sassy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:26 AM:What is wrong with our leaders?! The illegal invasion is destroying our state and country in general. California is broke and it's only going to get worse. Does the governor and our elected officials drive around with blinders on? Do they not see the problem? The voters have voiced their desires only to fall onto deaf ears. What is it going to take?!

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:45 AM:David Lumpkin apparently hasn't heard that you can buy re-usable grocery bags almost any place you go these days. There are also freebies at most street fairs, given out by environmental activists. Of course, he's more than welcome to put all his purchases in a pillow case, if that's all he can come up with to replace plastic throw-aways.

To Tommy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:13 AM:Please change the record!!! BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, Yuck!!!

Some activists wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:19 AM:For the fifth time, the Supreme Court (with a majority appointed by Republicans) has told Bush that he has violated the Constitution. Some conservatives seem to think that opposing King George is the definition of "judicial activism", and they are wrong. It's Bush who is the activist, attempting repeatedly to rewrite the Founders' document in the interest of increased autonomy and power for himself. Bush depends on these conservatives who have been programmed by his stream of propaganda. Fortunately, there is still SOME integrity on the Court, though the 5-4 scorecard is downright terrifying to those of us who admire our nation's values. A number of the so-called liberal judges are very old. It is imperative that Obama be elected in November to prevent this effort to replace checks and balances, and the rule of law, with tyranny.

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:21 AM:>>>"Meet the Press" with Tim Russert: My only reason to get up on Sunday morning.>>>

Gee, I should think you liberals would wantt o be glued to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC abd mSNBC to see what freebee Hussein is offering you today, to buy your vote.

chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:25 AM:>>>David Lumpkin apparently hasn't heard that you can buy re-usable grocery bags >>> LOL, another lib who thinks it about the grocery bags. Sacramento doesnt give a crap about grocery bags, they want the 25 cents for each bag. And once they get that money, they'll find another new tax.

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:30 AM:LOL, the squirming has begun. The American people are now demanding drilling for oil and nuclear power, and the weasely liberals are squirming because it has become a major campaign issue. Hussein will have to come around or he'll thrown to the scrap heaps of history

To Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:30 AM:"Chuck
Gee, I should think you liberals would wantt o be glued to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC abd mSNBC to see what freebee Hussein is offering you today, to buy your vote."

Gee Chuck, looks like you don't know everything. What a surprise.

To Milton wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:40 AM:Yesterday Maggie and today, Milton Owens expressed their obvious party biased opinions of Obama. Fact of the matter is, he has not been given the opportunity to do anything and we cannot predict our country's future should he be elected. We do know one thing for sure. This country is not doing well with it's current leadership. Failing to take advantage of the opportunity to change our country's course is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

To Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:55 AM:Our dear Hussein will not back down on drilling because he is smart enough to know this is another pandering "quick fix" and we would see no benefit in pricing from the drilling for five years or more. The "change" that Obama brings is telling the truth about the challenges we face instead of feeding us instant gratification solutions that hurt us in the long run. Obama is willing to bet that the majority of the American people are smart enough to see through the GOP fear-mongering, empty promises and slime. And he is right. Chuck, you, Ron, Mike America, sdraoul and your friends are an increasingly smaller group. Thank goodness.

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:09 AM:>>>The "change" that Obama brings is telling the truth about the challenges>>> The only change Hussein brings is Marxism as he does nothing but attack the employers in this country. He is so devoid of education, he had to have Soros and MoveOn script his every word and move. He is a total fraud and will be totally rejected

Gotta change your tune wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:12 AM:Thanks to DD, we all learned yesterday that the oil companies are sitting on most of their leased land. So the whole yammer about offshore drilling, ANWR, etc is seen to be passe and empty. You can complain that there are too many hoops for the oil companies to drill on the land they already have, but the same would be true at new sites. I won't even listen to proposals for offshore drilling and the rest. Let the oil companies use the land they already have, then come back to us and ask for more. (Besides, I just read that some of the oil companies are honing in on no-bid contracts to have at all that Iraqi oil. So they aren't complaining.)

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:21 AM:>>>So the whole yammer about offshore drilling, ANWR, etc is seen to be passe and empty. >>> That is no more than liberal spewage. I hope Hussein and the liberals continue to reject increasing supplies and building nuclear. As, in NOvember the million that have lost their jobs and have had to endure this massive commodity inflation, they are going to totally reject this undefined "change" that liberals think they can sell.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:29 AM:I hear ya, Michael Collins. The Bush Administration had been operating under the guidelines provided by a previous SCOTUS decision {Johnson v Eisentrager 339 U.S. 763 1950} Which up til now, had been the law. Obviously, all that has changed.
Even FDR, who had nearly 400,000 German POW's inside the territorial boundaries of the United States, and not one of those prisoners ever was able to challenge their detainment. The FDR Court was very clear, all detainees outside the territorial boundaries of the United States did not have the same constitutional rights as US citizens. Their only form of relief would be through a Congressional approved Military Tribunal Court, as defined by the President & the Congress.
We are now in new territory, and we have the liberal activists on the bench to thank for it.
I can't help but think forward to the milenia of court cases to come, where these terrorists will be able to prosecute our military, with the help of ACLU slip & fall lawyers.
Anyone familiar with the Lynn Stewart case knows exactly what I'm talking about here. For those who do not know, she was convicted of passing information from Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Eyptian cleric convicted of planning terror attacks, to his followers in al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, a known terrorist organization.
Can you imagine the nation's secrets & sourcing information being brought out in court as evidence through discovery, and then passed on to other terrorist groups? I sure can. It's been done before.
It is obvious to any person that what we now have are 6 commanders in chief.
The President, and those liberal activists sitting on the Supreme Court, and wearing black robes.
Apparently, wearing "the robe" must automatically give you superior commanding skills?

Payday wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:32 AM:From the NY Times QUOTE BAGHDAD - Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. The deals[...]will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry[...]and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production. There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry. ENDQUOTE Ahh, I love the smell of democracy in the morning...it's the smell of...victory. If our gas prices go down by a few cents, all those deaths will have been worth it. Great job, W. Mission accomplished.

esteban wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:33 AM:Ms M writes, "Also, if Gore would have been elected our country would not be in the mess we are in - we would not be in Iraq." Didn't she just tell me I was wrong for assuming? I love those libs! The reason it happened on Bush's watch is because of the years of neglect of the terrorist threat from the Clinto era. Why do you think it happened so early on Bush's watch? It was planned during Clinton's watch!!!! They knew America would be vulnerable after years of Clinton's cowardice!

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:38 AM:Yes, "Powerlink {is} a glorified extension cord, I agree Brian Bowden.
And it's an extension cord the region needs & deserves. It will supply 650,000 customers with desperately needed electric power for our ever growing community.
And now the hype is $9 billion, I thought a few months ago you guy's said it was $1.3 billion? Inflation? or exaggeration?

And then, here it is again? She says: "There are better ways to invest our limited energy dollars..."
"OUR" dollars, Brian. How do these guy's get from SDG&E dollars to "Our" dollars?
Yes, I know, eventually we will pay for the improvements made, at approx. $2,000 per customer. Sure beats investing $20-30,000 in a solar system, if your a low income worker, making minimum wage. Especially if your a renter, what's your out then?

Remember - we arent at war wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:43 AM:The flap today about SCOTUS depends on the assumption that we are in some kind of WWIII. As was discussed yesterday, this is utterly false, a con job to expand the powers of the President. He was never forced to invent the "enemy combatant" category or to insist that neither US law nor that part of it called the Geneva Conventions applied to these detainees. The five Supreme Court decisions against Bush should tell us that he has been trying to push the envelope of what's Constitutional, and failing with regularity. Now Bush and his loyalists will begin their accusations that these are all terrorists, that the judges are activists. It's all nonsense. The vast majority of those detained have yet to be accused of anything and many have been released, as we realized they were nothing but unlucky bystanders or victims of someone pointing a finger for a reward. The US has always stood for the individual. Not here. I find it interesting that those who defend Bush are those who typically, in many of their posts, seem to prefer being good citizens in a military dictatorship. They are the people who WANT the President to have unlimited power, who WANT dissention silenced, who call those who disagree with them "traitors" and "unamerican", who WANT the military to expand and rule the world. This is not the America I learned about or read about when I read the Constitution, and it's good to see that there are at least 5 justices left who remember that document. We mustn't forget that there is a minority here who despise the Constitution. We must protect America from them. Bush's regime has been dramatic evidence of where their thinking leads us. McCain wants to stay the course. We are fighting for the soul of the nation. That's where the "war" really is. Which side are you on?

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:46 AM:Oh.. you know where the money will go, David Lumpkin. Right into the general fund of California.
Thank goodness Lloyd Levine, Democrat-Van Nuys will be term limited out this year. If your truly interested in this guy, and ALL the wonderful thing {sarcasm} he has done for our State, go to his website. He thinks he's the next best thing to sliced bread. I truly do not know what the people of Van Nuys were thinking, when they hired him.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:56 AM:Your right, Joyce Kennedy. Ratepayers aren't stupid. We know that paying $2,000 for an improved system, beats $20,000 out of our pockets any day of the week. Especially, if your a low income, minimum wage worker, living in a rented apartment.
Hey, but do you really want to know how to help these low income workers? Talk to the Goven-a-tor. He says he won't allow drilling, and the gas prices are killing minimum wage workers. It's now becoming a choice between eating, and getting to work. But, I hear the Obamaman is telling us to eat less.
Is that a round about way of saying we're all fat?

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:00 AM:>>>Our dear Hussein will not back down on drilling because he is smart enough to know this is another pandering "quick fix">>> Pandering to raise taxes in a recession is no more than pandering to Soror and Moore and to the class envy lazy and jealous. Not many are going to run to vote for someone named Hussein who promises to screw their employer with higher taxes during a recession, and who will offer no relief on the energy crisis

Dubya wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:02 AM:Like James Edwards, I will not be voting for either of the two idiots running for president.
And I won't be voting for him either since his solution to the "oil crisis" is as dumb as theirs.
The spike in the price of oil is not a result of any signifcant shortage in current supplies or increase in demand as it is a direct result of the fact that the US Dollar is worth about half what it was just a few years ago thanks to the insane economic policies of the Bush administration.
We could let the multinational oil conglomerates drill on every sqare inch of public land in the continental US and the price of oil would continue rise because any oil produced would be sold at the market price and the market price is determined by, among ohter things, the value of the US Dollar in relation to other currencies.
Two years ago the Euro was worth .75 cents to the Dollar. Today, thanks mostly to Greenspan and Bernanke's tinkering with the money suplly and interest rates, the Euro is worth over $1.50.
Is any wonder oil producers want twice as many Dollars for a barrel of oil than they did before?
Moreover there is absolutely no guarantee that any oil pumped form US wells will end up at US gas pumps.
It's just as likely to end up in China, Europe, or even Iraq!

It doesn't matter how much oil is off the coast of Ca., in the ANWR or any where else.
There will NEVER be a "solution" to the "oil crisis" as long as oil is the primary source of the world's continually increasing demand for energy.

Olaf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:04 AM:What is so hard about getting some cloth bags? is it that hard for you people or are you just yammering on because you hate anything green. I am not saying no to drilling off shore but paying 25 cents for a bag will bring about the uselessness of plastic bags (made from petrolium products). Besides the cloth bags hold more things in them and that equals less trips in and out of the garage. Gripe about other things people.

Denise wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:06 AM:To [-] (June 18, 2008) re: Mr. Drake

Persecuted-no, bitter-perhaps, angry-most assuredly. At who? The DBA for their fee hike. No doubt the DBA has greatly improved the downtown area, but only for certain businesses. After many years of asking to be included in the 2nd Saturday Artwalk; after no one representing the City, the DBA, or the art community came to his studio opening ten years ago or to his solo show in Solana Beach over a year ago (yes, he invited them all believing their claim that this City supports the arts-guess its not individual artists); after he used to attend the DBA meetings and used to participate in the Arts Partnership; after submitting an announcement to the Downtown Magazine FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES on an upcoming exhibit some his works were selected for, only to have it not be included in the December issue, not be told it wasn't going to be and only after asking why not was it put in the next issue thereby missing the holiday promotional opportunity (greatly chopped up by the way), only after all this has he given up on this DBA. Hope that answers your question of what and whom he's upset about. Guess you were okay with the other gentleman's letter of complaint about the fee hikes as you didn't accuse him of being persecuted.

Backcountry wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:07 AM:We have three branches of government that provide checks and balances against any one branch from getting out of control...Executive, Legeslitative and Judicial. Each of these branches has an obligation to defend the Constitution and protect our country and national overeignty.

The most recent ruling by the liberal activist Supreme Court with regards to the alleged "rights" of war priisoners is a direct violation of our Constitution and a slap in the face of every American citizen.

The five activists on the court who are now legislating from the bench (making law rather than upholding law) have ruled that non-citizen terrorists have the same rights as everyone else. In other words these terrorists who, when acquitted and released, only want to kill every American and who will enlist their own children to do so will be granted those rights because the liberals just want to be fair.

The best thing is that through our system of government we can get rid of those liberal "judges." The worst thing is that if Obama gets elected the court will be packed with more traitors.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:16 AM:Thanks for the information, Richard Zacher. Interesting... so your friend called a private hearing aid company that said they'd fix the hearing aid for $5, and not the $50 the VA charges?
Man! I bet you just can't wait until Government run the whole medical system too?

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:23 AM:"Olga Diaz would put this city on a one-way track to Slumville."
Thanks for the information David Cline.

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:29 AM:I have a question or two for "sdraoul" and "esteban". Since you love to declare that we have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 and you use that to justify the deaths of over 4,000 American Troops and the hundreds of BILLIONS spent and our continued occupation of Iraq, HOW MANY terrorist attacks (by foreign nationals) on American soil were there in the 51 years between 1950 and 2001? During that time was it necessary to invade countries and occupy them "to prevent acts of terrorism on American soil"? Your rationale for this stupid waste of American Troops and waste of our economy is so flawed that it stinks worse than 3 week old rotting skunk. Regards, Alf.

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:30 AM:You have mentioned that Obama is telling us to eat less a number of times now. You have been asked to provide the source for your quote. Are you able to do so, or no?

Dubya wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:31 AM:According to Michael Collins -
"Enemy combatants who do not display a uniform or insignia indicating their country of origin, are not under a direct foreign command and are openly carrying arms do not deserve any protection, especially protection from the U.S Constitution."

That could easily be applied to ANYONE who owns a gun any place for any reason.
As in the case of John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla and others, you don't have to be a foreign national to be labelled an "enemy combatant" and stripped of ALL your rights and the gov't doesn't have to produce any proof that you are.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to give the gov't that much power?
Sounds to me like those "activist judges" made a pretty good decision in this case.
Granted, according to the Constitution SCOTUS shouldn't be legislating from the bench. Neither should POTUS be legislating from the Oval Office OR re-interpreting the Constitution to suit his own agenda, although he does it all the time.
Sounds to me like Mr.Collins is relying entirely on Bill O'Reilly to tell him everything he knows about anything rather than figuring it out for himself.

hardtack wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:34 AM:To Apollo and bogey from yesterday:
Ernest Hemingway had this quote that you both may relate to:”Work hard and hone your skills, then when luck comes you will be ready.” Although Hemingway (or his character), I believe, said that in the context of hunting. It applies universally to all of us, in any pursuit.
Bill Gates may be an exception to that rule. Some people are naturally gifted and lucky to have been born at the right time. I’m not sure Gates worked that hard perfecting his genius.
Then you have Tiger Woods who worked his whole life to perfect his skill. Now he is good enough at his craft to make his own “luck” – as witnessed at the US Open.
Best regards to you both.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:37 AM:That's because, Alexia Potter.. they are "pulling a Hoover."
Let me explain...
Herbert Hoover tried this after the 1929 Depression had begun. He raised taxes, he set high tariffs, and he even had some kind of reconstruction bailout scheme. Sound familiar? Well, it is.
Apparently, we have not learned our lesson from history, and we may repeat it. Might I suggest you look up President Hoover, and cite for them, line & verse all the things he did during a downturned economy, and then make the suggestion, they are Hooverish.
See what they say.
I've written Barack Obama about this very issue of being "Hooverish", but I'm still waiting on a reply. Think I'll get one? Doubtful.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:38 AM:Well I see that Obama is making headlines: He broke his promise today on campaign financing, and is in a kerfuffle about his staff stopping two women in hajibs from being in a campaign photo behind Obama.

It turns out that Obama is just another politician. O.K. that is not news, except to the Messiah Worshipers.

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:41 AM:Ron @ "...the gas prices are killing minimum wage workers. It's now becoming a choice between eating, and getting to work."

Given your ties to the oil industry and the defense contractors, Ron, it's rather hard to believe your primary motive for drilling offshore is for the benefit of the minimum wage workers. On the other hand, if it puts money in your pocket then I can understand why you would choose to further the bs agenda of the oil companies. You must be raking it in with all your oil stock profits this year, and I know you think you deserve it. Good for you! Not so good for the minimum wage workers, but oh well.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:45 AM:I will have to apologize for my last post.

It is probably irrelevant, but that determination must be made by DD, who determines such things and will weigh in with a final decision.

Oil Speculation wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:50 AM:News You Didn't Know... On Wednesday, May 14, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation that will close the Enron Loophole.

The lack of oil regulation is due to what's actually called the "Enron Loophole." Enron Chairman Ken Lay and his market-manipulating buddies persuaded Congress and federal regulators in 2000 that electronic trading markets would be more "efficient" if they didn't suffer the weight of regulation. An attempt by a hedge fund in 2005 to corner the market in natural gas finally forced federal commodity regulators to quit denying the truth: speculation, not market conditions, was driving prices. Unregulated markets are not efficient, they're an invitation to gaming by big money and Big Oil.

Some are saying the passage of this bill and the closing of this speculation loophole will reduce gas prices from 25% t6o 50%. Remember when Californians were ripped off for utilities a few years back (you remember the tapes of people laughing about sticking it to granny in California?), well now the oil companies are doing it to us. Try googling "Enron Loophole".

And shame on you Ron, you must have known. You should have told us sooner. Waiting to write a book like Scotty McClellen?

hardtack wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:53 AM:The satire in "Constitution is a suicide pact" obviously caught some readers off guard considering it was penned by J. Howard Crews. I had to LOL today when Crews wrote, “ I hate it when I have to explain a joke.” Boy, do I know that feeling.

I remembered Crews’ letter because, at the time, it brought this quote to mind:

"It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – – Unfortunately, it is revolutionary to talk about obeying the Constitution." – Rep. Ron Paul

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:54 AM:Wow! What is this the, one, two.. third letter today about the Sunrise PowerLink. I guess the opposition musta had a meeting late night?
Judith Withers, and the above letters writers seem to have a problem with our Capitalist system in this country.
What in the world do these people have against making some money? Especially if by the "invisible hand" as preached by Adam Smith, it helps the community?
She says: "This project [seems to be] designed to line the pockets of Sempra/SDG&E shareholders..."
So!?
Henry Ford didn't design and build a car to help people. He did it to make some money. And in the process of seeking "his own self-interest", he helped millions, perhaps billions of people. This is the invisible hand as taught by Adam Smith, and SDG&E acting in it's own self interest, will do the same.
Personally, I have no beef with using alternatives. But fellas, come on, let us build them.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:59 AM:The published letter from James Edwards and the predictable response from "Chuck" (7:30am) continue to blame the high prices of gas on the lack of additional new drilling.
I noted yesterday (10:58am) seven reasons for the increased cost of gas, most of which (but not all) are directly related to failed economic policies of the Bush administration, in some cases (such as deregulation of oil futures speculation) abetted directly by the congress when it was controlled by Republicans, with McCain's top economic advisor, Phil Gramm (former Sen R-TX) the chief proponent of such measures, for which McCain voted (and which Obama opposed).
I further noted that seeking additional new drilling options is simply a ruse to further game the energy market as the electricity companies did to California in 2000.
I cited a Senate web page reporting that 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.
The more I think about that, the more I feel the need to reiterate a key point.
Why is this not being reported in the corporate-owned "mainstream" media?
I happened to catch the hearings on CSPAN-II and, seeing it on energy -- a topic of interest to me -- I stopped long enough to get an eyeful, went to the website and was astounded by the report.
WHY IS THIS NOT BEING REPORTED?
Jeff Bingaman, a key U.S. Senator, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, is holding hearings on a key issue that everyone is interested in. High gas prices make the front page. Bush calls for drilling off the North County shore and it makes the front page. The U.S. Senate reports that Big Oil is "sitting on" 33 million acres of available drilling land they could be using, and NO COVERAGE! Even if the allegations are flawed, coming from such a high-level source they are newsworthy, and balanced reporting could provide a Big Oil response, but to simply ignore the subject is a violation of the sacred trust of responsible journalism.
The North County Times has some excellent staff who have won awards for excellence in coverage in the past. This should be a great opportunity for a scrappy local paper to scoop the giants and report on something that is a hot topic of interest right now.

trader wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:02 AM:Maybe Tommy Chanick should refrain from visiting L.A. All those Mexican looking faces seem to drive him crazy. But what a fine example he makes of the mindset and intelligence of the Minutemen-types among us.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:13 AM:I think you are right, Milton Olson. "We are in for a rough ride if Democrats win."
But, I disagree with you on your point about labor unions.
Labor union workers won't win. Perhaps their boss's will, but not your average, everday, regular American, working blue-collar jobs, and especially those in mining, and other smoke stack industries will be punished.
Given the fact that the Democrats have sold out to the enviromentalist wing, this will not be good for these hard working, tax paying, family guys {& gals} who will be persecuted by the environmentalist wing of the Party.
There is no upside for these people. This party has determined it will eliminate these jobs, throwing thousands more into unemployment.
And then, to throw salt into the wound, they promise them "Green jobs." Really?
Where? Can't build dams like FDR did, the enviro wing won't let it happen.
Geo-thermal? HA! I'm reading at this very moment about a proposed Geo site in Hawaii, and that ain't gonna happen.
Ah... but's there's Wind Turbines, Ron.
Again... can't piped the energy into the State, can't get the grid built. And that would finish off any hope of massive solar arrays in the desert too.
Tidal? Nope, can't build a Desal plant, what makes you think we'll get a tidal plant? And this is really the deal here this year, the Hope.. and the Hype.
They purposely plant the Hope with the Hype about these supposed green jobs, knowing the whole time, it's a scam.
Those jobs will never materialize.
And it is the scam of the century, if they can pull it off.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:19 AM:No, Paul Sautter. You would be suprised what some people will do to their own home. But, then again... maybe he wouldn't.

to jvc and Karl wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:25 AM:The two Americas, IMHO, is all about the Vietnam war era, or the 60s, more broadly. To many conservative Americans (in the old sense), too many Americans seriously misbehaved during that era. The racists among them resented the success of the Civil Rights Movement. But this soon was swamped by the right's outrage over the resistance to the war and the in-your-face insolence of the hippies. The left ended Jim Crow, but also ended the war, ended the careers of two Presidents, and, according to the propaganda, caused the US to really lose a war for the first time. Reagan organized the enormous resentment against the left with a vengeance, had the right feeling good about itself again, and good about the contempt they all felt towards the left. The hatred between left and right began in the 60s, but since the 80s, the right has capitalized on this polarity enormously. I, for one, look forward to the day when the Vietnam syndrome fades away. Obama is appealing to many who want to be post-Nam, but it may be too soon for us to get over it. Sooner the better for my money.

Bucky wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:41 AM:As long as Democrats are in charge of the House the Senate and the California Legislature, nothing will be done. They owe their souls to the radical left wing environmentalists and nothing is going to change that any time soon. Between the environmental radicals, the California Teachers Union and the Trial Lawyers, the citizens of California have no hope as long as they keep voting for Democrats. Like $5.00 per gallon gas? Vote Democrat, like bad Schools? Vote Democrat, like trial lawyers running the legislature? Vote Democrat !

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:44 AM:The letter from Michael Collins misses the mark by a mile. It is the over-the-top power grabbing, the disdain for, ignoring of, defilement of and violation of the Constitution that forces the issue. The Supreme Court is doing its job, to interpret and side WITH the Constitution. It is GWB who is violating his Oath of Office. Regards, Alf.

Gore wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:48 AM:Whatever unpredictable there is to say about "if Gore had been President", my feeling is that we know two things for sure and another pretty much for sure. The for sures are that we'd not have invaded Iraq and we'd have signed Kyoto. The pretty much is that the intel reports about al qaeda would've been taken more seriously before 9-11 (though I don't know if the attacks could've been prevented). IMHO

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:02 AM:I'll try again - A question or two for "sdraoul" and "esteban" - Since you like to use the fact that the U.S. has not had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 to justify the invasion of and occupation of Iraq as well as the over 4,000 American Troops who have died in Iraq and the hundreds of Billions spent so far AND want to "stay the course" with McGWB, HOW MANY terrorist attacks on American soil have occured and been by foreign nationals in the FIFTY years before 9/11? Has the loss of American Troops and ruination of what's left of the economy actually kept us "safe". Regards, Alf.

Backcountry wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:10 AM:More about "Constitution is a suicide pact" by J. Howard Crews... Its not the reader's fault that they are confused when a liberal tries to tell a joke, its the liberal's fault for not being able to express their liberal humor....Oh I forgot....maybe thats because liberal humor is an oxymoron.

Thanks backcountry wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:11 AM:Backcountry is exhibit A for "Remember-we aren't at war"s reasoning earlier today. Backcountry is positive we are in a holy war in which anything goes, so the Constitution and Geneva should be tossed in these desperate times! We're fighting for our very life as a nation, as a civilization, people! This is not a time to talk about Constitutional rights! Backcountry has been had, hook, line and sinker. I hope and pray that there are not many like Backcountry, who would prefer a kind of military tyranny by protector-president over the Constitutional republic we have lived in since the late 18th Century. Backcountry would have felt at home in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, Casto's Cuba, or the current Burma. Let's hope and pray for America.

Oh Alf at wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:16 AM:You should know by now that esteban and raoul play a funny game: your runs don't count. You say 911, they say Clinton. You say there were attacks in Britain, Spain, Italy, they say not on our soil. If, by some terrible chance, we were attacked this afternoon, esteban and raoul would say Democrats are tying the hands of Bush. See? Facts don't matter. Their own arguments don't matter. All that matters is their loyalty to their Strong Leader. I feel that their response to 911 is proof of this. If they really cared about being attacked, they'd have been enraged that Bush disregarded the intelligence on bin laden. For these guys, it's all and only about ideology. They don't care if the US is safe because they love manly war more than safety or life. Don't waste your time.

KJ wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:17 AM:Looks like the moderator didn't take his recommended daily dose of anti-depressants, the personalities are being especially cruel to each other today.

Ms M wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:24 AM:esteban
[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:33 AM:Ms M writes, "Also, if Gore would have been elected our country would not be in the mess we are in - we would not be in Iraq." Didn't she just tell me I was wrong for assuming? I love those libs! The reason it happened on Bush's watch is because of the years of neglect of the terrorist threat from the Clinto era. Why do you think it happened so early on Bush's watch? It was planned during Clinton's watch!!!! They knew America would be vulnerable after years of Clinton's cowardice! First of all that was not an assumption - that is fact. Gore would not have pushed invading Iraq. There was no reason to. Bush pushed this war - that too is now fact. And no matter what you say - Bush had WARNINGS - he ignored them - 9-11 happened on his watch. Don't try and rewrite history!

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:24 AM:Alf[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:29 AM: You are right as always, kahuna. They also miss the point that the Twin Towers was their specific target due to what it representing the worship of money and power by the USA. The terrorists tried during the Clinton administration. It was a failure. Their mission was accomplished on 09/11. Brah, could it have been a one shot deal? Cowabunga! Or, just maybe they only had the resources and the element of surprise that one successful time! The Conservatives need to prove that the Iraqi war actually stopped the terrorists from attacking our country a second time. Not just make statements but prove it. Yea Burger King! Where is the beef? See ya Dude

Floyd wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:25 AM:One of the reasons the oil companies are not reclaiming oil from existing leases is because there can be up to 17 political entities that regulate the activity. If any one of them says "no", then oil won't be available. Don't blame the oil companies for problems caused by government.

If Floyd is right wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:29 AM:If Floyd is right about the 17 entities that can block drilling, then the problem has nothing to do with offering MORE sites to drill. The problem is undoing those 17 entities. Then drilling can happen on land they already have. Comprende?

Tommy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:30 AM:One of the big reasons for the increased cost of fuel relates to supply and demand. Mainland China is rapidly increasing it's transportation infrastructure, leading to shortages on the world market. Shortages cause higher prices. Even worse, domestic demand continues to rise with population growth yet there have been no new refineries built. The supply of fuel is artificially limited, adding to the shortage and the upward pressure on prices. Removing the regulatory prohibitions against domestic oil production and refining would reduce the cost of fuel.

Apollo wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:36 AM:Re: Hardtack (9:34 a.m.)
Great post from Hardtack - makes my point perfectly when I talked about the interaction of the luck of when and where we are born, which we did nothing to earn, and individual aptitudes and efforts to take full advantage of that good fortune.
And, just as with Bill Gates, Hardtack's excellent example of Tiger Woods is very germane - if Tiger Woods had been born in sub-Saharan Africa 3,000 years ago, he would not have won the U.S. Open.
Socialists think everything is luck.
Conservatives have the illusion of being "self-made."
Liberals understand the interplay of both.

Can you believe the gall wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:36 AM:Yes, Obama went back on his earlier promise about campaign funding. We know: he's a politician. Here's how McCain's camp responded QUOTE (from the Times) Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign’s communications director, said later on a conference call with reporters: “The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today ENDQUOTE So lemme get this straight: McCain is claiming to have always kept his word and stood on principle? JOHN McCain? THAT John McCain? You want a list of major positions he's changed his stance on? Does the man have no shame whatsoever? LOL

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:44 AM:You know, this is really becomng quite comical, ya know? I mean... here we have our buddy.. my dear friend the
Wizzer @9:59 AM, trying so desperately to defend this nonsense of not developing our own sources of energy.
Today {and yesterday} he attempted to tell us the energy companies, and the oil companies have every access they need to develop the fuel potentials, but just aren't doing so in order to "get rich."
While I admire his sense of urgency, and stick-to-it-tiveness, I really gotta say Wiz old buddy, the ship is going down, and you don't have enough fingers to plug all the leaks, my friend.
I'm sittin here looking at one, two, three different letters today just on the PowerLink, opposed to it, of course. Maybe you know them?
And, We have a front page story today citing the Goven-a-tor, Mayor Bud Lewis, and other's who say they'll stop any attempt to drill, anywhere.
Like I said yesterday, sure.. these oil companies are "sittin" on large amounts of land. And they are just sittin because they have been stopped, by Governors, Legislatures, Agencies, Coastal Commisions, County governments, and yes,.. your dear friends by way of lawsuits. Perhaps, if they were allowed to drill, we might be able to get out of the fix were in? But you guy's are standing in the way of progress, and "The People" are getting angry. Angrier by the minute. Usually, it is my side that is portrayed as "not caring." I'm glad to know that your side will feel the heat on this one.
And rightly so.

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:47 AM:How many times to I have to tell you people. If you really want an inside look at the manipulation of oil prices, just google "The Energy Non-Crisis" and watch the video. It is 45 minutes long, but I promise you, it is worth every minute.
Cheers, Nick.

Good one Apollo wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:49 AM:The interplay of both is right on the money. Conservatives say "you play the hand you're dealt" and this is admirable. BUT they pretend to assume that no one is fudging, that everyone is good, clean, and honest. Reality says that given the chance, lots of people stack the deck as much as possible, in legal and illegal ways. Hence the need for a government that assures some basic regulation and justice, so that people can honestly play the hand they're dealt. When people argue against government regulation, I see someone who wants to suppress others.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:53 AM:CONSERVATIVES: Brahs. Just check out all the letters and the blog posts today from conservatives. It is in your face. What they want is a subservient Conservative Congress to a Conservative President who has filled the Supreme Court with sleeping Conservative members. Dudes, what they want is a fascist state. Guys and gals. They were almost successful. Now, they are pearling. "what goes around, comes around." Time for them all to go. Time to say adios a bye bye.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:54 AM:And speaking of "Black Gold", last night I watched "Black Gold" on TV. I wonder if anyone caught that? Anyways..
It's another reality TV thing, although I'm really not fan of reality TV, I watched this one because it invloved the working guy's who get our oil for us. You know? "The Little Guy"?
They are called Roughnecks, and I did not see one millionaire in the bunch, in fact, most of those guy's drove somewhat older pick-up trucks.
There was the President & CEO of the company, who told the story of how he could drill hole, after hole, and go broke if his predictions didn't quite work out.
I can't help but think of these men, these guy's who work hard, regular blue-collar guys, who need a paycheck.
If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. It will open your mind as to who will be hurt most, by not pursuing our own oil interests. I'm more than sure the investor can plunk his money down on something else, like maybe, wind turbines? Providing, of course, he can clear all the enviromental hurdles put up to prevent him from doing that.
It's funny, ya know? Why would an investor in Wind Turbines need an enviromental permit? Is this not "clean energy?" But, hey.. I just call em as I see em.

SOLON wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:55 AM:= Chuck reminds us (7:21 AM) of the noble name of Barack Hussein, which translates as QUOTE "good blessing" END QUOTE. Once again, we thank you Chuck for remind us all that Barack Hussein (the ‘good blessing’) Obama is not only bears a noble name, but is a appropriately named. Thank you so much Chuckie. Please keep reminding us.

esteban wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:55 AM:All you freaky libs are nuts!!!! Alf, there have been plenty of terrorist events on US interests in the last fifty years. Just because they happened elsewhere, doesn't mean they didn' affect us here at home. Our citizens/troops were still killed! Since Bush clamped down, there have been no terrorist events on US interests anywhere. Yeah Bush stinks at alot of things, but he's good at killing terrorists, which is what we need. And the fact that you like foreign POW's to be covered by our Constitution shows that you are just a no brained crazy lib (not libertarian). remember, the Constitution doesn't apply to the enemy. Arrest them wherever they are and torture them for good info...or for fun! Regards!!!

Spreading democracy and freedom wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:55 AM:From the McClatchy Newspapers QUOTE WASHINGTON - The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices. “After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba wrote. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.” Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” he wrote. ENDQUOTE George W Bush, torturer, proven liar ("We do not torture", he said.) Can we have America back, please? PLEASE? Can we stop defending this man and his administration, please? PLEASE?

A White House spokeswoman, Kate Starr, had no comment.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:57 AM:Backcountry[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:07 AM: This Dude has conservativitis real bad. I mean, some one call animal control. He is foaming at the mouth while choking on his idealogical fantasy and his phony assumptions. Get the leash, gab a poop bag, and take him for a walk.

SOLON wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:59 AM:= Chuck is so kind. Less than ten minutes later (7:30 AM), he reminds us once again that Barack Hussein (the ‘good blessing’) Obama is not only bears a noble name, but is a appropriately named. Thank you so much Chuckie. Please keep reminding us.

Apollo wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:59 AM:Re: Bucky (10:41 a.m.) and Floyd (11:25 a.m.)
Bucky erroneously states that the Democrats are "in charge" of the Senate and House, repeating a factual error he previously made several days ago.
It is true that they are in charge of the House.
They are NOT in charge of the Senate; they do not have a majority.
There are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents in the Senate.
The 2 Independents (Lieberman of CT and Sanders of VT) caucus with the Democrats, so they have a majority for purposes of committee and leadership positions, so they can control the flow of business.
But they do not have a legislative majority, especially since Tim Johnson (D-SD) has been sidelined with serious illness, and since Lieberman votes with the Republicans on Iraq.
Not only that, but Bucky obviously does not understand that you need 60 votes to override a filibuster and 67 votes to override a Presidential veto, so there is nothing close to a legislative majority while a Republican is in the White House.
Please, get your facts straight!

And Floyd makes blanket statements about "17 political entites" obstructing drilling. Please be specific. Please cite specific instances where a specific agency obstructed a specific project - description, date and location, please. Name names. Actually, Wiz hit a home run. The problem is obstruction and collusion by the oil companies to construct supply and drive up prices (profits). It is exactly the same thing Enron and the utility providers did here in 2000.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:00 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:00 AM:
The power of the "risen people." Ain't it just great? Right on, Dudes.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:04 PM:HYDROGEN CELL: Focal Point was right. The Japanese will have the car market and the infrastructure within ten years in the USA.
The Japanese are going to build hydrogen cell autos. The demand will be created. In ten years, time all those gas stations will be hydrogen cell stations.
Ron and his rico hombres need to change their investments. See ya Brahs. I need to find me a hydro woodie.

SOLON wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:05 PM:= Such a driven kindness from Chuck. At 7:55 AM we read the noble name of Barack Hussein Obama in yet another of his blogs. Your kindness is overwhelming. Just to let the reading public know, the Name Hussein translate from the Semitic language as ‘good’ or ‘handsome’ and the name Barack translates as ‘blessing’. Chuck wants to familiarize us all with the good and propitious name of the next president of the United States.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:06 PM:You know, I'm really think that soon we will be see'in the torches & pitchforks soon, folks. I mean... gasoline is over $4.50 a gallon. Today, we are in a record breaking heatwave. I would really hate to be an enviromentalist right now, having to defend why your going broke at the pump, and why you can't keep your family cool without busting your checkbook.
Something's gonna give, and my bet in on the American people. I say, they grow tired of all these phoney reasons why we can't do stuff to improve the situation, and the backlash will begin like a fire. Remember back when we were having brown-out & black-out's? Ole Gray Davis and his buddies in the enviro crowd had to finally get out of the way, "clear the decks" of the red tape, and get some power plants built, like pronto!
I think I'm reading this one about right, I say, "The People" will get angry {angrier than they are now}, and will be made more angry by politicians giving them reasons why they need to be hot, or not drive their sick kid to see the doctor, and then... the pitchforks.
It happened before, and it will.. happen again.

Barack Hussein Obama wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:08 PM:Thank you for the reminder once again that his name means "Good Blessing". If I believed in God I would say He is sending us a very clear message. A choice between a "Good Blessing" or a "Son of Cain." Interesting coincidence or message from above?

SOLON wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:10 PM:= Incredible campaign by Chuck. By 8:21 AM, we see the good name of Barack Hussein Obama put forth on this public blog once again, for the fifth time. Chuck is doing America a great favor by letting us know that the name of the next president of the United States has a noble name which translates as GOOD BLESSING OBAMA. Hurray for Chuck!

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:12 PM:I know you just call 'em as you see 'em. Since you are such an expert, can you explain how allowing offshore drilling will eliminate the hurdles you believe are already in place for the leased lands the oil companies already have permits for but are not drilling? Instead of offshore drilling, why aren't you working towards eliminating these hurdles?

Also, can you please enlighten us on your stance regarding the "Enron Loophole?"

Also, can you please provide the source for your quote that Obama is telling us to eat less?

No?

To If Floyd is right wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:12 PM:Was this from "Floyd The Oil Man". With all his self credited degrees, I was not sure who was talking. I think I know however, It was not "Floyd the Barber".

Jack_D wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:14 PM:Esteban, your post was so incoherent and poorly argued I feel a short reply is necessary. Calling people "nuts" doesn't rise to the level to even a bad argument. Our troops have died by the thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:15 PM:Yes, Obama did apologise to the Muslim community because his organizers kept some Muslim women in ethnic clothing from appearing behind him (they said it was due to the current political climate).

Personally I find it refreshing to see someone admit to a mistake and apoligise for it.

You won't get that kind of ethical behavior from the Neocons.

Thanks for the clear illustration of how Obama will bring change to Washington. I owe you one.

SOLON wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:15 PM:= Not even the Neo-convict propagandists of the Bush syndicate are as good as Chuck at popularizing an idea. But we are so lucky to Chuck on the good side of the message, popularizing the name of the next president of the United States. At 9:00 AM, Chuck, for the sixth time already this morning, mentions the noble Semitic name of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA = The GOOD BLESSING OBAMA. Keep going, Chuckie. You are just GREAT!!

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:17 PM:Well, "esteban" at 11:55AM, I am a Libertarian. I am not a fair-weather friend of the Constitution, not someone who says "I like this part, so I'll obey it, but I don't agree with that part, I think it's wrong and I won't obey it". You and others seem to view the Constitution as nothing more than a document of suggestions from which you can pick and choose which part(s) you will take and obey at any given moment, in precisely the same exact way that a criminal picks and chooses which, if any, of the laws he/she will obey at any given moment. Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:18 PM:O.K., I’ll admit to being a bit dense about various extant opinions regarding the Constitution. Many libertarians and liberals on this Blog applaud the ruling of the Supremes regarding detainees – but I am not clear as to what that means in their minds.

Obama says he does not want to “martyr” Osama bin Laden. Now I interpret that to mean he does not want him killed in a battle. If that is a wrong interpretation, would someone please clarify.

Does this mean that if elected, Obama will remove the price on Osama’s head if he is killed and will only pay if Osama is captured?

IF Osama is captured, then I assume that he is then eligible for full federal court protection, so if some Corporal in the Marines who throws down on Osama forgets to read him Miranda rights, must Osama then be released by a federal judge?

If he is released, must he be returned to the tribal areas of Pakistan with US tax dollars?

Since reportedly Special Forces are currently operating in Northern Pakistan with the intent to neutralize Osama, are they accompanied by attorneys in case he “lawyers up?”

Is Osama eligible for a kidney transplant in the US – since he is reportedly suffering from kidney failure?

So many questions. Anyone care to address them? Alf? Apollo? Solon?

Sad for esteban wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:18 PM:esteban @ "Arrest them wherever they are and torture them for good info...or for fun! Regards!!!"

Where is your keeper? You should not be allowed out in public as you are one very sick puppy.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:24 PM:You are correct, "To Ron" @9:41 AM!
Now you are beginning to catch on.
Let me, as I always do, educate you on how this works, ok?
He says: "Given your ties to the oil industry and the defense contractors, Ron, it's rather hard to believe your primary motive for drilling offshore is for the benefit of the minimum wage workers."
Exactly right! Let me quote Adam Smith for you: Each man by his own self interest, help's other via the invisible hand. What he is actually saying is, Greed is good!
Each day I get up, I go to work, why?
Of course, to make money, but why do I do it? To support my family. Immediate benefit. Not only that, but my products & services help others. They work, they feed their own family's, they pay their bills. It's a win-win for all.
It's called Synergy. This inter-twining of interests. Do I get up in the morning thinking about some guy off in Samoa? No! I get up thinking how will I best serve the needs of my family, and my company. And through the invisible hand of my work, my sweat... it helps others.
Do you think an oil man is thinking about a diswasher in New Jersey?
No! He's thinking I need to hit some black gold, so I can pay my guy's, and pay my own bills.
And let me tell you a little secret, ok?
Anyone who tells you they DO get up thinking about the dishwasher in New Jersey, ain't telling you the truth.

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:25 PM:By the way, in my 9:29AM post I made reference to 3 week old rotting skunk. Before anyone asks, yes I have smelled 3 week old rotting skunk, it was under one of the old sheds that was on our lower 4 and a half (the 4 and a half is now a city street with 10 houses on it). Regards, Alf.

Hmm... wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:33 PM:I think I am going to just riding my horse everywhere I go. But then I will probably get sued by those who are offended by the horse apples that are dropped during my travels. Then someone will come up with the idea that I have to put a crazy diaper contraption on the back of my horse, so as to not disgust anybody with having to look at the horse as it does it's business as I go down the road and to keep it from having any negative affect on the environment.

Of course, then someone would come up with a rule that I have to properly dispose of such horse droppings and CHARGE me for it too!

I have come to the conclusion, that no matter what we do, there is always going to be at least one person that is offended by it, and at least one other person willing to defend them so that they can make money off of it.

Personally, I think it is all a bunch of horse manure and no matter what is done, no one will be truly happy unless they are complaining about someone else.

If you posters know all of the answers and the ways to save our government and environment, why don't you run for office and actually get into the process to make a difference.

May God bless all of you during your days!

SUICIDE PACT wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:34 PM:… More about "Constitution is suicide pact" (J. Howard Crews). A lesson for liberals: Sarcasm and mockingly sardonic writing does not work very well today, because it is almost impossible to conjure up a sardonic image more unbelievable and preposterous than the reality of the world of G. W. Bush. Truth is truly stranger than exaggerated fiction in this world. Sometimes throwing rocks is more effective than verbal barbs, because the fascist right just does not catch the joke, but rocks, if aimed upside the head of a fascist, sometimes catches their attention.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:35 PM:If true... "Spreading democracy and freedom" @11:55 AM:
Then Nancy & Harry should pursue impeachment. Think they will? Doubtful.
Impeachment is off the table, I think the phrase was. And not because it wasn't the "right" thing to do, because it would not serve the best interests of the Democrat Party. Per Dennis Kucinich. Just as "Good news in Iraq, would be bad news for Democrats" was.
I've been trying to tell you, they don't care what you think, nor what you say. If true...

Jack_D wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:40 PM:DD Wiz is quite right that the energy companies are sitting on land they could be using. His number of 33 million acres is actually too conservative. (A word not often associated with him for sure). As the New York Times points out today:
Roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Could it be- to be slightly conspiratorial- that the oil companies are manufacturing a crisis that will;
1. keep prices high through artificially reducing the supply, and
2. win them tax breaks and regulatory favors from a pro-oil administration?

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:44 PM:esteban[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:55 AM:
Yozer! You just goofed. You titled them POWS. Thank you. Those dudes are now covered by the GC. But, naw brah. Bush and
Cheny, the puppet master, cleverly gave them a new name so that they could be the objects of torture done by red, white and blue Americans or foreigners on foreign soil who like the Yankee dollar or just wanna do us a big favor. The Consitution is kinda an inconvenient truth for your conservatives. See ya brah.*

Please comment wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:45 PM:regulars, on the posts by Oil Speculation Jun 19, 2008 9:50 AM & DD Wiz Jun 19, 2008 9:59 AM. They have obviously been paying attention to how big money has used the leftover from the Enron screwing we got to control the price of oil while most of you still argue it is supply and demand and drilling that will fix the problem. Perhaps in the future it will be, but for now the Suadis were right, speculators are driving the prices and we are all getting screwed.

Speaking of names wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:54 PM:Excellent observation about the meaning of names by SOLON @ 11:55 AM. Now let's examine the name Chuckie, wasn't that a midget slasher character from some B horror movies? Seems kind of fitting.

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:02 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:35 PM:
Then Nancy & Harry should pursue impeachment. Think they will? Doubtful.
Impeachment is off the table, I think the phrase was. And not because it wasn't the "right" thing to do, because it would not serve the best interests of the Democrat Party. Per Dennis Kucinich. Just as "Good news in Iraq, would be bad news for Democrats" was.

Ron, do you even believe yourself? Dennis Kuchinich is the one who recently submitted the Articles for Impeachment for the second time.

And as far as Pelosi and Reid, perhaps not impeached by our government, but there is still the World Court and the Hague. The fat lady hasn't sung yet on Bush and Company's War Crimes.

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:06 PM:The Iranian Oil Bourse:
The Iranian Oil Bourse is a commodity exchange which opened on February 17, 2008. It was created by cooperation between Iranian ministries and other state and private institutions. The IOB is a Petrobourse for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various currencies, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major currencies. The geographical location is at the Persian Gulf island of Kish which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.
During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non-dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies.
The three current oil markets are all US dollar denominated: North America's West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), North Sea Brent Crude, and the UAE Dubai Crude. The two major oil bourses are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) in New York City and the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) in London. As the Oil Bourse in Kish is developed through successive stages, the plan is to establish a Petrobourse as a fourth oil market, denominated by the Iranian rial, the euro and other major currencies.
I know, most of you don't understand what this means, so I will try to help you folks understand.
Cheers, Nick.

ms M wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:09 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:35 PM: Just as "Good news in Iraq, would be bad news for Democrats"....No Ron, after all the carnage, death, destoying a country, the debt we are in...no matter how "great" the news is it could never be good news. There is no way that the cons can right this mess - for generations to come.

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:13 PM:For half a century, the American dollar has been the reserve currency of the world. Seventy percent of all currency reserves are in American dollars.

This has a lot to do with the fact that oil, the most important commodity traded in the world, is mostly priced in U.S. dollars. The majority of countries, being oil importers, have to buy their oil in U.S. dollars. This, together with related economic considerations, encourages them keep most of their foreign currency in dollars.

The debt-burdened U.S. economy is dependent upon this high demand for its currency in order to remain afloat. The day this demand comes to end will portend disaster for the American economy.

There is a move underway, however, to effect just such a reversal of the dollar’s fortunes. In particular, the world’s second-largest producer of crude oil—and declared enemy of the United States—Iran, seeks to end the predominance of America’s currency.

Several weeks ago, Tehran reconfirmed that it plans to create a euro-based exchange in oil—to compete with the London and New York dollar-denominated oil exchanges, both American-owned.

Several weeks ago, Tehran reconfirmed that it plans to create a euro-based exchange in oil—to compete with the London and New York dollar-denominated oil exchanges, both American-owned.

The proposed March 2006 launch of the Iranian oil bourse (iob), if successful, would give the euro a foothold in the international oil trade, solidifying its status as an alternative oil transaction currency. This, in turn, could be a catalyst for a major currency flight from the dollar to the euro—and a disaster for America.

The iob will see crude oil, petrochemicals and other commodities of the same kind traded in euros.

Iran no doubt has multiple motives for making this move.

For one, it makes sense economically, especially since the European Union is Iran’s biggest trading partner. But more importantly, it would strike a blow to Iran’s archenemy America—and, by hoping to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region, help drive the Islamic Republic forward in its quest for regional supremacy.
Cheers, Nick.

To jvc and Karl from yesterday wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:18 PM:“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America – there’s the United States of America. ”

Barack Obama, Candidate for Change

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:24 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:24 PM:
You are correct, "To Ron" @9:41 AM! responds to: "Given your ties to the oil industry and the defense contractors, Ron, it's rather hard to believe your primary motive for drilling offshore is for the benefit of the minimum wage workers."

Exactly right! Let me quote Adam Smith for you: Each man by his own self interest, help's other via the invisible hand. What he is actually saying is, Greed is good!"

Ok Ron, thanks for the honestly but that doesn't explain why you are using the minimum wage earners to grip about the liberals when you don't care about them (or anyone else but yourself) at all.

Why do you continually choose to publically embarrass yourself? As Reardon says, "it boggles the mind."

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:27 PM:Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but rather in its attempt to re-shape the global economic system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economic war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse.

Oil-consuming countries have no choice but to use the American Dollar to purchase their oil, since the Dollar has so far been the global standard monetary fund for oil exchange. This necessitates these countries keeping the Dollar in their central banks as their reserve fund, thus strengthening the American economy. But if Iran — followed by the other oil-producing countries — offered to accept the Euro as another choice for oil exchange the American economy would suffer a real crisis. We could witness this crisis at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006 when oil investors would have the choice to pay $57 a barrel of oil at the American (NYMEX) and at London's (IPE) or pay 37 Euros a barrel at the Iranian oil bourse. Such choice would reduce trade volumes at both the Dollar-dependent (NYMEX) and at the (IPE).

In its economic war Iran is treading the same path Saddam Hussein started when he, in 2000, converted all his reserves from the Dollar to the Euro, and demanded payments in Euro for Iraqi oil. Many economists then mocked Saddam because he lost a lot of money in this conversion. Yet they were very surprised when he recouped his losses within less than a year due to the upward revaluation of the Euro. The American administration became aware of the threat when central banks of many countries started keeping Euros alongside of Dollars as their monetary reserve and as an exchange fund for oil (Russian and Chinese central banks in 2003). To avoid economic collapse the Bush administration hastened to invade and to destroy Iraq under false excuses to make it an example to any country who might contemplate dropping the Dollar, and to manipulate OPEC's decisions by controlling the second largest oil resource. Iraqi oil sale was reverted back to the petrodollar standard.
Cheers, Nick.

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:28 PM:>>>yes I have smelled 3 week old rotting skunk, it was under one of the old sheds >>> More like after you ate a quarter pounder at McDonalds

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:28 PM:Submit 11:49 a.m. - Second submission 1:29 p.m.

Reardon at 9:38 a.m. continues to denigrate those who have chosen a particular candidate based on his judgment, leadership style and specific policy proposals for leading this country in a new direction.
Reardon does not have one single original thought of his own, so he must ridicule as "messiah worshippers" people who have decided which political candidate best represents their interests. Obama does not have a soaring oratorical style, nor do his crowds have worshipful blinders as to normal human imperfections.
I did get the e-mail from the Obama campaign with the video announcement released first to supporters announcing his rejection of the current public financing, and he explained his position very clearly, which one-note Reardon did not even mention.
He noted that the flawed McCain campaign finance "reform" allowed generous loopholes for moneyed interests through the 527's. In contrast, Obama has already shown his revolutionary REFORM by raising virtually all his record-setting fundraising from small donations from everyday citizens instead of special interests, so OBAMA WILL OWE HIS LOYALTY TO REGULAR CITIZENS, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS.
In order to combat McCain's special interest loophole, Obama will continue to go over the heads of lobbyists and directly to his real constituency, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
As for the "kerfluffle" about excluding "women in hijabs" from a campaign photo, Reardon doesn't know what he is talking about. This was not campaign staff, it was local on-site staff. The campaign immediately asserted that this was a local error, those responsible have been reprimanded, and noted that Obama has been photographed many times with women wearing Islamic headwear, and will continue to do so in the future.

So Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:29 PM:The State Supreme Court redefined marriage and ordered same sex marriages, and you endorsed this action. Isn't it the function of the Court if it rules a law is unconstitutional to return it to the Legislature to be rewritten?

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:34 PM:I hope that these posts helps some of you folks out. The Iraq War was about oil, but NOT in the sense that most of you think. It was NOT about controlling Iraqs oil, but controlling the currency in which it was denominated.
The same holds true for Iran. The threat of Irans plan to cause an economic collapse of the U.S. is far more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.
By devaluating the U.S. dollar and inflating the Euro, Iran has the ability to send America into a depression the likes of which we have never seen. We can be reduced to the likes of a 3rd World Country in a matter of 1-2 years.
The scary part is that they can do it without a firing a shot and being labeled terrorists for murdering Americans with a nuclear weapon.
By not using a bomb, they can dominate the U.S. with the approval of other Countries by doing it in a legitimate manner and our few allies will not be able to come to our rescue.
Cheers, Nick.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:37 PM:I can see our tax dollars at work again today. All the welfare recepiants must be up. But, I digress...
I'm not an expert, I don't know what gave you that impression, "To Ron" @12:12 PM.
"I just call em as I see em." Somethings just make sense, ya know?
I just remembered a show you might be interested in: Judge Judy. Now, most of the time, she spends a lot of her time telling adults to grow up.
I was never really a fan of that show, but my wife liked it, I thought: What the hay? Anyways, she has this saying:
"If it doesn't sound right, it's not right." Or something like that.. anyways. I really think this is your main problem, you guy's think/believe all business is out to rip you off.
And everything, is a kind of conspiracy against people, the enviroment, and whatever else. It's just too fantasical a statement, to believe all that.
And the answer is sittin here, on this blog, and you still can't seem to figuire this out.
Example, I see one, two.. three letters, just today.. ALL against building the PowerLink.
I haven't counted the number of posts against drilling, but I did read the front page where the Governor, a Mayor, and several other very powerful people say they WILL NOT LET IT HAPPEN.
So, I ask you. What is more fantasical to believe? A) It's a mass conspiracy by oil companies, which has never been proven. Or, B) All the levels of government are preventing companies from drilling?
Obviously, you've never built a house.
Going offshore only has two hurdles, as I understand this. Congress & the President. The President said he'd like to drill, Congress says No. How much more evidence do I need to give you?
I've read that the Dept. of Defense is right now developing shale, and liquified coal for the Air Force. Hey, in my book, that's our money, and we need to get the benefit of this new technology being refined for the military. That should help answer some of the questions from yesterday about diverting oil to Iraq.
Again, it's too fantasical, Kuwait is supplying the troops, so Wizzer was barking up the wrong tree.
As to the: "Enron Loophole?"
I could care less. If it's criminal, prosecute them ...
That's how I see it.
And based on this last comment/statement... I believe you are one guy who posts under a bunch of different names, trying to give the impression of more Lib's. Is that about right?
Obama said it, look it up. I see your computer works as well as mine does.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:37 PM:The post from "Jack_D" (12:40pm) is right on, and thank you, but noted that, based on a New York Times report, the number of acres currently ready for drilling that the oil companies are "sitting on" is closer to 68 million acres, not "my" figure of "only" 33 million acres.
Please note that these are not "my" numbers.
Unlike some people here, I do not make up my own data.
These were from the website of the Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, for which I provided a referential link.
It is possible that he was trying to lowball the number to avoid accusations of exaggerating.
Anyway, I'm glad to see one segment of the "mainstream" corporate-owned media is trying to live up to its watchdog role, while everyone else is acting like lapdogs for Big Oil.
Thanks again, "Jack_D."

Bill wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:40 PM:The only connection Habeus Corpus has to Intl. law is the Geneva Convention.

That meams countries that signed on to it.

Al Qaeda is not one of them.

The SC overturned 200 years of stare decisis to make that decision. Nowhere, does the constitution guarantee non citizens habeus rights.

Torture is a different story as it is a violation of our Geneva commitment. However, waterboarding is a mild form and hardly merits the term compared to what has been done to us over the years.

All the court accomplished was to dilute the ability of our S-2 units to get info out of POWs.

Yes POWS.

They are not criminal defendants.

How stupid are the Dems?

All this stuff means is that we take no prisoners.

Presto......

Problem solved!

Some people are simply clueless to how reality works!

To Barrack Hussein Obama wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:44 PM:I guess Hussein ment the same, "Good Blessing" for all the countless Tortured, maimed, Gassed and Murdered under the "Good Blessing" Hussein name! Or was that not fare of me to bring up?

Tom wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:48 PM:Chuck, why do you hate America?

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:48 PM:Now you guy's are getting funny! Take my dear friend, "To jvc and Karl from yesterday" @1:18 PM:
"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America – there’s the United States of America.
Barack Obama, Candidate for Change"
LOL, you know... I watched the primarys too, and from what I saw, that's all they did was count by color, by gender, by income, and by education. Amid otherthings.
Right now, I think the Obamaman needs to focus "like a laser" on the... Now how did they put it? Oh, yes "on all the uneducated, white folks, mostly older union folks that voted for change too, Hillary. I'm telling you, they are cracking up, folks.

Thanks Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:53 PM:Impeachment was, is, and always will be, a political decision. When there is the political will, even something like what Willie did can be sold as a high crime or misdemeanor. And when there is no political will, even what Bush does won't rise to that level. This has nothing to do with whether factual crimes were factually committed. There have been so many violations of Geneva that if anyone had the will to go after Bush, Cheney, or the DoD it would be easy, but people don't. One of the worst things about all this is that Bush sends the message to America: following the law is optional when we're in this "crisis" and the good guys are above the law. We see posts here daily displaying the effects of this message on certain fans of that message. Maybe you'll disagree with me, but I find that a lousy message. I'd find it just as lousy if a Democrat sent it. To be found to violate the Constitution repeatedly and act as though the Supreme Court justices were a bunch of traitors is out of Hitler or Stalin's playbook. In the America I grew up with, the branches of government always made a show of respect for one another, seeing this as more important than winning any little battle. That seems done with. Bush feeds on the little guy's desperate craving to become the bully, to have all the power and be able to abuse it right in your face. Cheney's sneer and language ("So?", "Go @&%# yourself!")is the picture of this kind of person. I honestly can't understand how anyone still defends this administration, if only for its ongoing attitude.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:55 PM:To my good friend, "To Ron" @1:02 PM:
Let me say this. the last President attempted to be tried for War Crimes was Bill Clinton in the Balkins.
It went no where. Just as Harry & Nancy will go no where.
And....
to my good buddy "ms M" @1:09 PM:
I think, with all due sincerity, you "misunderestimate" the Iraqi people.
This is not about us, it's always been

And finally, Thanks again to today's moderator! Your doing an outstanding job again today, and my hat is off to you.

To NICK wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:55 PM:At 11:47, Nick, FYI, Anytime a blogger starts off by saying, "How many times do I have to tell you people..." I know right away they have nothing worth saying, You did not disappoint me.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:13 PM:Better keep your day job, there..
"Surfer" @12:04 PM. Obviously, your not a planner, nor a realist about this subject. So, if your good at what you do right now, piece of advice. Stay with it. this ain't your strong suit.
Brah.
I'm glad he brought up HYDROGEN CELLs: I'm more than sure that in 10 years... we'll have hydrogen cells, maybe...
But how will we make the hydrogen, my friend? That takes power, gobs of it. As in nuclear power.. Catching the drift here?
I don't know where he's getting this piece of information, I do know that a few hydrogen prototypes will be leased for $600 a month. Those prototypes cost a million each. But, they need to have them driven around, road testing... to improve the product. In the mean time, the technology presently remains completely out of reach for 99% of Americans.
This is not talking down about the technology, or the alternative. But, it's not really "an alternative" if you can't afford it, now is it?
Man, don't get me started again on solar panels with plug-in cars, with a $50,000 minimum investment, which is way beyond many. Kind of like the Prius when it first came out. An Enviro Status symbol. You have all these little enviro groups, you know? The Starbucks coffee clutchers.
For them, they can afford it, so they buy it. And they just can't understand why the rest of us won't get on the utopian bus.

To Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:16 PM:I know enough about the oil economy to hear the truth in your posts today. Thank you.

I just want to point out to all that attacking Iran is not going to solve this problem. We need true leadership that will work with the world power brokers to made the best deal for America.

I support Obama because I believe he will provide this leadership, but I also acknowledge Ron Paul's very superior expertise in world and economic affairs. Keep your eye on Dr. Paul because even though he has left the race he is not to be counted out yet. There is much to come during the Republican Conventions.

My personal hope is that by the time of the convention the Republicans will be so over McBush that they will nominate Dr. Paul as the Republican Candidate.

We live in strange times, anything could happen.

Thanks Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:17 PM:Your posts about oil and euros are very interesting. What's your opinion of how Cheney/Bush have tried to focus us all on Iran's nuclear program (which inspectors say is not weaponry)? This seems to be setting the stage for a limited bombing attack on certain sites presumed or known to be nuclear. In other words, Cheney/Bush want us to think of Iran as specifically a MILITARY threat that should be fought with MILITARY means. I'm curious how you think such bombing sorties would play out considering your points about economic warfare. Thanks in advance.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:26 PM:So Alf[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:29 PM: Good Golly Miss Molly. No, it is not. It does not have to return it to the Legislature. Just has to rule on it. By the way, hombres. They ruled on the equal protection clause of the state constitution. You fellas just do not get it. The majority rights are only guaranteed when the rights of the minority are also guaranteed and protected. Kimo Sabe, Brahs. See ya!

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:28 PM:Nick[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:34 PM:
Nick is so right. What is even sadder is that the party is almost over.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:36 PM:You know, just like a lib. I swear, it's like banging your head against a wall. "To Ron" @1:24 PM says:
"Ok Ron, thanks for the honestly but that doesn't explain why you are using the minimum wage earners to gripe about the liberals when you don't care about them (or anyone else but yourself) at all."
Apparently, my good friend does not see the irony here. Let me explain.
When it comes to minimum wage workers, your right, I do not care. I figuire each adult has the individual ability to determine for themselves whether the wage I'm willing to pay will meet their own specific needs. Whatever they choose to be paid by someone else, That's on them. Not me. I'm running a business, not a social service system here. But, I will say this...
Through the operation of my business, they work, they provide for themselves, or their family at a level they have determined to be correct, for them.
Who are you to decide they make bad decisions for their own life?
But, that is just like you lib's. You got an answer for everybody's life.
Here's a novel Idea. Run your's.

Apollo wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:50 PM:Re: To Barrack Hussein Obama (1:44 p.m.)
It absolutely is unfair to compare Barack Hussein Obama to Saddam Hussein, since there is absolutely nothing to compare them to.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was named after his late father, before Saddam Hussein ever took power and sullied that honorable name.
The only national leader at that time with such a name was Hussein I of Jordan, a moderate ally who did much to promote mideast stability.
Trying to tie someone to a dictator because they were given a proud family name with a long, honorable history that happens to be the same middle name as a ruthless dictator is the epitome of hateful, malicious Republican slime politics, so I'm sure you and your ilk will make sure we see plenty more of it in the coming months since you can't carry on any semblance of a serious discussion of issues.
Disgusting. Not surprising, just disgusting.

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:51 PM:Regarding your rambling responses today and every day:

You are running out of gas, my friend!

AHAHAHAHAHA I crack myself up!

It's funny 'cause it's true.

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:56 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 12:18PM, the days of 'wanted- dead or alive' are alive and well in the GWB world, for the rest of us it is the LAW that deals with criminals. Whether it is U.S. law or International law is less relevant than the LAW is followed. Detainees, aka "enemy combatants" (a term coined to get around the U.S. Constitution, U.S. law, the Geneva Conventions and International law) must have, at the very least, the same rights and protections as a POW in order for us to be able to ever utter another word about "human rights" to anyone for anything. Either we live by the rights and responsibilities of our Constitution and have basic human rights for ALL or we should tear up the Constitution and degenerate to anarchy, which is what people like "esteban" and GWB (as long as he is King Goerge) are drooling for in anticipation. Ah yes, I said responsibilities. We are charged to live up to our Constitution, our ideals. That challenge is most difficult, especially with heinous and vile criminals, but somehow we do it every day by making sure that murderers, rapists and thieves are given ALL Constitutional protections, by having trials for alleged "war criminals" and by not allowing un-Constitutional laws to prevail at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court, preferably by having such un-Constitutional laws be struck down in lower courts. IF we, the U.S., are going to be the police of the world, we had damned well not be corrupt police who don't obey our own laws, don't you think? Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:07 PM:Well, "So Alf" at 1:29PM, NO, it is not. The job of the judiciary is to decide a matter before it and the California Supreme Court did exactly that. If an entire law is struck down, then it's "back to the drawing board". If a part of a law, such as the 2,000 foot limit for ALL sex offenders (including those who had served their sentence before passage, the punitive ex post facto part) in Prop 83, is struck down as un-Constitutional, but the rest is left alone then the rest stays in force until or unless another challenge occurs. Regards, Alf.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:08 PM:To Barrack Hussein Obama: Dude, you are so conservative and so transparent. Playing the little game on the beach. Do you think comparing a middle name a last name is appropriate since two different men share it? Are you still telling the people or hoping that the people will think Barak is a Muslim. Man that consrvoitis is really going around. But, just like any up tight bad virus it spends its course into oblivion. I can hardly way to say for the last time to people like you is, se ya brah.

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:12 PM:Ron wrote: "Who are you to decide they make bad decisions for their own life?
But, that is just like you lib's. You got an answer for everybody's life.
Here's a novel Idea. Run your's."

Trying to keep you on-track, buddy.

The question was, why do you use the plight of the minimum wage worker to attack the liberals when you don't care about them. You have answered why you don't care about them to my satisfaction, but you are avoiding the original question about why you use them to attack the liberals.

Can you try again please?

Why do you use the minimum wage workers to attack liberals?

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:14 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:36 PM: That is just like the Romans felt about their slaves. See that is why despite an increase in 79% of production by the American worker the real wages factored for time and dollar worth today equals the pay of 1968. That is why wealth is concentrated. That is why the middle class is being destroyed in this country and the poor have lost hope while the rich become richer. Sooner or later, Mr. Capitalist, if you keep on your ways, you will meet in reality millions singing the "International" instead of in your disturb dreams.

Hussein wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:16 PM:Hussein: I did not gas, torture, assault,rape or kill anybody. But, big George in the White House sure has sent over 4100 Americans to their death and 50,000 come home in need of physical and mental care.

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:19 PM:Well, "Chuck" at 1:28PM, nope. The skunk was much, much worse. I could go into graphic detail but I won't. (Maybe near dinner time). Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:21 PM:I'm telling you folks, the heat is getting turned up on the lib's, and their buddies in the enviro wing, and their back's are now against the wall.
Desperately trying to offset the facts with more spin. Now, see right here.. Here's my good buddy the Wizzer @
9:59 AM and again @1:37 PM. Plus a little teamwork provided by "Jack_D" @
12:40pm. But it AIN'T working!!!
And the Proof is right in front of everyone's face. Bush says We will drill, and immediately our Governor says NO. It could not be better planned, or proof to what is really going on here. They are denying us access to those sites, by lawsuits, by Governor veto, by Coastal Commission's, by you name it, they object to it.
And it really doesn't matter if it's enviromentally friendly, you know... Green?" They stop those too.
And the thing that will just sink this liberal ship is that, it's a no-brainer.
President says Drill. Governor says NO.
That's it. End of Argument.
Because they bottom line is, at least starting to do something, is better than doing nothing. At least, if we try to drill and attempt to bring gas prices down, no one will be faulted, because "We at least, tried" to bring them dowm.
What do the enviro's or the liberals have to offer in exchange? Nothing, now. Oh,maybe 10 years from now... then we might have....
Well, that just will not cut it folks.
It just won't play. It won't play to all the people who rely upon their cars to get to & from work. to take their kid's to school. To take them to the doctor. On top of this mess, these fuel prices are driving food prices up. Mean's people will buy less, have less.
Less, less, and yes.. Less.
Can't build, or won't build. That's really the question here. Power companies want to provide power. Oil companies want to provide fuel.
What do the liberals & the enviromentalist crowd want? Less.
You choose. And Americans will choose.
They'll choose to cool their homes, drive their cars, and take their children to school and pick them up. That's exacttly what they'll choose.
And the lib's, and the enviro's... are running scared. As they should be. They are preventing progress.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:27 PM:To DD Wiz, re the number of unused acres,33 or 68 million: I gratefully accept the rebuke. I meant to say the number you quoted from the Senate report, but I didn't phrase it right. I did not mean to imply you made up the numbers.

Love them libs wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:36 PM:Unlike Ron - I love America and it's libs. My favorite statue? Statue of Lib. Fave expression: Lib and let lib. Favorite patriotic slogan: Give me lib or give me death. Favorite food: If it says lib, lib lib on the label, label, label - you will like it, like it, like it on your table, table, table.

Did I Miss Something wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:39 PM:Granted, I don't have time to read the blogs every day, but why hasn't anyone noticed that the sharp increase in oil prices corresponded with the announcement of the Economic Stimulus "rebate" checks. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a politician to figure that any announcement of money going out to taxpayers would cause the greediest among us (Read Big Oil Companies) to raise their prices to grab that money before the ink is even dry on the checks or in our pockets.

hardtack wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:54 PM:Ah, yes – life must be a “level playing field” where everyone observes the “rules” of the game” – and government’s job is to “referee” the fun. The problem with that is : The scoundrels who we deem in need of regulation derive from the same species of scoundrels we put in charge of regulating.

I don’t know who is more greedy and grasping – Big Business or Big Government. But I do know that Big Business responds to it’s “constituency” (consumers) in a much more timely, efficient and fair manner than government responds to it’s constituency. Moreover, the scoundrels who choose Big Government for their livelihood not only enjoy the “uneven playing field” of making their own rules as they go along, but have full control of the police and military power to enforce those “rules.”

Personally, I would rather see more rules and regulations imposed on the Big Government scoundrels than on the Big Business scoundrels. Big Government, with a $3 trillion debt, looks pretty greedy and grasping to me. Particularly, when, while facing that debt, their only issue seems to be whether to use Welfare or Warfare as Big Government’s sales pitch to achieve a full blown monopoly. That’s “tyranny” to some of us.

chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:55 PM:>>>Granted, I don't have time to read the blogs every day, but why hasn't anyone noticed that the sharp increase in oil prices corresponded with the announcement of the Economic Stimulus "rebate" checks>>>> The sharp increases started the day after Hussein and Pelosi promised massive new taxes on the oil companies.

Individualism wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:00 PM:Those among us who are more radical in their individualism and belief that "you make your own luck" are in an interesting position. These folks always tell us "we shoulda known" when it comes to saving for retirement, buying homes, making sure we have health care. So now we see gas prices going up to a point where it's starting to affect the actual lives of many, many people. I know people who've made decisions to take or turn down jobs based on how far to drive, etc. Are these people responsible for their plight? Take the gazillion people who had decided to live up the I-15 corridor in Fallbrook, Rainbow, Murrieta, Temecula. Many moved there to afford a house, willing to commute to SD. I'd imagine many of them are really feeling it these days. Their fault? My guess is that the comeback to this is simple: if they'd seen to it that they had become more or less wealthy, they wouldn't have these problems. Which is, I think, the only possible honest answer. Everyone has the opportunity (they say) to become wealthy. Be hardworking and ruthless in your business. Take risks and have all your risks pay off. Anyone hit with economic hard times is ultimately to blame for his/her problems, because (they say) you shoulda been more like us. If you're strapped, it can really only have one reason: you're a loser. Have I got this right? Isn't this conservatism in a nutshell?

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:00 PM:The first "To Nick" at 1:55 PM: seems to think I have nothing interesting to say.
Many bloggers around here prove you wrong, so I will continue to keep up with showing folks the big picture in our economy, our Government and the manipulation of oil.
You can stay under your rock as long as you like, just don't complain about high gas prices, a flailing dollar and the slumping of our economy, because those who don't understand or do something to help correct it, have no right to complain about it.

To Ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:15 PM:Yup, you're right, he said it. I stand corrected.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

I won't mention in what context he spoke or even put a Fox spin on it. I will instead let everyone decide for themselves what he meant about that.

Those "every man for himself" type of people, Ron, will of course find his words horrifying. I understand why you keep bringing it up now.

Better put a padlock on your fridge, Ron. Hussein might be looking in your window.

Ooops! Didn't mean to scare ya! Sorry.

To Apollo wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:16 PM:At 2:50, You Can't have it both ways, The post writer I was addressing did not bring up a first name associated with the name Hussein, Now you want to change the rules and say that it was not fair, just because you don't like it. Your argument is weak and without merit. I would have expected more out of you. Sad, Not Surprising, Just Sad.

To Did I Miss Something wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:16 PM:You are absolutely correct. Just ask Ron.

Dang wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:28 PM:what am I going to use to take my purchases home from 7/11 and the fast food industry? And what about alcohol from the liquor stores? Maybe I can just consume it onsite?

To Hussein Apollo and the rest. wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:29 PM:At 3:15PM, I said nothing to infer that I was in favor of this war, Did I? No, All I did was show my disgust for the posters vain attempt to compare the name Hussein with "only" Good, Warm and fuzzy feelings. It simply is not true for all holders of the name. Wouldn't you agree?

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:37 PM:In response to "To Nick's" post at 2:16 PM:
I agree with you that attacking Iran is not the answer. I am all for Ron Paul, but I do not think he is going to run again even though he remains a Republican. Keep your eye on "The Campaign for Liberty". Ron Paul is as disgusted with The Republican Party as I am, and like Dr. Paul, I would like to see the party returned to it's original beliefs and foundations. The ones based on The Constitution, Freedom and true democracy.
I must disagree with you when it comes to Obama though. The man is a trainwreck waiting to happen. He has no experience and NO foreign relations knowledge whatsoever. He depends on Zbigniew Brzezinski for his foreign policy advise. Brzezinski is one of the founding members of The Trilateral Commission and even though Jim Johnson said he is stepping down from picking Obamas V.P., but he has already done the choosing and his stepping down is just a public stunt. Jim Johnson is a puppet of The Bilderberg Group and has hand picked numerous V.P's. over the years.
2 things that really piss me off about Obama. One is the fact that he wishes to take 0.7% of our GNP(which is about $845 billion over 13 years) and give it to the U.N.(which is a complete joke in and of itself) to fund The Global Poverty Act. This above what we already contribute to various Countries in Foreign Aid.
Secondly, he wishes to raise my Social Security Tax to 12.7%. I have no problem with that. The problem is that the difference in the tax hike WILL NOT go towards my retirement, but will be used to help fund people who make less than I. I just started earning over $100,000 a few years ago and it has taken over 25 years of hard work to get where I am today. Now that I am here, Mr. Socialist Democrat wants to take my hard earned money and give it to those who make less. Please explain to me how that is just and fair.
I agree with you that strange things can happen and I really hope they do. I hope that neither Obama or McCain will become the next President, or as "Yada-Yada" put it, the party will be over.
Cheers, Nick.
p.s. Don't forget to check out The Campain for Liberty.

Poor Bill wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:38 PM:Bill says "take no prisoners...presto...problem solved". This is always the way some people envision problem solving. Guilty until proven innocent, when we get around to it, if we ever do...nah, just kill 'em and let God sort 'em out. This is exactly the opposite of American values and is why I maintain that we have many among us who, while cloaking themselves in labels like 'patriots', despise America and her Constitution. And Cheney and Bush have chosen to be the role models for this mindset. Above the law, spending millions to find loopholes so that they are above even the most universally held beliefs about human rights (as Bill says, behaving and justifying that behavior, as being just like al qaeda's). Furious when our courts point out that the Constitution differs, so furious they accuse the Courts of being pro-terror. We are getting a glimpse of what the USSR must've been like under Stalin. I find this not in the least admirable or attractive. I want my country back!

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:49 PM:Well, "Bill" at 1:40PM, shows his true character in his description of how to subvert the Constitution. I know, some of you will call it a "work-around", that is a mush-mouthed way to try to make legitimate something which is certainly not. Notice that he acknowledges that waterboarding is torture, but then tries to justify its use by saying "However, waterboarding is a mild form and hardly merits the term compared to what has been done to us over the years.". That's a load of manure. The term "weaseling" springs to mind as well as others not fit to print. Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:53 PM:My 12:18 did not elicit a response from Alf, or Solon or Apollo, so I guess I'll have to add "Poor Bill" to my list.

Actually, anyone can answer, if you have answers. I am really looking for your input -- I don't know the answers but each of you listed has supported the Supreme's decision, so I assume you either have the answers or don't care about the answers.

I care, and I am not sanguine with my answers -- I’ll listen to yours.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:55 PM:The posts from "Ron" (9:54am, 12:24pm, 2:13pm, 2:36pm and 3:21pm) show he has not learned anything from prior discussions.
Once again, he makes the absurd claim that "each adult has the individual ability to determine for themselves whether the wage I'm willing to pay will meet their own specific needs." This fails for two reasons:
1) it assumes, incorrectly, equitable bargaining position, which makes as much sense as a robber pulling a gun on someone and taking their money and calling it a gift. People needs jobs to live; holding it over their head is duress. The value of workers is more than as an economic commodity. Unlike merchandise or factory equipment, they are human beings, and also act in the economy as consumers. "Ron" today cites Adam Smith in posts at 9:54am and 12:24pm, yet he picks and chooses just how much capitalism he can really believe in. When he has done this in the past and I pointed out Smith's support for regulatory protection against excesses, he practically called the Father of Capitalism a Socialist!
2) "Ron" has identified himself as a defense contractor which means, if true, that he feeds at the public trough. There is even a higher standard when you use public funds; the public pays you and you work for US so, yes, even more than in purely private-sector businesses, WE THE PUBLIC do have a right to set the standards, including the standards of decency with which you treat other human beings with our dollars.
"Ron" says "Surfer" is not realistic about hydrogen fuel cells and that maybe they'll be available in ten years. Dream on, "Ron," as your bitterness drives you to cling to your oil stocks. And today Honda announced delivery of the first hydrogen fuel cell cars for sale to the general public. You owe "Surfer" an apology.
As for your nonsense about oil drilling, you are spinning your wheels, going nowhere, as the truth is coming out about collusion in Big Oil to manipulate oil prices by "sitting on" millions of acres that are ready for drilling. In the long run, of course, people like me who run our A/C on solar photovoltaic and shop for all electric car options will be the ones who render your oil stocks worthless.

To Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:12 PM:At 3:08PM, Hey brah, Refer (not reefer) to my post at 4:16PM and 4:29PM today. Dude you would see that you were way off base with me in your rush to judgment and misguided accusations dude. Next time dude I suggest you look before you jump in the water dude. se ya brah!!

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:30 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:13 PM:
Yo Ron: Consumer demand, mass production and developing technology as well as your good old free capitalist market as well as even government incentive plans will make it all possible. You know just like the gasoline driven cars. It will all happen and be affordable. And, guess what Ron, you will own stocks in the new companies. I am surfer. That is my day job. Retired when I was 42. See ya!

Oh Please wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:38 PM:hardtack[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:54 PM
Oh Please! I have never met any conservative with a modicum of decorum or what you would describe as good manners.

Surfer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:45 PM:To Surfer[-] wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:12 PM: My good brah. So sorry Dude. I thought that I was coming down on Chuckie baby. As esteban might say, reefer good. Hang ten. As I paddle out after reading Alf's fantastic defense of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, I can shout over the sound of the ways, that is why he is KAHUNA of this blog.

Paul wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:03 PM:Would somebody please go to their refrigerator and do an accounting of the number of items including those in their freezer that are contained in plastic (and these use a heavy grade of plastic). I probably shouldn't mention it, as it will probably precipitate a future tax on those items.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:08 PM:I see in the Washington Post and the NYTimes that Congress has reached an agreement with the White House on “potential retroactive immunity” for those Telecomms that cooperated with GWB in warrantless wire taps – if the Telecomms can show that they had assurances from the government that the wiretaps were legal.

The ACLU is angered because they say they know such assurances do exist.

So after all this time of bashing the administration, why do the Democrats cave now and also open up more avenues to conduct wiretaps?

Reardon’s analysis: The previous Democratic positions were designed to bash the current administration.

The new Democratic position is designed to keep the presumptive next president from having his hands tied in prosecuting terrorism.

Cynical analysis? Absolutely! Realistic? Absolutely!

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:09 PM:To "Thanks Nick": You are quite welcome. I am glad the information was helpful and you can use it as a jumping off point for some research.
I do not think that bombing Iran would be a good idea for a couple of reasons.
First off, as others on these blogs have pointed out, not all Iranians hate The U.S. and the majority are more liberal than most of us realize. Bombing Iran would alienate those who would welcome our western ideas of Democracy and smash any last hope we have a having good relations with Iran in the future.
Before Irans President Ahmadinejad came to power, Iranian women had more freedom and had more rights than ever before. After he became President, there was a return to more strict version of Sharia Law.
We need these Iranian citizens support if we ever plan to have relations with Iran again.

Secondly, if were were to attack Iran, there would be more people the World over hating us than there is now. We have already alienated people who used to respect us and looked to the U.S. as leaders, but now despise us. We can not continue down this path.

Ahmadinejad will not be the President of Iran forever and we must take a different course of action.
For instance, Back in January, Iran’s supreme religious leader, in what appeared to be his first public dispute with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sided with Parliament in a conflict over energy policy.
The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, intervened after President Ahmadinejad had refused to carry out a measure that required his government to supply gas to remote villages during this year’s exceptionally cold winter.

Another thing(which is scary) is his idea of Islam to rule the world. Back in Dec of 2007, Ahmadinejad made the statement "If we would delete the ultimate objective of establishing a global system from the Haj rituals, the remainder would be deeds devoid of a soul."
President Ahmadinejad who had attended the gathering of Iranian Haj pilgrims at the Supreme Leader's Mecca Headquarter focused in his address over the significance of major Haj rituals, the philosophy behind them, and their ultimate objectives.
President Ahmadinejad said here Wednesday on Al-Adha Eid Day in Saudi Arabia philosophy of Haj can be defined merely through considering Islam's aim at establishment of a global government.
I don't believe that the majority of Iranians feel as President Ahmadinejad do, and he will be voted out of office before to long. We must keep those folks in our good graces and change our tactics.
I hope this helps you out.
Cheers, Nick.

David Cline is right wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:14 PM:Mr. Cline's sentiments on the current state of affairs in Escondido is spot on. His astute analysis of the upcoming City Council election and the candidates is also factual and reasonable. I too have lived in Esc many years and have seen the growing and divisive problems the thousands of illegal aliens have brought to our community. Mr. Abed and Mr. Gallo must be re elected or Escondido will sink faster than a ton of bricks.

Nick wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:17 PM:To "Thanks Nick": Here are some of my thoughts on how we can combat the trading of oil in Euros and stop the weakening of the dollar and bolster our economy.
Currently gold has been on quite a run and the price of gold tends to increase when there are too many dollars in the market. Remember when there are too many dollars in the market, the dollar becomes "cheap" and therefore something like gold becomes expensive (because people quit pursuing dollars and begin to pursue gold).
The bottom line is the Fed needs to raise interest rates or the market will do it for them. If the Fed doesn't raise interest rates we will see inflation in the double digits, which will cause financial institutions to raise interest rates substantially in order to continue to get a worthwhile return on their loans. If inflation is 10%, then a bank is going to loan you money at more than 10% interest in order to make their loan to you worthwhile. If they didn't, then they would be losing money.
Without a gold standard, the Fed has no means of determining how much liquidity markets demand, and all it does by targeting interest rates is guess how much liquidity to inject or withdraw to counteract mistakes it made earlier.

There is nothing mysterious about how gold could be used as a reference point or how a new monetary standard for a new millennium would work. It would simply mean the Fed would stop guessing how much liquidity is good for the economy and allow the market to make that decision for it. With the dollar defined in terms of gold and with American citizens free to buy and sell gold at will, the Fed would forget about raising or lowering interest rates and simply add liquidity (buy bonds) when the price of gold tries to fall and subtract liquidity (sell bonds) when it tries to rise. Markets would determine interest rates.

The paper dollar would once again be as good as gold-no more, no less. There would be no need for the U.S. government to maintain a large stock of gold or to redeem gold and dollars on demand since people would be free to do so on their own in the marketplace. As long as the Fed calibrated its infusions and withdrawals of liquidity by the market price of gold, the world would be free of monetary inflations and deflations caused by the whims and errors of central bank governors, as was the case for more than 200 years when the private Bank of England managed the pound sterling in exactly that way.
Cheers, Nick.

Poor Bill wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:18 PM:I didn't hear Obama's remark so I can't comment on even your facetious questions. I do notice that you, like most on the right (whether you consider yourself on the right or not), find phrases or words (like "57 states") that Obama might utter and go bananas over them, as if this were the great "Gotcha". This is beneath you Reardon. A man with your education should at least be debating at the level of the paragraph if not the entire essay or speech. So, in answer to your question, I have no idea what Obama meant. I do know that Obama has been rather consistent, since 2002, in declaring the war against al qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan legitimate and important, so if this helps you, I'm glad.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:28 PM:Ahhh...DD: CNN is reporting TODAY that a Gallup Poll shows 57% favor drilling in offshore currently protected areas (41% oppose).

TODAY, Newt reported 1 million signatures on his “Dill Here, Drill Now…” campaign.

Rasmussen Reports did a Florida poll and reports TODAY that 61% of Floridians support off-shore drilling.

The numbers are running against you, DD. Yes, in the long run you are right, but as has been said, “In the long run we are all dead.” (John Maynard Keynes)

Pap wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:30 PM:Some of you might recall that for about 40 years, we were in a so-called cold war. One leader of the USSR said something like "we will bury you" (although I believe that this, too, was given to us out of context). The USSR had demonstrated expansionist intentions. It also had many, many nuclear weapons (real ones) aimed at major US cities and military targets, and had the capability to deliver them. So to hear little Bushkins and McCainkins yammering about how al qaeda or "radical Islam" is something that we need extraordinary measures to combat...well, it makes me want to hurl. This is the response to one attack? This is a response to, at worst, a rare and occasional suicide bomber? Sorry, I refuse to make these kinds of threats life-changing, and I intend to resist and argue against any so-called leader who tries to snooker me into believing it's that big a deal. Most European countries and many other countries have been living their lives under these conditions for decades without anyone hollering that their way of life needs to be changed, or that their basic rules of law need to be changed. Pap. I reject the "war on terror". I fully support an intense, concentrated, prolonged effort on the part of our intelligence agencies, working with international allies, in infiltrating any groups that would harm Americans (even if the infiltrators might be gay, or, worse, gay and looking for a spouse!), in stopping those groups dead in their tracks, as I would support any effort to prevent heinous crime. But a "war"? Sorry, it ain't one, and I thoroughly reject that idea. If you think we're at war, you're a sucker and a fool and your fears are being used by others to increase their power and profits. They are even willing to kill your children for this. Don't be a sucker.

Chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:11 PM:Beside, Clinotn was just taking orders. The Muslims told him to carpet bomb Bosnia, so he repainted F-16's in UN colors and opened the bomb bay doors and let them fly

chuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:38 PM:>>>Honda announced delivery of the first hydrogen fuel cell cars for sale to the general public>>>> Now that you've spent $28K to buy your Cooper (with the Birchenstock adapter), another $40K is easily with reach of all Americans losing their jobs

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:51 PM:Poor Bill: Forget Obama, please address the questions on the Constitution. Apparently, no one else will, and you have not so far addressed anything I wrote. i never mentioned "57 states" -- that is the ultimate red herring, my questions are Constitutional in nature and not candidate specific.

Quit making me, or my education the issue: Address the questions -- if you dare. I do not know why Alf, or Apollo, or Solon passed...they may not even be reading today, but you were and you punted.

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:22 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 4:53PM and 9:51PM, I answered you, albeit a bit convoluted, at 2:56PM. If I did not answer all of what you asked, please specify what is left unanswered. Regards, Alf.

Bill wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:33 AM:I cant believe how many people are unable to tell the difference between a criminal defendant and a POW.

Guilty until proven innocent?

This is combat and not a court room.

Damn right its guilty until proven innocent.

Americans surviving in no way weakens our country.

Bush is taking your country back but you whine about it.

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:44 AM:The oil companies are raising the price of gasoline because they can. Period!!!

Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:52 AM:Well, "Bill" at 5:33AM, I agree with "Bush is taking your country" as in assuming and taking powers never meant for ANY President. I DO NOT AGREE that "Bush is taking your country back" AT ALL! Regards, Alf.

Oh Bill wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:41 PM:Has Bush fooled you into thinking there are no American casualties in Iraq? There are, you know. Thousands. Bush sneaks the dead ones under cover of night, but they're there nonetheless. And the wounded and traumatized fill the wards and vet centers. Many of our troops have had multiple tours of duty, many have had their tours extended. Many Americans, in other words, have NOT survived. Not many people believe any more that they ever were fighting, in Iraq, to save us back home from anything. Some of us never believed it. I can understand, Bill, why it's so important to you TO believe it, though. You seem to have very strong patriotic feelings towards this country. I can only imagine what it would be like for you, with those strong feelings, to come to see that you'd been had, and that those troops had been had. What would it be like if you woke up one day and really KNEW that the entire Iraq invasion was a lie, that your President would actually do this to your country? So, never mind, Bill. I know that's too disturbing an idea to entertain. It would mean too many really awful things. Sickening things. Stay patriotic, Bill.

gas pains wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:36 PM:David Cline did you learn nothing 2 years ago?Immigration Issues ,the City Council has no power ,its federal.Lets not allow current issues in our town to be clouded by issues they have no power over.Wasting more of our tasx dollars.Why would anyone vote to re-elect people that have taken our town to the gutter?This didnt happen over night.Vote these mismanagers OUT.Fire Epp too.He is paid too much and makes just too many typos etc.