that. She made good points for both sides of the issue.

I am not advocating that everyone follow the opinion of their health care professionals, just seek their opinion to broaden your base of information on the subject.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:12 AM:Cluck,
I disagree with some of her points (1, 4 and 5 for sure)

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:18 AM:But Chuck
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:53 AM:

I can tell you why Bush and the Repubs didn't care about those things when they had a chance, they're short sided idiots and got away from their conservative roots. This is why I have been a registered independent for much longer than the current phase of cross overs.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:19 AM:I have to agree with my good friend "hey Chucks news source" @
@7:51 AM. "Yeah, Obama misspoke"... again, and again, and again...
I really liked the part where he finally had to admit that he did sit in a pew during one of the wrong Rev. Wright's diatribe's on America.
I'm certainly glad he cleared that up.
and then he stayed in the church.
If it's all about judgement, his is all wrong. He said so.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:22 AM:TO Not only that @ 11:02 AM:

Thanks for the chuckle. That was funny.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:36 AM:Well, "DD Wiz" at 10:58AM, to answer your last question - YES. I might take it one step further and suggest that the oil coming from those sources be priced at cost plus 10 to 20 percent, not the current market price, because that oil is not for sale outside the U.S.. How un-Libertarian of me. Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:44 AM:DD Wiz" at 10:58AM,
Add me to the "yes" responders to your question. How unconservative of me. I also agree with Alf on the pricing.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:45 AM:I do.. "Just wondering" @8:48 AM.
I object to any military spending inside the State boundaries of Massachusetts. Since those two Senators, Kennedy & Kerry are two of the biggest anti-war lib's, I see no reason they should personally profit by being awarded any military contracts inside their State.
I'm beginning to believe, that we should also reconsider any war spending inside Pennsylvania, the home State of one John Murtha. I'm more than sure we can find many other congressional/senate districts in which to cut back.

Revelation wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:47 AM:DD's information about how much land the oil companies already lease and have chosen not to drill comes as a shocking revelation, doesn't it? Think of the implications of this. And now, Bush goes to Congress, all of a sudden, and asks for offshore drilling. A sly political move. If the Congress says "No", he can falsely blame them for gas prices. If they bend to the popular pressure based on misinformation that we need those new drilling sites, then the oil companies get a whole new set of lands to play with, and probably sit on. Thanks, DD. That information is absolutely crucial to this entire topic.

Judgment contest wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:49 AM:Obama decided to stay in the church he'd been in for 20 years despite a few obnoxious remarks by the pastor. McCain pushed for the Iraq invasion, announcing it would be a cakewalk. I agree with Ron: it's all about judgment.

Thanks Floyd wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:53 AM:You and Irvin Forbing should get together and write to the IPCC instead of us. Both you and Forbing seem to be sure you have the real skinny on the climate and those guys at IPCC need to have their foolishness pointed out. Please, Floyd, write to them immediately! When, in a month, they come out with a complete refutation of their prior position, we at the NCT blogspace will have warm hearts knowing it was you that turned them around. Thanks!

To Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:55 AM:You want an earful, you should ask my doctor what he thinks about the FDA.

Question for Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:56 AM:I appreciate your doctor friend...sounds like a good, caring professional. What does she say the US should do to improve its health care? Does she think the role of insurance companies is as it should be here? What's her opinion of what should be done for the uninsured and the underinsured? Does she believe that our medial care is as efficient as it can be? Does she think direct targeting of medicine to consumers is a good thing? I'd be very interested to know her opinions about these things. Thanks in advance.

To Chuck and Friends wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:00 PM:If you think offshore drilling will gain the American People cheaper gas, you are a sucker. The oil companies will just sell the additional oil on the world market at the prevailing market price and will only make more profit. Do you think they are stupid? I have a friend who works on an offshore rig and you should hear what he has to say about the surplus oil they are sitting on. S-U-C-K-E-R. By the way, McBush may succeed in turning Florida into a blue state with his new stance on offshore drilling today. Can you say, "environmental candidate?" NOT.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:01 PM:Nippon: Well Honda rolled out its first all hydrogen cell car today and will have a test run for the production market. Honda tends to produce these cars by the thousands as the infrastructure is developed. Pay attention: Remember what happened when the Japanese started into the auto market previously. What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that autos will be hydrogen cars within ten years with hydrogen service centers throughout the land.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:06 PM:To Karl @ 11:55 AM:

I hear you. When I'm not golfing and on the rare occasion working, I sometimes have to deal with the FDA. When the FDA gets involved in the constuction practice it's a mess. I do think that some oversight is necessary when it comes to building sites where wfi (water for injection), pharmaceuticals etc. are manufactured but the FDA makes a rocket science of it.

Chris to Floyd wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:06 PM:Hussein was not in any violation of UN resolutions. The weapons inspectors were doing a good job and wanted more time. The US tried to get the security council to sign off on war but they wouldn't so Bush said who needs the UN. Remember all the trashing of the UN because they wouldn't bow to he US and authorize the war? As I said I get tired of trying to educate the uneducatable. We have too many bloggers out here that don't have a clue but spout nonsense anyway.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:11 PM:It is just so fascinating to read a post like this, and they think they are just so smart. But... that's a lib for ya! "Another on US health care" @
9:16 AM thinks he/she is writing some kind of diatribe against our current medical system. And yet... he/she is writing exactly how a government run system will be. It's just incredible!
LOL... how do these guy's do it?
Anyways, in this "Fascinating article in the NY Times", docotors are
growing dissatisfied with "oversight" of insurance companies sticking their noses into their decision making, and preventing them from prescribing as they determine.
How does this person think a government run system will work? WITH MASSIVE OVERSIGHT, my friend. And the fact of the matter is it will do exactly what these insurance companies are doing now, trying to keep the costs down.
Oh, but they will then say: "What about all the massive profits these guy's make? We'll get rid of those profits, and insure more people. Maybe, maybe... but you'll also unemploy many more.
And they will then lose their medical insurance. Whadda gonna do then?
And he/she says: "They are fed up with the growing non-medical demands of their jobs." You mean like, Government paper work, about age, sex, race, and other information required by this same government?
Then he/she says: "Every prescription they write can be second-guessed by an insurance company."
And you don't think the VA does this? They eliminate potential drugs by a formulary, a list of what drugs they will use, and thus excludes drugs not on the list.
"Fees for service are being cut."
Now, how many letters have we all seen saying the government does this exact same thing? 4? 5? The fact of the matter is the government pays doctors, nurses, tech's, and other medical professionals about 1/3 of what they would normally charge. This is exactly how they keep their costs down.
And as a "result" of all this oversight, doctors are leaving. Hmmmmm... I wonder where else in the world doctors are leaving government run healthcare?
I recently read an article where doctors in France, yes.. FRANCE the much touted medical miracle! Doctors are leaving, after being government trained, at government expense... for other countries, including the US, where they can set up private practises, and get better pay.
Of course, you could be a Brit, where they are having to import doctors who will accept such low pay. As I hear it, they've even imported a few terrorists, thinking they were doctors.

Floyd wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:11 PM:I wonder how long it will be before somebody makes a connection between Michelle Obama and Martha "Mouth of the South" Mitchell.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:26 PM:Hey genius... "Apollo" @10:05 AM.
Any knucklehead can balance a budget with a 70% tax rate. No prize for LBJ.
As to Clinton, you guy's just love tax increases, so of course your a Clinton lover. And besides, he crippled the military by the downsizing, which again.. you guy's cheer.
But on top of all that baloney..
Clinton's smoke & mirrors doesn't pass muster with people like me who know what really happened, and have written budgets. You know it, I know, most informed people know this too.
He took the nation's credit cards, rolled them into a second mortgage, and balanced his "monthly budget", while his out year balances increased. Nor did he, or his Republican Congress ever spend less. In fact, the debt went up every single year. So, go ahead, tout your hollow victories, we know how this was done. And it wasn't surpluses as far as the eye can see.
Example, Social Security & Medi-Care are currently running close to $45 trillion in debt. And Clinton never paid one red cent towards it. Ever.
He did prove the theory though, I'll grant him that. He proved that what relly needs to happen is to dismantle government programs, like his choice the military, to really balance a budget. It will not be until we get rid of the Dept of Education, HUD, and other wasteful outgrowths, will we ever be able to get back to truly balanced budget. And your kind of going against the grain here, aren't you? I mean.. Obama has spendind up in the trillions, if he's only going to tax "the Rich", and give everyone else a cut, how is he going to reduce spending? In fact, he will add to it by adding healthcare, of which we currently spend $2 trillion a year. Sorry, my friend, you'll not see a "balanced budget." Nor will I. But thanks for the disinformation.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:34 PM:Yet, another example of this Top-Down Central Committee type government planning by the Vista City Council & the Planning Commission.
To deny her request to expand, is to deny her business, and will deny another American a job.
This is how they do it folks.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:42 PM:Question for Karl @ 11:56 AM

My MD's opinions are not necessarily mine

Answers
1)Have the insurance companies stay out of the day to day healthcare decisions. Example, in order to prescribe an mri for a patient, she must first prescribe an xray to see if that will detect a problem. In my experience I know that an mri will detect a lot of things an xray won't.

2)See answer to 1 above

3)She doesn't have an answer. She does not think that anything proposed by our representatives up to now will or Canada's system will work. She does however hope that something feasible will be worked out. She explained that she employs a nanny and the health insurance she pays for this person is totally outrageous.

4)She believes that without the interference of the insurance companies it would be.

5)She didn't address this

Peace

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:09 PM:I actually agree with you "Sorry Ron"
@9:51 AM: Voting {Barack} Obama. {is a} No-brainer. All it really requires is greed, envy, and anger over not having enough stuff.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:15 PM:I think your forgeting something in your calculations there, ah... "To Reardon Please Check Your Sources"
@5:45 AM.
His GlufStream private jet.
You know, when he went to Caan film festival, by way of London. His plane on that one trip burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel, so the guy could collect a prize.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:22 PM:I'd like to make some down to Earth comments on a couple of today's letters. First Joan Horn's letter about gay discrimination being akin to other discrimitory actions. No Joan, homosexuality is not comparable to being black. Apples and oranges. And, for the record I don't give a damn about their marriages, just don’t plaster their pictures everywhere. Man on man, and woman on woman images repulse me. Just being honest. Now Mark Payne actually makes some good points about the global warming farce. I'm not a believer in the computer models used to quantify global warming, nor do I believe all the hype being pushed on us daily. I do believe it is a huge scam, and Al Gore is one of the key beneficiaries. So there, gays are okay, just leave me alone and global warming is a farce. Oh, and don't forget to vote for Rex. Regards, C-1.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:26 PM:Excellent post from the left today. DD threw a fast ball right over the plate! Mr. Wiz, I agree with six out of your seven summaries, but I don't see how they are directly related to W. More importantly, your point about the oil companies already have unused reserves could be Earth shattering if true. I will go to the site as soon as I can. Thanks DD.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:30 PM:The talking points are out, looks like my good buddy the Wizzer @10:58 AM already has his.
Now, here is the talking point:
QUOTE: "The problem is not the lack of sites to drill on, but that Big Oil won't even use the ones they already have!" End Quote
Now their claim is Big Oil is sitting on these 41 million acres ALREADY CURRENTLY LEASED; and is "sitting on" 33 million acres that they could be drilling on, but are not.
Partly true, but not the whole story.
Our good Friend Reardon nailed this the otherday. Here's how this little game is played, while the Federal government may "lease" the land, the oil company must still clear State, and local authorities to drill. That's the game.
The labyrinth of hoop jumping is just mind boggling. You may get clearance on one level, but still must gain clearance at other levels, and they are multi-faceted. And it was made that way by enviromentalist to make it impossible. In fact, the Goven-a-tor said just the otherday that in order for a utility company, like SDG&E to proceed on any given project they must clear 13 different agencies to complete the project. Within these agencies, are stacks of enviro types who will veto projects, no matter how good they maybe for the community, the region, or the State, simply because they care more about fish, than drinking water.
And that's the real deal on this.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:03 PM:Now, this is a new one from our good buddy the Wizzer @10:58 AM.
His first two reasons for gas prices going up is the War in Iraq. Just the war in Iraq, Wiz? Or could we also include oil used in Afganistan?
It's nonsensical, it's like trying to figuire out how much global warming is caused by humans, as opposed to natural sources. But I digress...
In his point "2. Oil production greatly reduced, contrary to pre-war predictions that it would increase and pay for the war..."
Oh, so now you want Iraqi oil to pay? You guy's really, and I mean this with all sincerity, need to really make up your minds on this.
On his point "3. Increased demand from China and India." Now, he's hitting pay dirt! 85 million barrels daily, the world needs another 2 million, because the demand is 87 million. We are sitting on top of 19 million, and are being prevented.
Point "4. Increased demand from gas guzzling SUV's and the lack of fuel efficiency standards."
More top down Central planning.. yeah.. that's just what we need. And what do you have against families with more than 4 people? I can't squeeze my whole family into a beer can, ya know?
Point "5. Profiteering allowed for Big Oil by lax oversight from cronies in the Bush Oil Administration." Really, in which study was it ever proven they set pricing or gouged customers? Can you point to one?
Point "6. Speculative investing in oil futures." Speculation on prospective oil prices is part, not all of the answer. And if we are going to look at Big Oil, should we be looking at Big Cattle too? I seem to recall a Hillary investment that seemed to be just a little too good to be true.
Point "7. Devaluation of dollar against other currencies (such as the Euro) by the Bush Treasury Dept."
I thought that had to do with how much money we were borrowing to fund our welfare system? I'll grant you, we've pretty much run most of this war on credit, as was done by FDR, Truman,
LBJ... they all had huge tax rates and still ran deficits, borrowing out of Social Security, which is why we owe $45 trillion between SS & Medi-Care. Clearer now?
And look at this year's borrowing, almost half for the War's, pural... menaing Iraq & Afganistan. yes, we have TWO WARS to fund.
The other half is what? That's right! Supporting the welfare programs!
So half of what we are currently borrowing is used to support this massive, bloated, over spending Central Government.

So Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:04 PM:In other words, you see the debate about offshore drilling, ANWR drilling, etc irrelevant since even as Bush will make a big political show of asking for more drilling and the democrats will do whatever they do, it doesn't matter because even if granted, the oil companies can't really drill anyway, right? The leftist environmentalists actually control everything at the level of where the rubber meets the road. I wonder if it's true. I am struck by how consistent the right is in finding a way to blame the left for everything, though. Ron came through on that score as usual.

Health care wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:08 PM:As I've said before, the measure of a nation's health care system just has to be the health of that nation. Not the salaries of the physicians. Not the amount it contributes to the GDP. Not anything else. By that measure, our health care system is pretty weak and the more so considering its cost. I would love to hear suggestions about how to improve it, by that measure. I have no stake in any nation's system, not knowing enough about them to comment intelligently. I do know that our's should be measured by the health care delivered to all our people and its outcomes. Any ideas?

Bill One wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:15 PM:To Ron, you are so right on. But you forgot that after you get through all the govt agencies, then the enviro groups start with their never ending lawsuits. I have been involved with getting companies through this process. The enviro group will voice their concerns. Then the company will address them to their satisfaction. The next meeting the enviros will have a whole new set of concrenes. This goes on and on. They will say they support the project only if their concerns are met. But the concerns never end. Their real goal is to stop the project. The enviros will say the would support things like hydro-electric, give be a break, could you imagine trying to build a new dam? They have blocked many wind projects and solar. All while saying they support it. For all you enviro bloggers on here, get involved. You will see what I am talking about. Don't just read on the net what they say. Go to the hearings, go to all the hearings. See how it goes.

Ovomit wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:19 PM:Ovomit doesn't have a clue what he's running on. Change, change, change is meaningless; define it damn it. He reminds me of Charlie Brown's teacher, "wa wa wa..."

What wars wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:24 PM:Ron says we have two wars to fund. He and raoul and Bush and McCain assert that we are a nation at war. Really? I don't see it. I see that the most terrible criminal act was perpetrated on 9/11/01 and that the people who planned that act would like to plan and execute others. They should be stopped by any means necessary. Does this imply a war? Not at all. No more than Tim McVeigh's horrible criminal act did. He was also a member of certain groups that would like to attack the federal government and kill its employees. Criminal groups, in other words. The Afghan war was resonable because the Taliban were so intent on being the protectors of the group that attacked us. That war ended quickly, and we, along with NATO, established a force there to assist our allies in Pakistan and the new Afghan government to keep the Taliban down. While we continue to do all we can to get the al qaeda group. Iraq, we all know by know, never was justified, but never mind. That invasion, too, was brief and successful. Mission accomplished. Saddam overthrown and a democratically elected ally installed. War over. So we have one front with a small military helping the locals maintain their power and another front with a large military occupying a nation, supposedly so that it can build itself up to par. So where is the war? Nowhere. To say that we need to be vigilant about terror attacks and to pursue those plotting against us goes without saying. It's totally legitimate as an internationally coordinated police activity. War? I don't see it. I do see that persuading Americans to thinking of themselves at war is a political manipulation that is destructive to our country. We must resist the "war" mongers, those who would insist we are at war and they are at the helm. We aren't, so they needn't be.

Cluck wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:26 PM:wRONg again. Greed, envy, and anger for not having enough stuff; the motto of the Republican't Party. Thanks for pointing that out? LOL!!!! That these conservatives can't see this is why they are impossible to take seriously. And why conservatism is dead in this country. They confuse "fairness" and "equality" and "freedom", with "greed", "envy", and "anger". But it's easily understood how they are so confused; it's all they have in their hearts.

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:28 PM:CONSERVATIVES: Reviewed all your blogs today. I was entertained by all your whining and complaining. I realize now why you blog here. No one will listen to you any where else. LOL

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:37 PM:Your small cosmetics firm, it doesn't "test" on small furry animals, does it? Peggy Sanders?
Well, in any case...
The inflation we are currently seeing is due to the cost of fuel. We have an economy based on the cheap price of fuel, used to make energy, as required to run your business.
And it's not just happening here, Europe is feeling the pinch, so is virtually every single country which does not pursue it's own oil resources, but demands other's do the drilling for them. This has been the energy policy of this country for the last 40 years.
The enviro groups are are pushing, and have pushed nearly 40% of our own domestic supplies off limits, forcing us to be dependent upon the good graces of corrupt oil regimes. For a while, it worked. Now, with China & India coming on line, the demand far exceeds the supply by about 2 million barrels a day.
I would imagine you ship a lot of stuff?
Truck fuel is nearing $5 per gallon of diesel, your gonna pay the difference.
If you fly anything into the country, jet fuel is higher, even shipping by ocean has gone up. Not to mention, that once the freight gets here, it must be trucked. I would imagine your seeing fuel surcharges going through the roof?
If we were allowed to drill, we could get an additional 19 million barrels which would cause the gas price to plumment. But, the Left in this country has already made up it's mind on this, there will be no movement this year to lower your gas price. It will be the price YOU pay, so they can gain seats in the Congress, and maybe the White House. Depending, of course, if they successfully spin this with slick marketing & packaging.

Bill One wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:42 PM:Give us all a break yadda yadda, thats why you come here, to whine!!

to Ovomit wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:44 PM:As others have done, I invite you to go to Obama's website or explore the media to examine in as much detail as you like the specific policies that he is advocating. These will relieve you of the fantasy that his campaign is based on a meaningless mantra. Interested?

hardtack wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:55 PM:Let me see if I have this right:

Big Oil is “profiteering.”
Big Oil is cashing in on huge windfall profits.
Big Oil is sitting on millions of acres of accessible domestic oil reserves while oil is trading at $72 a barrel.
Meanwhile, industry oil stock averages are trading below the S&P 500 average.

Does anyone see something wrong with this picture?

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:04 PM:The published letter from Paul Cavanaugh, followed by the predictable response from "Ron" (10:02pm) echoes a point similar to one I have made many times before, in this forum and elsewhere.
Without the technological, educational, political, economic and cultural infrastructure and environment that Bill Gates was born into, he would not have achieved his billions, and he does owe much to the source of those opportunities (as well as to his own initiative and hard work). As Cavanaugh notes, if Gates had been born in Bangladesh a thousand years ago, or even in the Soviet Union of the Cold War era, he would not have the chance to achieve what he has.
The reason you see "Ron" squirming so much, is that he is trying to justify his own alleged (self-described) "self-made" status as war contractor and oil stock profiteer, and does not want to acknowledge at all the debt he owes to others who have contributed so much to the good fortune that he is too angry (bitter?) to even enjoy.
As for "Ron's" comment at 1:30pm that Big Oil is "sitting on" these reserves and not developing them because of obstruction by environmentalists, this is the same old canard we always see. Specifics, please, Ron. Cite the specific project and describe the exact nature of the obstruction or admit you are, yet again, just making this up and trying to blame the environmentalists for your oil buddies' attempts to game the system and blame the environmentalists, just like you did with the electricity mess back in 2000.
Looks like "Ron" is just trying to provide cover for his oil stock buddies.
An even bigger question is, since Senator Bingaman has been holding hearings on this matter this week, which were relegated to CSPAN-II, why has this not been reported in the corporate-owned media? I saw the hearings on CSPAN and found the info on the Senate website, but nothing at all on the Network news, L.A. Times, S.D. Union-Tribune or even the North County Times. Why is that?

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:07 PM:Thank you "Bill One" @2:15 PM, for bringing your experience to the table for us. This is the game, and that's exactly how they do stop us from moving forward. In addition to all the enviro's, you then have yet another hurdle, the NIMBY's. The Not In My Back Yard types.
One of the major hurdles for the PowerLink is Ramona. It's the "It'll hurt my property values" crowd, or the otherside, the "It'll hurt my view" side, which of course, is some of the same people.
It is kind of scysophrenic thinking here. Citizens want all this stuff that needs electric power, but do not want to do what it takes to run it all.
You know, with the Supreme Court decision {Kelo vs. New London} running rough shod over individual citizens personal property rights, I'm beginning to wonder if we can use that same doctrine for our own advantage?
Afterall, the traditional usage of eminent domain was to improve the public good, so I'd like to see some property seized on behalf of the public good. And I would include National Parks in this, such as Anzo Borrego.
It was a desert long before we got here, and will remain one, long after we are gone.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:10 PM:Well, "sdraoul" at 10:57AM, we are in the here and now, not when Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton was President. Their good and bad points are a matter of history. Unfortunately, you continually try to rewrite that history. Right HERE, right NOW, GWB and his clone, McGWB, are the problem. GWB and McGWB have openly disparaged and GWB has openly violated the Constitution. McGWB says he will "stay the course" that GWB has set - that course is heading directly to military and financial ruin for the United States. If your war-mongering blinds you to that fact, then you need to look at the over 4,000 DEAD American Troops and our astronomical National Debt that is growing more than TWICE as fast as it would if we were not in Iraq, or maybe you didn't notice. The National Debt (National Debt Clock) is currently over 9 TRillion dollars and is increasing by 1.48 Billion dollars per day or maybe you didn't notice or maybe you simply do not care. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:14 PM:I cede your point, "What wars" @
2:24 PM: But what really is your point?
We are in Afganistan precisely because that is where the 9/11 attacks were planned. I'll concede your point on Iraq, but I'll say this...
Even if we had only fought the correct war, the Afgan War, we would still be spending money on the war, about half.
Last year we borrowed almost $400 billion, $200 billion for those two wars. We simply take out Iraq of the equation, and we're down to $100 billion a year to fight in Afganistan.
That still leaves us borrowing $300 billion, $100 billion for Afganistan, and another $200 billion to support our welfare state. So.. what is your point?
You want to save $100 billion, so you can get a piece of that action?

McVomit wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:19 PM:Now we are even.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:20 PM:Well, "Karl", sodas with caffeine can cause dehydration, no foolin'. I have an old, old, old, old joke - Did you ever drink one Coke and burp Seven Up? Make sure to get to and thoroughly enjoy that 19th hole. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:33 PM:You conveniently forget, "Ron" at 3:14PM, that the direct Iraq expenses do not take into account ALL the aftercare of our physically and mentally wounded American Troops and ALL the other, indirect, expenses that must be dealt with and paid that are not part of the current appropriations for this "war" in Iraq. Regards, Alf.

What wars wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:49 PM:I don't think I have a point as specific as military spending, Ron. Though I wouldn't mind reflecting on that aspect of it a bit. What I had in mind when I posted is a deep suspicion about our being manipulated by fear and war-talk. By efforts to frighten us into thinking we need to be at war all the time, to justify special Presidential powers, to justify infinite spending (oh, there it is!), to justify the need for certain, John Wayne type, candidates. I feel like it's all quite bogus. The fact that we "won" the cold war and are now the only military power on the planet seems to have been terrible news to some people who rely on "war" for their power and profit. We've been manipulated into the fear and war mode almost constantly, and I'm done with it. No nation is capable or even willing to consider attacking us militarily, knowing that it would mean their complete destruction. That's over. We won. One might think this good news! There are lots of individuals and groups who are not associated with any particular nation that will plot to attack others, including us, from time to time. Just like there are gangs, domestic and international, whose greed and funding of the drug trade are a threat to us. For these kinds of threats, I'd say about the last thing we need is a military approach, because war always (ALWAYS) produces more carnage, damage, and enmity than it plans to. It also serves to recruit potential enemies and evokes strong feelings of revenge and humiliation. It's a terrible idea unless absolutely necessary. We need thinkers, chess players, not John Waynes, in this world. I guess that's my point.

What wars PS wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:54 PM:In a nutshell: any politician or pundit who says that we are under great threat and that we are at "war" with anyone is, in my view, a liar and a manipulator, and someone I'd encourage people to oppose as strongly as possible. Such people want to ruin the quality of my life so that I will increase their power and profits, all based on utter falsehood. The worst kind of snake-oil salesmen. And to compound their sins and crimes, to prove their point they even are willing to START wars and send our kids to their deaths for the sake of that lie. Unforgivable. Evil. I urge people to vote them out of office and to turn to other radio channels.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:58 PM:What Bill One is referring to is called "Green Mail" which is akin to black mail except, thanks to our liberal courts, is legal. It makes a project virtually impossible to complete. The way to get by it is to hire an "environmental consultant" (usually made up of ex ACLU lawyers)at an exorbitant rate who will help you "conform" to the environmental codes.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:04 PM:So Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:04 PM:

Give me a break, you certainly came through on the opposite (left) score as usual. Your line "I am struck by how consistent the right is in finding a way to blame the left for everything, though." is a classic. Think about the message you are sending to Ron and then put yourself in his shoes. They fit pretty nice don't they? The left isn't consistant in blaming the right for everything? Right. I am struck by politicians claiming that he/she will unite the Country. What they are really saying is if the (insert opposing party here) come around to our way of thinking, we will be united. Debate and dissent are healthy until talking points take over by both parties and their minnions just for the sake of beating the opposition with no thought about compromise. In that case we all lose.

More than ever we desperately need a viable 3rd party. The only way this will ever happen is if the zombies of both parties wake up and smell the stench and bulls..t emanating from their party of choice.

Peace and Ron Paul to all.

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:06 PM:Re: Ron (3:14 p.m.)
Amzaingly, Ron says: "Even if we had only fought the correct war, the Afgan War, we would still be spending money on the war, about half."
So you admit that, because of Bush, we are diverting at least double the oil out of domestic circulation than what was necessary. And considering that operations in Iraq are 3 to 5 times more massive than in Afghanistan (where the real terrorists are) it is actually a huge amount of oil resources going down the rathole of Iraq in Bush's cut and run from the real war against the real terrorists.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:10 PM:So now, you want to fix "luck" egalitarianism too? Wizzer @3:04 PM?
Is that your point? Huh?
This is what drives people like you nutty. We took what we were freely given {my parent's and grand-parent's paid these taxes}, added to that by paying my own way, and strove to be the best. This thought, this idea that somehow for the rest of our lives we should be so eternally grateful that we should just hand over all of our money, our freedom, our businesses, our liberties, is just collectivist clap-trap. It reminds me of virtually every Black athlete who leaves the ghetto, yet is told that "he owes." I reject this. All those people who helped me along the way, be they school teachers, college professors, or even a cop are paid to do so, my friend. They are seeking, as Adam Smith said so well: "Their own Self-Interest" which helped me by the invisible hand.
And by my own self-interest, I help other's, my family, employees, and those who buy products or services.
But I'm doing this because it helps me FIRST. I may have had some teachers who "liked" me, some might have even "loved" me, but they all got paid, which bought them houses helping the construction guy, bought cars which helped GM, and bought medical services which paid doctors to treat them. This IS the Synergy, this is our system.
Now, you may not like our system, that's because secretly you are a radical, not a centrist Democrat that you want to portray.
As to being bitter, and you see how these conversations must go emotional...
because they MUST paint you as uncaring, greedy, evil, whatever else you want to say, in order to agitate.
It is the Alinsky model.
The secret to life is to fill the hole, and it aint filled with stuff. Which is exactly why liberals fail. They play the "this guy has more stuff than you" card, and it don't make people happy. Cause, like all people, they keep wanting more.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:14 PM:Cluck
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:26 PM:

There you go again ""greed", "envy", and "anger". But it's easily understood how they are so confused; it's all they have in their hearts." lumping all conservos in one basket.

I would assume from your words that since I consider myself a conservative I have to be generally greedy, envious (of what?), angry and confused with no heart or compassion for my fellow man.

Guess again

Voice from the DARK AGES wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:16 PM:Even though California has decided to redefine marriage, the fact is, God 's definition of marriage is unchangeable. God doesn't accept it. If it's important to you to get married "in the eyes of God" and for God to recognize your union understand that His definition of marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime. If God's approval doesn't matter to you then have a wonderful life (in this life only).

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:17 PM:Ovomit
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:19 PM:


Go to his website and you will see his vision of "change". Novel idea eh?

But Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:17 PM:Here's the difference right now between blaming the left and the right: the right has been in power since at least the year 2000. So, without trying to sound biased in a flawed way, I've got to say that when the left blames Bush & Co, their accusations tend to be accurate; when the right blames "liberals", they tend to be in error or lying. You can't blame people who have little or no power, can you? Since Reagan, it's been a right wing show almost continuously. Even Clinton's policies were strongly determined by pressure from the right (not that I am opposed to blaming Clinton for all sorts of things that he deserves blame for). Reagan delivered the country to those with a grudge over the 60s and even Republicans like Rove and Gingrich have crowed about a "permanent Republican majority". There have been exceptions, but overall, the right has ruled since 1980, and certainly since 2000. So, yes, they deserve blame and the left doesn't. This is why conservatives are constantly being caught here making stuff up: they have to! Comprende?

bogie wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:19 PM:yadda yadda
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:28 PM:

Yadda yadda back at you my friend

Three D wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:26 PM:To: Voice from the DARK AGES at 4:16 p.m.
Actually you are wrong on two counts:
1. What is right in the "eyes of God" is not relevant in a nation of secular laws that are not rooted in religious law.
2. God's definition of marriage from the Bible is, repeatedly, not one man and one woman. It is one man and multiple women, from the same ethnicity, and the women are subservient to him, as the chattel property over which he has "dominion." I have listed chapter and verse in this regard several times and I am attempting to spare the blog editors slogging through it again, but if you want the references, I'm prepared to provide them again.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:29 PM:And once again I need to dispell the myths surrounding the Wizzer @3:04 PM.
He says:
QUOTE: "Without the technological, educational, political, economic and cultural infrastructure and environment that Bill Gates was born into, he would not have achieved his billions..."
Maybe, maybe not...
Aren't you the same guy who also argues the "system" is so stacked against "the little guy" by corporations, and whatever other boogieman you can dream up today, to say they don't stand a chance? If it were so difficult, and the odds were so against him, and Steve Jobs, how in the heck could they ever get ahead?
As I read Bill Gate's personal history, I must be reading something a lot different than you do, my friend.
But, you see, this is just more of the liberal "double-talk", out of one side they say "X", and then, without missing a beat, they say "Y" from the otherside.
WARNING!!! WARNING!!!!
Straw Arguement to follow:
"...if Gates had been born in Bangladesh a thousand years ago, or even in the Soviet Union of the Cold War era..."
Again with the "luck" egalitarianism?
Sure, and if he chose to be a trash collector, we'd probably not have Windows either. Oh, but then there was Steve Jobs too? Hmmmmm?
And then finally, my dear old friend says: "As for "Ron's" comment at 1:30pm that Big Oil is "sitting on" these reserves and not developing them because of obstruction by environmentalists, this is the same old canard we always see." "Specifics, please, Ron."
Well, I just heard the Goven-a-tor say in response to GWB: Cali-forn-ia will not drill. See what I mean? Levels of permission to drill. You get one, you get obstructed by another.
I also watched those hearings with great interest. I heard lots of people saying we need to "clear the decks" on all this red tape. Reminds me of when we had brown-outs & black-outs, and a fire was lit under Gray Davis. Who had sat on his enviro you know what, until the heat reached up and lit him on fire.
As to the news, I don't know Wiz, maybe they aren't concerned. but I did read something on gay marriage, in fact, everyone covered it. Guess that's more important than cheaper gas?
Your guess is as good as mine.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:32 PM:Here you are again with your heart that needs to be filled with more stuff. What about people who strive for more peace, reason, play, imagination? Why does it always have to be money and stuff? I know a whole lot of people who are pretty satisfied with their stuff, who live within or "under" what they can afford, and I don't see them as very unhappy...on the contrary. Don't assume that all people are just like you, Ron. This assumption leads you to more errors than you are remotely aware of. Try, sometime, to really imagine what it might be like to be in another's shoes. Maybe this will help. As it is now, you assume we're all just like you, and I must say, your response to us is not flattering! You see us as wanting the freebie, lazy, out to get yours, suspicious, conniving. It's not us, Ron, it's a mirror.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:41 PM:You know, I gotta hand it to you all who have argued that bigotry, religious or otherwise, is not a reason to prevent people from seeking their own form of happiness, however they determine it. Which is exactly how this case for same sex marriage has been argued, that it prevents loving people from seeking their own version of marriage. I could not agree more.
It is now time for all the poligamist bigots to get out of the way, and allow Party's C, D, E, & F to marry.
Why should your point of view place any limits on MY marriage, if I so choose?
I think "Three D" @4:26 PM backs me on this very point. He points out:
"God's definition of marriage from the Bible is, repeatedly, not one man and one woman. It is one man and multiple women..."
There's even a protected religous reason for allowing this, even more of a reason, and logical, than the case made for same sex couples.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:48 PM:I want to thank the moderator today. Thank you so much for all your hard work today, it is very much appreciated.
I know we in this blog go back & forth,
I'm looking at the number of posts, and you have done just a stellar job!
Thanks again!

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:56 PM:But Karl
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:17 PM:

No comprende. Your post is well thought out and I cannot argue with your tunnel vision and don't care to butt heads. But, how many years since 1980 has the left been in control of both the house and senate? For that matter how many years has the left been in control of the house, senate and the governship in Karlifornia (that one is for you Alf straight from a bumper sticker on my golf cart that I received from my nephew who works at Karl Strauss).

I debate from the right and you debate from the left. So if in your statement "So, without trying to sound biased in a flawed way" is true, I applaud you. I still think your bias does not allow you to give credit to any rightie for anything.

To this formally right wing zombie, you still seem to grab onto anything that your party espouses.

I challenge you to come up with one thing, just one thing that you like about right wingers.

I'll start. I believe that some left wingers truly are motivated by concern for their fellow man.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:04 PM:Oh Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:32 PM:

"Try, sometime, to really imagine what it might be like to be in another's shoes."

This is great advice. Do you practice what you preach? Please provide a recent example of you following your own advice so that I/we can validate your sentiments as real.

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:19 PM:Re: Ron (4:29 p.m.)
Gee, Ron, Wiz makes a post and you go rabid! And all you ended up doing with your rant about "luck" egalitarianism was to validate Wiz's point with your non sequitir.
Bottom line is, you are essentially conceding Wiz's point: much of what we are able to attain to is the result of the random luck of the time and place we were born into coupled with individual aptitudes and efforts. And you are not "self made" - you owe much to the political, social and economic system you were born into, the family that nurtured you (or not - and not just referring to material "stuff"), and the educational opportunities you have been provided that you did nothing to earn, which benefit you as well as providing an educated work force and stable market of consumers.

To Voice from the Dark Ages wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:24 PM:"...His definition of marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime..."

I am curious then, how it is that Christians justify divorce and remarriage? Isn't God mad about that?

Hey Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:28 PM:Don't believe that 4:32 PM poster. We all really want to be just like you. We're either too stupid or just don't try hard enough.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:29 PM:Your polygamy argument has been answered here so many times, one can only conclude that you just don't read far beyond the word or phrase that sets you off again. But in a nutshell, each situation should be argued on its own merits. For example, the proposition that children should be treated as capable, willing sexual partners for adults has been raised often, and each time to date, our society has resoundingly said "no" and given many reasons for this decision. As far as I know, no one has had much success arguing against those reasons. The gay marriage issue has been brought up again, and while much of society says "no", they are being asked to explain why, and they are not doing very well at this explanation. The argument for adult polygamy has not been seriously brought up, but if it is, society will again face the challenge of explaining why it says "no", just as in the other cases. I don't know what that argument will look like, because it hasn't been made. You bring this up in the same way you used to bring up marriage across species, as a goad to frighten us with a slippery slope. But it doesn't frighten many of us. See, Ron, this is life in a free country. Our democratic tendencies and our foundation in reason over authority tells us that there will certainly be challenges, that we can count on this. And the glory of the country is that overall, with much resistance, we ultimately have to give good reasons for what we want our laws to reflect, reasons rooted in our Constitution. Being kind of a secular, agnostic, reason-based kind of person, I absolutely love our country for this and feel blessed (wink) to have been born here. Most Americans are more torn than I about loving freedom more than authority. That struggle is itself a wonderful thing, even though it takes much longer for reason to win than I'd prefer.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:35 PM:Alf continues his whining, which among adults who are not leftists is not becoming.

Fact: Since 9/11 not a single act of terrorism as occured on U.S. Territory, nor have any of our embassies been attacked as under Bill Clinton.

Fact: We have taken the fight to the enemy.

Fact: Our dead have numbered about 800 a year in Iraq, slightly over 2 per day or 39 a day fewer than Americans murdered per day.

Result: The United States is safer today from terrorism than under Clinton on whose watch Americans were killed in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Somalia, Yemen, East Africa and New York.

Additionally, all the plans and logistics for 9/11 were made and done by people who planned and implemented the first attack on the World Trade Center even as they were under indictment by the Clinton Justice Department.

We attacked Afghanistan and succeeded. We then went after the country where the principal bomber of the first World Trade Center attacker escaped to, Iraq. He was an Iraqi who escaped from the USA with the help of the Iraqi government.

Alf, you can live in delusion all you want, but if you want to fight them here while watching Americans die that is your choice -- i.e. to live in delusion; I chosoe not to.

As for your unsupported comments that the President has violated the Cosntituion, prove it. Itemize his violations with articles of impeachment passed by the House, the Democratic controlled House.

Until you can so itemize you can't state that he has violated the Constitution. He hasn't until so convicted by the Senate.

Any claim by you that he has is nothing but hot air.

Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:41 PM:I suppose I will have to await Snopes to confirm the latest Al Gore power usage to convince you. Snopes confirmed the last report on Al Gore’s over-usage as “True” – as did the Associated Press – so we can wait for a second or third source if it makes you feel better, but it won’t change the facts.

Meanwhile another Democrat (that is in addition to Democrat Maxine Waters) has proposed government ownership of oil companies and oil refineries --

(Fox News) Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling:

“We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.”

Yes, I know, "tainted source" -- that is what liberals said of Drudge when he broke the Monica story on his website.

The information is either true, or it is not.

Three D wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:46 PM:Ron at 4:41 p.m. fails to understand my point.
I was not at all defending polygamy, any more than I was defending the idea that wives must be of the same ethnicity as their husbands or that he should have "dominion" over them as his chattel property.
My point is that modern definitions of marriage are not Bible based and have continually evolved.
Further, it is hypocrtical to try to use the Bible to condemn same-sex marriage, when ignoring its definitions of marriage in other ways, brought to you by the same people who consistently pick and choose which portions of scripture they choose to accept as "God-breathed."

esteban wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:03 PM:Congrats on circumventing the will of the majority!!!!!

Oh Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:05 PM:Good challenge. Unlike some people's view of a "liberal" I strongly believe in personal responsibility. I believe that this is an enormous contribution of the "right" way of thinking. I believe the "left" goes too far, sometimes, in discounting the personal over the social in terms of forces that determine lives; but the right equally sometimes goes too far stressing the personal over the social/historical. I try to find a balance. I find true conservatives' desire for living within our means admirable and wish that leaders who claim to be conservative (Reagan, Bush) would follow through with that. I admire conservatives' desire for minimal government intervention in our individual lives, though my bias is to see the government's role as making sure that people get a chance to succeed on their own merits and hard work. I also agree that government's role is to protect the people. This includes a legitimate military and police and fire force, and regulatory agencies that do their jobs well and efficiently. I also do not believe in throwing a society into change, willy-nilly. So there is a value, to me, in deliberation and reasoning. (This is why I support gay marriage but not marriage to children, for example.) Is that enough for you, Karl? Most liberals, I'd guess, are very much NOT like the "liberals" that conservatives fight here. Those are invented demons, 99% straw, used by various right wing propagandists to win power and profit. True, you can always find a few that fit, but we can find a few of anything, can't we?

OH Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:10 PM:Actually, Karl, I practice putting myself in others' shoes as often as I can and take this task to be among the most important of those needed to be human. I love the idea of enlightened self-interest, but reject the claim that this amounts to social darwinist selfishness. I strongly believe that my life is better when the lives of those around me are also better, and I am willing to have "less" if the general quality of life is improved...for selfish reasons! To have this philosophy requires that I attend to the points of view of others with great respect. Some here would be offended that this includes people they would prefer to demonize, like Iranians, who, to me, also have a point of view and needs as valid as mine. I would never vote to just give them what they want, but I believe it's in my best interest to try to understand what they want, and why. The Bushies strongly disagree with me on this. OK?

esteban wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:12 PM:I saw a news blurb that said Al Gore uses enough electricity in his mansion to power 230 homes. Isn't he the "leader" of the green movement? You libs are hipocrates.

This Just In... wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:12 PM:Dick Cheney has issued a statement saying he "misspoke" when he said that China was drilling for oil off the Cuban Coast. This is not true. Sorry, Ron.

Interesting wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:18 PM:Starting to hear people on some news shows say that the oil companies are storing much oil already and controlling the release in order to increase profits. Must be a coincidence those "highest profits ever earned by any company in the world" posted by Exxon recently.

I don't know if it's true but would be a good thing to know. Maybe Nick can do some digging 'cause he's good at research. I will say again, I know a guy who works on an oil rig off the coast and he's been saying this very thing for some time now. I would really like to know the truth.

Ron, better sell your stock sooner than later. Oil is over. Just sayin.

esteban wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:20 PM:Alf, yes, 4,000 dead troops is terible. But had Gore and/or Kerry been in office these last 8 years, we'd have probably 20,000 dead American civilians from terrorist attacks. At least Chris would be pleased at that.

Darryl Issa What a Class Act wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:25 PM:Issa invokes Tim Russert's name today in Congress to argue for offshore drilling.

.....

Ah, I wrote more but decided my words were inappropriate for this blog. Suffice to say I have hope for the future and look to big change ahead.

esteban wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:27 PM:Chris I'm just curious what you think of the Iraqi (or Iranian) suicide bombers that blow up Iraqi women and Iraqi children in crowded Iraqi marketplaces. Are we to blame for them too? Thanks.

estaeban in la la land wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:47 PM:Isn't estebal lucky? He can back his point of view by referring to things that he just makes up! How many would've died if this or if that. Pure esteban fiction. So what do we know? That 911 happened on Bush's watch. To say that there've been no attacks since then is just to say that the attacks that happened while Bush was in charge don't count. I know, they were Clinton's fault. So, esteban, why count the attacks since 911? I know that you'd find a way for these to be Clinton's fault too! LOL Esteban, your viewpoint is a given, uninteresting. You obviously believe that Bush has been a terrific President and because this is true, you will enthusiastically vote for McCain, who wants to follow in Bush's footsteps. Congrats. You're a deep thinker. Your clear view of things is without parallel. Keep up the good work.

face to face wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:47 PM:I wonder how it would be if all you folks who blog on here regularly, going back and forth on the issues you love to hate...if you all were to go out to lunch and sit face to face at a table with your duscussion. Food fight anyone? Or would the noise be deafening? lol.

Dark Ages wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:50 PM:Don't forget that the Dark Ages were when Christianity ruled the western world and scientists were punished for saying anything that contradicted the Bible. Maybe we should amend the constitution to say Earth is Flat!

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:53 PM:Re: Oh Ron (5:29 p.m.)
"The argument for adult polygamy has not been seriously brought up, but if it is, society will again face the challenge of explaining why it says "no", just as in the other cases. I don't know what that argument will look like."
Frankly I do not have an opinion for or against plural marriage as long as it is truly gender-neutral.
For example polyandry and polygamy being treated equally - women the same right to have multiple husbands as men multiple wives, and a society in which women enjoy full equality in all areas of opportunity in education, employment and independence so they are not forced by external conditions into relationships not otherwise freely chosen.
And most of all, strict enforcement of valid age of consent.
That, of course, would be a very different polygamy than what was in the Bible or found among Mormon splinter groups of modern times.

jvc wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:08 PM:How did this war come about between liberals and conservatives? And why did it start so predominantly during the start of the modern day conservative era? So, the allegiance to our country is now determined by being either a liberal or a conservative? What happened to being just Americans with varying points of view? And why do we have to have a set ideology now to speak
our minds? Is everything about it's
them against us...two Americas? What will it take to have one America with
Americans having deferring points of view?

Ms M wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:22 PM:esteban
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:20 PM:Alf, yes, 4,000 dead troops is terible. But had Gore and/or Kerry been in office these last 8 years, we'd have probably 20,000 dead American civilians from terrorist attacks....Esteban, is that an opinion? What do you have to back that statement up? Thanks in advance! Also, if Gore would have been elected our country would not be in the mess we are in - we would not be in Iraq. If we want to make assumptions - if Gore was in office we might not have had 9-11 - remember that happened on Bush's watch!

Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:22 PM:I am starting to doubt the report’s accuracy on Al Gore’s home.

While the think tank has not withdrawn the report, they are apparently considering changing the numbers to reflect 19.333 times the average usage instead of 23 times the average usage.

I may have to "revise and extend my remarks" as the Congressmen say.

Floyd wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:55 PM:Our political system makes it possible for those with dissenting viewpoints to be heard, which is a big reason for the alleged "war" between the liberals and the conservatives. Without that there would be violence in the streets when the government became unresponsive, as happens in other nations around the world. The political war of words may be unnerving and sickening, but it's a whole lot better than the alternative. If you're new to the process, here's a tip: we're now in the "silly season" -- the months before a presidential election -- where you will see a lot of fact-free charges, counter-charges, and retorts in the media. Keep your salt shaker handy and listen closely to what is being said and (more importantly) what is not said.

to Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:04 PM:Good for you, your honesty and integrity. But, for what it's worth, let me say: Al Gore's use of electricity is back-page stuff. Whether Al Gore is a hypocrite? Back page stuff. It simply doesn't matter. OK?

bogie wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:43 PM:Apollo
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:19 PM:

"much of what we are able to attain to is the result of the random luck of the time and place we were born into coupled with individual".

Do you really believe that? If you do I call horse hooey. Luck and the law of averages can be signicantely improved by hard work and dedication to ones lot in life. There can be no dispute about this.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:57 PM:Oh Karl
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:05 PM:

Nice. You restore my wanning faith in the fact that some people on the left have good intentions. Thank you.

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:05 PM:OH Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:10 PM:

You had me sucked in until the last 2 sentences. Bushies?

Apollo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:06 PM:Re: Reardon (7:22 p.m.) and Bogie (8:43 p.m.)
You know what one of your problems is, Reardon? You focus like a laser beam on a datum that simply MEANS NOTHING. Do you understand that it does not matter how much electricity one (e.g., Al Gore) uses if you produce it yourself with that famous new solar photovoltaic system? Do you really not understand this? You seem brighter than that.
And Bogie, you are dishonest in taking partial quotes out of context to change their meaning.
You say that the luck of the time and place we are born "can be signicantely improved by hard work and dedication" which is exactly what I said when I noted that achievement is based on those things "coupled with individual aptitudes and efforts." Why did you leave off the rest of my statement so as to change the meaning?
So tell, me, Bogey (or maybe Double Bogey), do you think that Bill Gates would have invented the MSDOS operating system and later Windows if he had been born in Bangladesh 500 years BC? And what exactly did he DO to EARN this fortuitious time and place in which to be born?

Karl wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:17 PM:"how did this war come about between liberals and conservatives? And why did it start so predominantly during the start of the modern day conservative era?"

Brilliant jvc. You, in one sentence provide the answer to your opening question.

It's always the Conservatives fault. Unless you are a Conservative then it is the Liberals fault.

With thinking like yours there will never be a concensus.

Peace

double bogey wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:28 PM:Apollo,
I give. You are the master of all knowledge. I kneel at your feet, please forgive me.

Do I think Bill Gates would have invented the "MSDOS operating system and later Windows if he had been born in Bangladesh 500 years BC"? I don't know and neither do you. You seem to have a bone to pick with me for some reason but I love you man (smooch, smooch).

Peace (and I literally mean PEACE)

T minus 6-1/2 hours until I leave my cozy abode to play pasture pool at 114 degrees. I implore all on this blog religeous or not to pray for me over the next 3 days.

Reardon wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:33 PM:Apollo: Actually, I do understand that, but the usage reported was PUBLIC generated electricity, not from the self-generated electricity.

The Al Gore camp reported that their solar system did not come on line until November, and that is why they are still – or were still in the reporting time – energy hogs.

If that is the case, then the report may even be accurate and still be misleading.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:55 PM:he post from "Reardon" (9:33pm) continues to obsess on irrelevant factoids that are blown out of proportion as he tries to distinguish between public generated electricity and self-generated electricity. It seems Reardon does not understand how solar photovoltaic generation of electricity actually works.
I am one of several on this board who actually produce electricity for my home from the sun.
Guess what?!
At night the sun doesn't shine.
On cloudy days, sunshine is greatly reduced.
While there are a few who use backup wind or fuel cell sources combined with batteries to go completely off the grid, most (including me) do not. But we do have systems that produce more than we use. So at night and on cloudy days, I do use "PUBLIC generated electricity" but, over the long haul, I produce more than I use.
Once again, being tied to the grid is irrelevant if one produces more than they use.
So, your facts about Al Gore are both wrong and, since one person's behavior does not change what is right or wrong, irrelevant.
It is amazing the amount of energy you expend on that which is completely irrelevant.

Oh Ron to Karl wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:31 PM:Yes, I meant Bushies. In context: I was talking about how even the points of view of Iranians are important to undertstand. Bush firmly says: we don't talk to Iran. Those who support Bush in this ("Bushies") reject my view that others are people worth listening to. When I attend to Iran, for example, I see very strong trends there against Ahmadinejab and a desire among the people for good relations with the US. Bush's policy, applauded by Bushies, block us from pursuing what could be extraordinarily fruitful in that area, choosing instead to have their world black and white, good and bad, and if you're in the bad, you don't deserve a voice. Hence, Bush would have us think only of Ahmadinejab when we hear "Iran", and his followers agree. That's the exact opposite of what I believe in. And if you've been following events lately, you can observe the effects of Bush's strategy: more moderate Iranian officials are being pushed closer to Ahmadinejab by Bush's giving them no choice.

TO Dark Ages wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:47 PM:Lets get one thing straight, Christianity did NOT rule the western world in the dark ages, It was a dark, perveted, murderous, born from the pit of Hell form of Christianity that ruled the western world. Nothing like Jesus. That's why it was the Dark Ages, No enlightenment,No growth, No understanding, "the Law" was the religion under the name of christianity. With no Love and no forgivness. Let's not go back.

Kenset wrote on Aug 25, 2008 2:09 PM:"" A better analogy to use to support your retroactive active abortion theory would be the case of Susan Eubanks who killed her four children, why is she in prison?""

Anyone know where the house is in San marcos where susan eubanks killed her children? Is it torn down?