jvc wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:23 AM:WE LOVE YOU GEORGE!

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:02 AM:I see Hussein Obama is bashing McCain for changing his position on offshore drilling. McCain was against offshore drilling when gas was $2. He now sees the carnage that $4.50 gas is doing to American jobs and inflation and did what was best for America. Hussein prefers to do what's best for Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria and Mexico and do nothing for America. Hussein bashed Bush for spending money on Iraq, but favor us sending hundreds of billions to the oil cartel. Thats just how liberals are. And when the American electorate sees that Hussein doesnt give a crap about American jobs and inflation, they'll thrown him to history's scrap waste, with the likes of Hillary.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:07 AM:A county official responded to a question that they had expended over 1000 hours in overtime pay to accomodate
the new flood of marriages. I wonder if they would have paid that for heterosexual marriages??? It goes to show you just who is running things in this county

Roberto wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:17 AM:I'm tired of all the hate filled & lie filled e-mails about Obama. All you have to do is go to snopes.com and guess what?...with this said, I'm voting for John Macain since he he is more qualifed and has a tract record. Obama who? a.nd the antibushites?...get a life

McPander wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:48 AM:Even the hard core Conservatives here agree that gas prices won't go down if we begin offshire drilling because it will take ten or more years for that oil to come online. (Except for Ron, who personally profits.) John McCain, much like his gas tax holiday, is saying offshore drilling will bring the price of gas down immediately, even though he knows it is not true.

More qualified and a track record? So? McCain is a flat out liar.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:03 AM:McPander[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:48 AM: Now, now. It is not polite to call John McCain a liar even if he is one.

Backcountry wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:07 AM:I don't think the oil companies want to produce more oil because that will make the price go down. Even if they did try, the environmental roadblocks would stall the process and make the cost of producing more energy go up. Speculators sure don't want the price to go down but they don't own the oil leases. Congress doesn't care what happens as long as they get reelected. Forget Obama and Mc Cain.

If every American would take this threat to our nation and economy as their personal responsibility and cut back on their daily use of gasoline by 20-30% and stick with it we could bring down the price of fuel considerably as well as saving money. Remember....is this trip necessary?

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:07 AM:The news is reporting that the U.N. says fair presidential vote in Zimbabwe is impossible. I have an easy solution for that. Since Mugabe stole the election by killing the family of the election winner, all Mugabe needs to do is hire and pay Jimmy Carter to say what Mugabe did was best for Zimbabwe. Hugo Chavez paid Carter, why cant Mugabe. Then Mugabe should hire Ramsey Clark, you know, the former attorney general that the liberals sent over to defend Saddam Hussein. He will make sure the murders are blamed on some white, heterosexual, male from North Dakota

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:09 AM:Hussein Obama doesnt think gas prices are high enough, so he's going to massivley raise taxes on the oil companies, thinking that will lower gas prices. Thats how Harvard trained liberals who've never had a real job before think

To Joe Parra wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:18 AM:Good letter and good point.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:22 AM:Liberals think by further bailing out homeowners from foreclosure, the problem will be solved. LOL. Those people are norobably $100,000 upside down on their mortgages. Do you think paying paying 7% instead of 8% in a govt bailout, will keep them in a mortgage that is $100,000 more than the value of the house. It's just another "make you feel good plan" frpm sugar-daddy Unlce Sam. And of course, while you are re-financing, they hope you wont notice that they are quietly brining back Amnesty and the Dubai port deal under the cover of darkness.

To Backcountry wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:32 AM:You have to factor in the global economy. The United States consumption of gas has already dropped from last year, but the increased demand from China and others offset that and keep the global market high. We must focus on developing alternative energy rather than fighting for the last few drops remaining oil.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:32 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:07 AM: Demented drivel. But, it must be the coffee. What's the brand?

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:35 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:22 AM:
Dude. They want to save the homeowner in order to save the lenders who are in many instances foreign investors which directly effects the traded dollar. Its a save the rich and the corporations scheme. Why do you hate homeowners and the poor?

Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:37 AM:Chuck: Music to my ears. Keep saying my name, "Hussein." It is music to everyone's ears. Thanks again!

Up Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:43 AM:Apparently, everybody is entitled to Chuck's opinion.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:49 AM:>>>Why do you hate homeowners and the poor?>>> I don't hate homeowners and the poor. I hate people who buy homes way above their means, put their name to a mortgage and when things go bad, they run for the hills, leaving the people who invest in mortgages high and dry. Just because you think your signature doesnt mean anything, doesnt mean I hate homeowners.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:52 AM:>> Demented drivel. But, it must be the coffee. What's the brand?>>> I will admit, I was running late and stopped at
SBUX instead of brewing my own today

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:54 AM:>>>Keep saying my name, "Hussein." It is music to everyone's ears.>>> Its certainly music to the liberals ears. First, their hero gets caught, convicted and hung in Baghdad, and now a new Hussein arise, and raised his staff and the Red Sea parts, and women faint at his very presence.

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:58 AM:It could work as a part of a larger mix, Sarah Turitto. Scheduled to come on line in 2030, the technology still requires oil. Even if we were able to power them by electrical power, we would then need to develop nuclear power.
Build Here.
Build Now.
Develop Nuclear.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:03 AM:Oh, I forgot, there is one more group I hate. Those are people who bought their homes 13 years ago, refinanced 8 times to suck every dollar out, and now have walked away from their house because they are way upside down. I'm almost to the point where I think that any proceeds from refianced mortages not used to upgrade the home or for business purposes should be taxable income, especially refinancing to buy a boat, Mercedes, or pay off credit cards, etc

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:06 AM:Something just a little distrubing about Harriett Bledsoe's letter today.
It's a phrase she uses: "These pro-development three..."
My first reponse is: "Why only three?"
Why not ALL?
Development means progress.
Aren't you progressive, Harriett?
If not, I guess that makes you anti-development? Sense you describe them as "pro"-development.
Drill Here.
Drill Now.
Pay Less.

Observation wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:08 AM:Four Americans, six Iraqis killed in Baghdad bomb blast AFP
Two GIs among six dead in Sadr City blast United Press International

Backcountry wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:17 AM:We need to continue producing oil, especially our own, but Congress (I hate to say) needs to get their heads out of the sand and develop an energy plan for our future that includes incentives to develop alternative energy tied to oil production. Environmental regulations and restrictions will greatly drive up the cost of doing anything. These regulations must be softened before we can create a good energy program.

Remember, it takes time and money to develop any source of energy. Electric cars won't get free energy. Someone needs to produce the energy to charge the batteries. Someone needs to have a reason (money) to develop electric cars. Solar or wind can be used to charge batteries but don't expect it to be free. Many new sources of energy use more energy to produce than is economical or practical. Everything comes with a price. Every new source of energy impacts the environment.

to Joe Parra wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:22 AM:It would seem that the whiney libs are the ones doing the most complaining. I fine with things. No complaints here. Yes, I do work for a living.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:37 AM:>>>>Four Americans, six Iraqis killed in Baghdad bomb blast AFP
Two GIs among six dead in Sadr City blast United Press International>>>

That should keep the liberals giddy for a few days

To Joe Parra wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:41 AM:I am embarassed to say I voted for Bush. I am disgusted with his actions or lack of action to what is best for the American people. I am not a liberal, I am conservative Republican. I will not be voting McBush oh I mean McCain because I am sick of the status quo. I will be voting for Barack Hussein Obama to bring a change to America!!!

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:42 AM:Arm-twisting or suing OPEC to lower
the price of crude are liberal non-solutions, and they are non-starters.
If we want to run this economy on electrical power, we need to build nuclear power plants, no doubt.
Once we get Harry Reid out of the way, we will have a safe place to store our nuclear waste.
The problem is we have Democrats dragging their feet on progress.
The future is nuclear, and they are obstructing, G. Lance Johannsen.

Oh raoul second try wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:46 AM:Raoul is insisting that the surge is a great success. I'm rather impressed with it myself. I posted Sunday some data from the NY Times showing that things in Iraq are improving in many important ways. Oil is up to pre-invasion levels (and our oil companies got their no-bid contracts to work that oil: mission accomplished). Violence is way down. The Iraqi troops now number about a half million. And half the political benchmarks have been met. Not only that, but 73% of Iraqis say that the US should leave ASAP. Under these circumstances, a rational (or should we say "gullible"?) person would think that McCain and Bush would be proclaiming victory and beginning to pull the troops out. Remember the promise? "We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up"? Um, they're standing up. So is this the Bush/McCain position? NO! Their position is the exact opposite. They want 58 permanent bases in Iraq. They want the Iraqis to give the US permission to conduct any military ops it wishes without even having to check with the sovereign nation of Iraq. They want all US troops and mercenaries to be declared immune from Iraqi law. You see, raoul, it was all about oil and imperialism all along, like we said. I know this makes you happy, being a militarist, but most Americans would find this appalling. It's also an admission that all the previous "reasons" for the invastion were pure bogus. I am deeply ashamed that Bush and McCain have this aim in mind for Iraq. They are the reason people like Chris Pulse can make such accurate accusations towards our nation.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:48 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:37 AM: Conservatives will be giddy. After all, it shows the surge is working.

Surfer wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:51 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:42 AM: The people of Neveda will not tolerate their state being a waste dump for spent nucular fuel regards of the presence of Harry Reid. So, that is a non starter as well.
See Ya!

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:54 AM:It's not just "Frivolous matters distract {that} him, obviously facts are difficult too. Eh, Wayne Strache?
Not to get bogged down,he does cite on statistic that is so far off, it needs to be addressed.
He says: "Forty percent of Americans have no health insurance..."

Wrong! Less than 15 percent have no health insurance. Nearly a third of those are "wealthy" and have elected not to have health insurance.
Another 1/3, are now qualified for low income solutions, they just have not elected to use them.
The last 1/3 is a transitional problem, of lacking health insurance between jobs.
But finally...
for those who think universal healthcare is the solution, I want you to look up Barbara Wagner, a 64 year old Oregonian who was denied care for her cancer by Oregon's State run healthcare plan. Her doctor had prescirbed to her medication, which the state denied, but instead offered her "palliative care", which included doctor assisted suicide.
As I understand the State's position, they perfer to use their resources on child birth, children's healthcare, and prenatal services.
As Yes.. all those future taxpayers.

Oder in the house wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:02 AM:Hussein
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:37 AM: "Chuck: Music to my ears. Keep saying my name". Typical of Hussein and wannabees, I am so beautiful, Everyone loves me, I am the greatest, How pathetic, How Smelly, How Hussein!

Do you get it now wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:06 AM:From the NY Times QUOTE WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration. ENDQUOTE Maybe now you folks will begin to understand what the flap about the fired attorneys was about all along. The conversion of the United States Department of Justice into a Republican political entity. Maybe it's hard to grasp, but think about it. This Department's mission is all about JUSTICE, about objectively defending and carrying out the laws of the land. We want to count on this department for fairness. Not under Bush/Cheney. They used it as a tool for their political advancement. If it helps, try imagining if this had been discovered under Clinton. See? Pretty upsetting, isn't it? If you aren't nauseated by what Cheney and Bush have done since 2000, you either aren't paying attention or you aren't an American.

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:10 AM:Obama is not the post racial candidate. How can you be, when your campaign has accused most every other Democrat of being racist? Hillary, Bill, Geraldine Ferraro... I mean, come on!
Beyond those people, you have the wrong Rev. Wright, Farakhan, and loose lip's Father Phleger. All non-racial, don'tcha see....
But what will sink the Obamaman's campaign will not be any of these...
it will be that he is anti-progress.
Hard to believe a progressive is not progressive.
Oil will sink him, cause regular Americans still need to drive to work.
Drill Here.
Drill Now.
Pay Less.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:25 AM:Leon Smith: No. The Obamas are not playing the race card. But, Leon, you sure are. What do you have against people of color?
Or, is this just one of the cards in your swift boat hand of slime?

HusseinsPerfectExcuse wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:34 AM:Everytime Hussein is asked a question on virtually any subject, and he doesnt know how to respond, he plays the ever present race card. Soon, even those who went to public school will reject that game

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:37 AM:>>Wrong! Less than 15 percent have no health insurance.>>> But they all multiple cell phones, $200 Nike's, a PS3, and wireless internet for porn

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:38 AM:Oh, don't worry about him, James Ciriello. The wrong Rev. Wright is now "retired" into his 10,000 sq. ft. home paid for by the good people of his church. It cost quite a bundle too, as I understand it. Not to worry, the Obama'a gave $27,000.
Drill Here.
Drill Now.
Pay Less.
Employ Americans.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:39 AM:The published letter from Joe Parra is right to hold Bush/Cheney/McCain responsible for the utter devastation their policies have wrought, but wrong to make the blanket statement "You voted for this warmonger." I did not and those of us who didn't don't deserve what we got.
And the published letter from Wayne Strache really frosts me. This pseudo liberal campaigned viciously against Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 because they were not sufficiently "pure" in being as fully leftist as he thought they should be, and supported Nader instead. He repeatedly ridiculed those of us who did support these viable candidates who both came within a hair's breadth of taking the White House. As Joe Parra's letter notes, the world would have been a hugely different place today if either of them had won their elections. It is not just those who voted for that warmonger who are responsible, it is people like Strache who vigorously campaigned to divert votes away from the only viable alternatives. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
So now Strache doesn't even think it is important to stand up for the Civil Rights of our gay and lesbian citizens? The man is a mole for the right wing conservatives.

Obama should be smarter wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:44 AM:than to compare himself to JFK, after all it was JFK that left our allies the Cuban exiles to die in the Bay of Pigs.
Maybe Obama should go back to the history books rather than dissing everybody.

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:45 AM:Now your starting to catch on, Andy Pino!

"career politicians" and 30 years of liberal Democrats running Sacramento.

Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:48 AM:Focal Point
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:25 AM:

Can you please enlighten us on how one can criticize Barrack Obama without being called a racist? While you're at it how would one go about expressing one's displeasure over the illegal immigration situation?

Thanks in advance for giving us polite objecters an avenue to vent without offending the other side.

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:49 AM:(Quote) CBS News – (IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei )The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Iran could create a nuclear weapon in six months.

Actually, Cris has a point – Iran is a sovereign country, and has every right to do what Israel and North Korea have done – develop nuclear weaponry.

The votes of the United Nations may make some political impact on nations, but no legal impact – it is all public relations.

So, should we stand by and "let” Iran make nuclear weapons? Should Israel? Should the United Nations?

Well, only if “might makes right.”

Sometimes, it does!

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:55 AM:James Ciriello's letter simply perpetuates the same old lies about Rev. Wright.
Sure, he had his faults and focused too much on the negatives.
But he never said he hated America. Ever. He identified problems and wanted to address the problems.
Even his famous (infamous?) "God damn America," when taken in context, is about a loving God who stands up against the aspects of America's legacy such as slavery, intolerance and unjustified war, but leads her lovingly back to the better angels of our nature.
The "damnation" referred to is a religious reference in a religious sermon, and refers to the stern confrontation against sin while holding out the promise of repentance and redemption.
Of course, the 10-second sound clip never shows that, does it?

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:55 AM:Let's work together to see if we can find any logic here, Thomas Arnold.

How can a city spend $70 million on a golf course that's bleeding $1 million a year in red ink, and then quibble over a Desal plant?

Nope, not see'n any.

Build Here.
Build Now.
Go Desal!

One or the other wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:00 AM:I see James Dobson is declaring that Obama has a "fruitcake" version of the Bible in his head. Brilliant remark that, mixing criticism of Obama, reassurance to his flock that their Christianity is the true one, and a dash of soothing homophobia in one sentence. So this will be a theme: half the slimers will say Obama is Muslim, the other half will say he's the wrong kind of Christian. It's so generous of God and Jesus to be willing to be used by these folks for their political ends, isn't it?

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:05 AM:>>>I'm tired of all the hate filled & lie filled e-mails about Obama.>>>
Yeah, all put out by the Clinton's.

Yokozuna wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:08 AM:We keep seeing on these posts the oil vs. renewable sources debate as if they're mutually exclusive. However, we need to have both. It will take years before we have the advantages of both arguments. Why is it being touted as only one or the other? Let's address 1) increasing renewable sources and well as 2) increasing domestic oil production even though demand will decrease for the latter. The real danger will continue to be that we are not self sufficient in both these needed sources.

To Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:21 AM:Thank You, I have been on the fence in this election over the two candidates, However, Thanks to you and others like you with your constant Haussein this and Hussain that. Well, Call it what ever you want, I don't care, But I do not pray to Mecca and I do not live in the Middle East. You have pushed me right off of the Obama side of the bleachers. I won't spend the next four hearing "Hussein is so handsome".

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:22 AM:HusseinsPerfectExcuse[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:34 Kind of interesting. Please give exact examples of the race card being played as well as the questions that Obama could not answer?

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:23 AM:Do you get it now[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:06 AM: And, most of them are graduates from the most prestigious law school from Regent's University. LOL.

Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:27 AM:Oder in the house[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:02 AM: And that is how one answers the obvious swift boat lies and allegations posted by people probably like you. When notified of your tactics, you attack the messenger. But it is people of your ilk and lack of mind that are guilty of being pathetic with your disdain and hatred of man simply because he just don't fit your ideological mold and philosophy. ...

To oder in the house wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:42 AM:Currently in the White House their is a foul odor of blood. The blood dripping from the hands of George W. for engaging us in an illegal war. The blood of American's who have lost their lives over there and the blood of innocent Iraqi's he is reponsible for killing.

I Do Declare wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:45 AM:It seems we have had to endure several posts from Obamacan over the past few weeks, doing nothing but getting all wiggee while defending statements Obama or his camp made, I do declare,Obamacan is Obama's offical PR defense attorney. Not much new, Just defend, rephrase and sugarcoat what was already said.

Asteroid wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:59 AM:Re: Paul Robert's letter today. In case you're not familiar with Mr. Vandoorn, he's about as far out on the left fringe as one could possibly get. Liberals don't offer solutions because they have none, it's not their nature. They just complain and expect big government to make everything better; which of course seldom happens, which only leads to even more complaining. It's the insanity cycle of liberalism.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:03 AM:The blog at 9:44 a.m. criticizes Obama for comparing himself to JFK.
As usual, this blogger is not smart enough to get it right.
Obama did not compare himself to JFK.
That comparison was made by JFK's own daughter, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, promptly echoed by Ted Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy.

And "Declare" at 10:45 a.m. is doing nothing but getting all wiggee because someone comes to this blog and writes their opinion. This is the essence of the Republican slime machine:
1. Shut everyone else up.
2. Slime the other guy but whine about anyone who responds.
3. Can't find one single good thing to say about your own flip-flopping candidate.
Thanks for proving my point!

To Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:05 AM:Hussein
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:27 AM: And that my simple minded friend is why this is America, You call it hatred because someone disagrees with you, Fine, If you are from the middle east ( and I am not convinced you are) then that's how you were raised, But not here! I can tell you how I feel, Just like you are doing. Unlike your handsome Husseins last known place of residence.

to Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:11 AM:Solution: let Israel offer to scuttle all its nuclear weapons if Iran gives up the program. Let the US support this deal by agreeing to pull its troops out of Iraq and its nuclear-armed warships out of the Gulf. Fair is fair, after all. Deal?

Oder in the house wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:16 AM:To: 10:42AM, I hate to burst your bubble, but I agree with your statement, I was talking to Hussein on another topic altogether, Why do some people think you have to be in "love" with the name Hussein in order to support Obama? It simply is NOT true. Answer that one.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:17 AM:To Hussein[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:21 AM: If you were paying attention with your eyes instead of your prejudices, you could easily see that this was a cap on the use of the name, Hussein, constantly by Chuck.
You were never for Obama. That is easily seen by your retort about Muslims and Mecca. You stated or threated loss of your vote for Obama is an outright lie. You have absolutely no veracity. Therefore, your opinion is worthless.

Man o Man wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:19 AM:Obama should be smarter Obama has been compared to JFK. Obama, himself, has never compared himself to JFK. Do you anti Obamamaites have an IQ at all.

Ralphs wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:19 AM:To Harriet Bledsoe - Why is that when you had the majority of Wood, Sanchez and Mackin everything was just hunky dory. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you don't like it. Stop whinning and do what the rest of us do, live within the boundaries that we are given.

Apollo wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:20 AM:Re: Karl (9:48 a.m.)
You ask: "how one can criticize Barrack Obama without being called a racist?"
Answer: Challenge him on issues instead of pretending he doesn't have extensive specific proposals, or attacking him based on false rumors about his background or holding him responsible for what others say. Defend your guy instead of passing along rumors that any well-read person knows to be false.

to Obamacan wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:22 AM:OBAMACAN
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:03 AM:And "Declare" at 10:45 a.m. is doing nothing but getting all wiggee because someone comes to this blog and writes their opinion. Obamacan, I would Love to read an "original" opinion from you, and not some reworked rehash, That's what I have been waiting for. Thats all.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:25 AM:Karl[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:48 AM:
Hi Karl. Let us get to the important stuff first. What was the score out on the green's today? It is my observation that you a classy guy and a polite person. If I were against Obama, I would not be evening race, creeds, religion, heritage or his name. I would be approaching it on his record or lack of record, his speeches, his public opinion, plan or lack of plan and his vision or lack of vision for this country. Illegal immigration for me is not a racial issue. It is a legal issue and an international issue as well. Doesn't matter what your race, creed, heritage, language or gender is. If you crossed the international border into the USA without a passport or a visa, you are an invader, should be apprehended and deported. Regards to Karl. FP

Cluck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:36 AM:>>>>Four Americans, six Iraqis killed in Baghdad bomb blast AFP
Two GIs among six dead in Sadr City blast United Press International>>>

That should keep the liberals giddy for a few days"

Actually, no. Just like Charlie Black says any terrorist attack is an advantage for McCain. OOPS. He's just saying out loud what all these filthy conservatives have felt since their favorite day in history; 9/11. Since then they have cornered the market on fear, pushed this country to the brink of ruin economically, socially, morally, all in the name of making a buck. Osama Bin Laden has been the greatest marketing tool the Republican party has had since they coined the term "Family Values". However, once people realized they had no values they needed to step it up a notch. And people feign shock when a top advisor for McCain speaks the truth about how the feel a terrorist attack would benefit their campaign. LOL. Is there any doubt why conservatism is dead in this country?

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:39 AM:Well, "Roberto" at 6:17AM, while it is your right to vote for whoever you wish, please consider the wisdom (or lack thereof) in voting for someone who wants to continue the same downward spiral as GWB. Ask yourself, are the over 4,100 DEAD American Troops better off than in 2002? Is the economy better off than in 2002? Do you want the decline that GWB has foisted off onto us to continue? If the answer to any of those is yes, then vote McGWB. If the answer is no to all of them, vote for someone else. Regards, Alf.

Wow Apollo wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:46 AM:Your reply to Karl is so, um, sane! It seems beyond most Americans to take your advice. Look at what Obama specifically says about an issue. Look at what McCain specifically says about that issue. Compare and contrast. Who'da ever thought of approaching candidates this way? It might even be more informative than looking at each one's middle name, or sicking the FauxNewshounds to find a phrase that they can transform into a big story! Great advice! I hope Karl takes it!

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:49 AM:The liberals favorite former head of the liberals favorite organization, Kofi Annan, spoke to the Global Humanitarian Forum, and let the cat out of the bag a bit early.

“Rich countries” (Read the U.S.) must share their wealth with “poor countries” (read all Third World countries) by bearing the brunt of the changes necessary to fight “Global Warming.”

Been there, done that. It was called Kyoto, and it was defeated 95-0 by the Senate, including uber-leftist Ted Kennedy.

Now, admittedly times have changed, The Democrats now have as a candidate the most liberal Senator available, even to the left of Uncle Teddy (and not nearly as experienced), so Kofi may get his wish.

Meanwhile Obama not only supports but offered a Senate Bill (S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007) to send EXTRA HUNDREDS of BILLIONS a year to the UN for "world poverty."

Global Warming energy caps on rich nations but not on poor, and more money for the UN for global poverty -- either way it is income redistribution as practiced internally by Democrats, or worldwide by the UN.

"Mr. Obama, please meet Mr. Annan -- Oh, I see you already know each other."

Ms M wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:53 AM:to Obamacan
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:22 AM:Obamacan, I would Love to read an "original" opinion from you, and not some reworked rehash, That's what I have been waiting for. Thats all....You know maybe you would get some new stuff from Obamacan if the bloggers would write something different other than the "same tired negative hash" that is written about Obama on this blog. That's all.

Two biggies wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:55 AM:Earlier today we had a post that shows that Bush/Cheney used the Justice Dept as an arm of the Republican party. We also had a post that shows how the goal of the Iraq invasion was imperialistic. These two things are of enormous importance. And here we are talking about someone's middle name. The idea of the informed American citizen must be completely obsolete. We don't deserve democracy. Maybe we should have a king, but please, can it be one with a brain and a conscience and a heart for a change?

To Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:57 AM:On Jun 24, 2008 11:17 AM: You have lost focus Focal Point. Don't you dare tell me who I am leaning towards. You don't know me, or my mind set, or what I have been through. People don't fall into just two convenient categories for you to judge. Life is more complicated than that! I have experienced loss thanks to Saddam and his little boys. My point was, Obama is not Muslim, Right? So stop throwing away potential votes(like mine), by shoving that name down our throats. I, just like perhaps countless other Americans equate the name Hussein with Saddam. That was his name! Get ovet it. And I don't want to think of Saddam every time I look at Obama. Can you understand and that?

Surfer wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:59 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:05 AM: Dude. Which one of the bloggers is Clinton? I didn't know she was here. Hillary, what is your handle? See ya!

sdraoul wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:07 PM:It is hard to criticize Obama without being called a racist because race is pure and simple the basis for Obama's campaign. Look at what they did to the first "Black President" Mr. Clinton.

Geraldine Ferraro -- Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were white. Obama's campaigners-- Ferraro is a racist.

Any critic of Jeremiah Wright for hsi anti-American views that were bandied about for 20 years in front of Obama is called a racist because Rev. Wright really doesn't hate America.

Yes, he does. Obama refused to rid himself of Wright until the heat grew then he did.

He informed the world that his grandmother had racist views, probably expressed by use of the "N" word then threw her under the bus.

He glides over the fact that his white middle class college educated mother figured out how to "game" the system by collecting food stamps when poor people had tougher and harder times. Was she guilty of fraud?

Obamacan will demand to know on what dates his mother "gamed" the system and possibly committed welfare fraud but she doesn't have to believe me, it is in his book an autobiography written by his Angelic self.

Lastly, when anyone reads that someone says they voted for Bush and are now going to vote for Obama, don't believe them. Especialyl when they call the war "illegal." It was not and is not.

It was sanctioned by the Congress of the United Sattes and the United Nations for Sadaam's not living up to 14 separate U.N. resolutions. Force was authorized by an overwhelming vote in both the House and Senate.

No intelleigent person can declare the Iraq war illegal when the Congress of the United States voted to authorize force by the President. There is no argument.

If anyone declares that Bush lied, they are liars for the President didn't "game" intelligence that was provided to him by the CIA. Remember "Slam Dunk."

McCain: "I don't see immediate relief" about the gas problem. Isn't that truth? But he has recommended tax holidays, more exploration, more production and more refineries and, more importantly, more nuclear power and other alternative energy production such as yanking the punitive tariffs on sugar cane ethanol that Obama voted for.

Obama protects corn farmers in Illinois and Iowa while sugar cane ethanol costs less than half what Obama stands for so he can get farm votes and campaign dollars.

These are long term solutions that Obama fights.

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:08 PM:What? No takers on Ray Russell's plan?

"I am proposing that they build wind generators along the coast, thereby having the power generated where it is needed."

It's clean energy! Think of all the electric cars we could plug in?

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:15 PM:There you go again, "Chuck" at 7:52AM, dealing with the devil starhucks. That stuff will cause warts. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:18 PM:I voted for public financing of my campaign, before I voted against it.
- Barack Obama

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:23 PM:Wizzer @ 9:39 AM:
"And the published letter from Wayne Strache really frosts me. This pseudo liberal... The man is a mole for the right wing conservatives."

LOL, go get em Wiz! LOL...........

Drill Here.
Drill Now.
Pay Less.

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:31 PM:Yokozuna: I am certain you have noticed who the naysayers are.

The conservatives do not oppose wind power, solar power. geothermal power, etc.

It is liberals who oppose nuclear power, drilling, transmission lines, desal water, (fill in the blank.)

Liberals have designed a two layer line of defense. The first is, "Hey, I don't oppose (enter one single item here."

The second line of defense is "I support (fill in an item or two here), but it must be done in an environmentally sensitive manner." ("And there is no way in hell you can find sufficient environmental controls to satisfy me!")

Politically, it is brilliant. At least until the people catch on, and then it is pitchfork and torch time, amidst heating of tar and plucking of feathers. That depends upon pain – as in Prop. 13, and the aborted Shamnesty Bill.

The longer politicians hold out amidst the rising anger, the rougher it will be for them -- most politicians are smart enough to moderate early, but some are not.

hardtack wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:35 PM:Someone said: “Politics is sport for old guys.” That seems apt. Some of you defend your political partisanship like European soccer fans brawling over colors.
It’s: “our guys vs. there guys.”
It’s: “our guy is Santa Clause – their guy is Scrooge”
Adults need to stop believing in Santa Clause at some point in their lives, or the country is screwed, no matter whose “guy” gets elected.
Read “Human Action” (Ludwig von Mises - 1949)
Get a copy.
Read it now.
Read “The Road to Surfdom” (F. A. Hayek - 1944)
Get a copy.
Read it now.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:38 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 9:49AM, you ask "So, should we stand by and "let” Iran make nuclear weapons? Should Israel? Should the United Nations?", my answer is "yes, but...". The "but" is that the U.S. is pretty damned arrogant (falsely and delusionally so, I might add), it is not the be all and end all and not the country which decides what other countries may or may not do within their borders, despite what some would have people believe. More and more it is becoming obvious that the U.S. has achieved a "rogue nation" status ("Shock and Awe" and occupying a nation that did not even threaten us, let alone actually attack us), GWB is the most recent and most vicious president so far and McGWB wants to carry on in the same fashion. Regards, Alf.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:42 PM:Surfer, I won't hold my breath for the hydrogen fuel cell, but I do admit they make zero emmissions. So do electric cars. I'm liking the hybrids. Like Yokozuna said, we need both alternative energy and good old oil in the near future to survive. Another big south on the way dude. Get ready for some free energy. Regards, C-1.

Chris to Nick wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:50 PM:You say that we don't target the innocent. That may be true, except look at what happened in Haditha and don't try to weasel out of it. On 60 minutes it was brought out that we have people that follow someone we want to kill and it is up to a group to determine if there will be too much collateral damage in taking out the target. When asked how many innocents it is acceptable to take our along with the target the person being interviewed said that it is acceptable to kill 30 innocent people in trying to take out the target. Asked how many innocent people were killed the person said 200. Asked how many targets were taken out the answer was none. The problem is that our military has far more firepower than any muslims have and the fact is that we just don't give a damn about how many innocents we kill. Period. We started this war and we have killed and maimed more innocents than Hussein did in his intire reign. The civil unrest is the result of what we did. Now for you to excuse what we did by talking about what someone else does is disengenuous at best. Now it is estemated that we killed 3 million in Vietnam. Many of the deaths committed in other countries are the result of our support for the butchers who did the killing. Just check out Indonesia and the invasion of east timor. The blood that Suharto spilt is on our hands. You know about the Indians. The US has been involved in more killings in our short history than any other country. So as far as what I have said I still stand by it and in no way do I concider it WAY OUT THERE.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:50 PM:How dare Wayne Strache actually point out those other "minor irritants", those distractions from what will tear the U.S. asunder? "Gay" marriage will not send over 4,100 American Troops to their deaths in Iraq like GWB did. "Gay" marriage will not send the economy into a tailspin like GWBs "War on Terror" has done. So, obviously, "Gay" marriage must get people all riled up and demand that "the will of the people" be obeyed in the courts while "the will of the people" (over 70 percent) in the U.S. and "the will of the people" in Iraq about getting the U.S. out of Iraq need not be obeyed. Strange priorities indeed. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:54 PM:Well, "Yokozuna" at 10:08AM, you are right. We seem to have too many "either/or" people and not enough "both" people. Regards, Alf.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:54 PM:Totally hilarious to see someone sign a blog as "To Obamacan" (11:22 a.m.) whining about anyone else being original.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:57 PM:I see that "Karl" survived this weekend. Regards, Alf.

Chris to Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:04 PM:I guess that if those GIs weren't in Sadr city they wouldn't have been killed. Now of course the reason they are in Sadr city is to squash the opposition to our puppet government.

Bill Too wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:11 PM:(Not to be confused with Bill One) Playing catch-up again. Seems like I never have enough time to answer all the blogs – unlike some of the regulars who seem to have nothing else to do. Here are some of my pet peeves for today.

Some of the bloggers (who will remain unnamed) seem to have an obsession with NOT raising taxes – especially for the wealthy. I have a suggestion. Lets establish a FLAT TAX – I mean a REAL flat tax on ALL INCOME from WHATEVER source (including income from investments, interest, stocks, bonds, etc) over a minimum of $25,000 – NO EXCUSES – NO DEDUCTIONS for ANYTHING – PERIOD – on all income made in this country. NO exemptions for residence or corporate headquarters offshore. You Make the money here you pay tax here. Corporations should have a limitation on allowable company expenses of say 10% of their income to cover all things such as executive salaries, advertising, etc. This would preclude the obscene salaries some company executives are paid and ensure that the money was used for bettering the company. With this program I can foresee that the annual Federal tax rate would be approximately 5% FOR EVERYONE and we would have enough tax income to pay off the National Debt within the lifetime of the current taxpayers – NOT our great-great grandchildren.

Some bloggers still want us to impeach Bush – are they crazy? That would make Cheney President. Do we really want HIM to have his finger on the trigger?

The topic of abortion is again slipping into the Blog – we already have a program of EXTREMELY late term abortion in effect - it is called the “War in Iraq.” We are killing off (and maiming) our young men – and also helping with the world over-population problem. Isn’t that REALLY what wars are all about?

I see regular comments about “The polls show…” Have any of you ever taken any of the top named polls? I have participated in a number of the Gallup Polls. There are a number of choices listed for each question, with no space for alternate entries. A blank entry is not counted as a vote against – only checked blocks are counted. The answers are programmed by the results desired by the company or group that PAYS to have the poll taken. It is entirely possible to have a million questionnaires submitted and have only ONE block checked with the others blank to give a result of 100% approval of that question. I have no faith in polls.

Ms M wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:20 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:18 PM:I voted for public financing of my campaign, before I voted against it.
- Barack Obama

The following posted on "First Read":
With so much attention on Obama's reversal on public financing, liberal bloggers like Arianna Huffington and Josh Marshall have wondered why McCain's own apparent flip flop on the subject hasn't received as much scrutiny.

Well the Democratic National Committee is trying to change that by filing a lawsuit in US District Court in DC to force the Federal Election Commission to investigate McCain's decision to opt in the public matching funds system for the primaries, secure a loan based on those public funds, and then withdraw from the system after becoming the GOP front-runner. McCain, though, never actually received those public funds before opting out.

"The chairman of the FEC," the lawsuit states, "has already advised Sen. McCain that he is not free to withdraw unilaterally from his agreement with the FEC and to ignore the legal requirements of the Matching Payments Act, without the FEC's approval. Yet Sen. McCain cannot obtain such approval, because he already violated a key condition for dispensing with the Agreement by which he entered the matching funds program: he has pledged matching funds as collateral for a loan to his campaign."

Had McCain not opted out of the matching funds program, he would be limited in how much he can raise and spend up until the GOP convention -- which would put him at an enormous disadvantage against Obama's fundraising machine.

Seems like your guy McFlipFlopper has a problem in the area.....um....

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:24 PM:Alf: Aside from taking my query as a jumping off point to reflexively bash GWB, you didn’t answer the question. You said, “Yes, but…’ The “but” was your usual tired Chri-like tirade, but without specific inference to Iran.

We “let’ North Korea develop the nuclear bomb (actually Madam Halfbright did), and we have spent untold treasure in trying to get them to put the Genie back in the bottle – without success. If they use it, many people will shoulder the blame.

I doubt ‘we” will do anything with Iran, but I suspect that Israel will not ‘let” it happen – we are not threatened, but certainly we have the resources to stop Iran without committing troops, or occupying their country.

But I will accept your opinion that we should “let” Iran have their nuclear weaponry since the “but” part was unintelligible insofar as Iran was concerned. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s Unfortunately, neither of us gets a vote. Israel holds 100% of the cards.

Balls in their court. I just thought it was interesting that the UN IAEA chief puts Iran's capability at 6 months to one year. That means an attack by Israel between the US election and the inauguration.

It is going to get messy over there. Iraq is going to look like an evening at Humphrey's By the Bay.

Chris to sdraoul wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:26 PM:That comment about the Marine that killed that Iraqi thinking he was going after a weapon was just another of your fairy tales. But that is what the conservatives do. They just make up stuff.

If it were you or me wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:31 PM:Israel has nukes pointed at Iran. The US has nuclear-armed warships in the Gulf, pointed at Iran. The US has 300,000 troops and mercenaries on the Iraq-Iran border. The US also has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, Iran's other neighbor. The President of the US has said that Iran is "evil" and the guy who wants to be President sings songs for fun about bombing Iran. If Iran was you or me, you're darn tootin' we'd be doing anything possible to defend ourselves. We'd have darn good reason to fear being attacked, much more reason than anyone has of us attacking them. I'd have built a nuclear arsenal the day after Bush made the "axis of evil" speech, in self-defense. No one in the UN is going to proclaim that the US's behavior is threatening to peace in the region, even though it rather obviously has been and is. If you're Iran, you'd be a complete fool not to arm up.

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:41 PM:The liberals favorite former head of the liberals favorite organization, Kofi Annan, spoke to the Global Humanitarian Forum, and let the cat out of the bag a bit early.

“Rich countries” (Read the U.S.) must share their wealth with “poor countries” (read all Third World countries) by bearing the brunt of the changes necessary to fight “Global Warming.”

Been there, done that. It was called Kyoto, and it was defeated 95-0 by the Senate, including uber-leftist Ted Kennedy.

Now, admittedly times have changed, The Democrats now have as a candidate the most liberal Senator available, even to the left of Uncle Teddy (and not nearly as experienced), so Kofi may get his wish.

Meanwhile Obama not only supports but offered a Senate Bill (S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007) to send EXTRA HUNDREDS of BILLIONS a year to the UN for "world poverty."

Global Warming energy caps on rich nations but not on poor, and more money for the UN for global poverty -- either way it is income redistribution as practiced internally by Democrats, or worldwide by the UN.

"Mr. Obama, please meet Mr. Annan -- Oh, I see you already know each other."

(Second submission)

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:42 PM:Hitting on all cylinders again today "Reardon" @12:31 PM.

"The conservatives do not oppose wind power, solar power. geothermal power, etc."

"It is liberals who oppose nuclear power, drilling, transmission lines, desal water, (fill in the blank.)"

"Liberals have designed a two layer line of defense. The first is, "Hey, I don't oppose (enter one single item here."

"The second line of defense is "I support (fill in an item or two here), but it must be done in an environmentally sensitive manner." ("And there is no way in hell you can find sufficient environmental controls to satisfy me!")"

In other words... Never.

We will only allow you the choices on OUR menu of choices.


and again, another famous Reardon quote:
"MY brand, or no brand."

Exactly right.

No suprise wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:48 PM:I see my response to Focal Point from 11:17AM did not get posted. Did the fact that I have not just read about, but experienced a real loss in my life due to Hussein, toooo much of a reality check for some to handel? So YES, I have a problem with the name!!

Obligation wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:49 PM:Pay More Now
Get Off Gas-Crack
No Drilling
Obligation to Our Kids
Find Alternatives

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:50 PM:>>>>Gay" marriage will not send over 4,100 American Troops >>> nor will it procreate any great generals, no matter how much they try, and try, and try, and try

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:54 PM:>>>criticizes Obama for comparing himself to JFK.>>>
I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friends of mine, and Hussein, you are no Jack Kennedy

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:57 PM:Today, 26 members of La Mara Salvatrucha, a.k.a MS-13 were arrested in North Carolina by the Feds on a 55 count indictment issued in Charlotte. (???)

As much as I applaud that arrest, the Feds could do better than that in LA on a weekday night, just in MacCarthur Park! MS-13 is at least as international a gang as can be identified.

It is primarily now an American gang (follow the money!), but its roots were El Salvador and it has members in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Those arrested today were charged with “four murders, narcotics distribution, robberies, illegal firearms possession, extortion, assault, intimidating witnesses and obstruction of justice – among other charges. (Some had been previously deported.)

Jump to it ACLU! These were obviously victims of racial profiling.

Does For Obamacan Work Better For You wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:06 PM:OBAMACAN
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:54 PM:Totally hilarious to see someone sign a blog as "To Obamacan" (11:22 a.m.) whining about anyone else being original. WHAT? Wow, You told me off I guess.

And to Ms M At:11:53Am: We can only hope that's all from Obamacan, but alas, we know better.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:09 PM:To Focal Point[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:57 AM: Well your problem is your problem. A person named John could be a saint and another person named John could be a serial killer. My issue is that Chuck and others do not use Obama's full name or his first name. They choose to use and to emphasize Hussein for the exact same reason you mentioned. It was the last name of a dictator. The issue is that they want to mislead Americans into believing that Obama is a Muslim and a pro terrorists supporter. That is what I am against outright lies, distortions, misrepresentations etc, If you want to criticize Obama be my guest. Call him Barak or Barak Hussein Obama or Obama. That is fine with me. What I object to and will continue to object to is the Republican Conservative slime machine attempt to link Obama with being a Muslim or a pro terrorist. No. I will not get over it. You or Chuck or anybody else who uses this unacceptable tactics on this blog will be called on it daily by me. Now, as to I do not know you? I know what you wrote. That is the limitation of the blog and blogging.
Get it!

TO NCT wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:14 PM:Now I see it inserted at 11:57AM: Thank You for posting.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:15 PM:No suprise[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:48 PM: You should not have a problem with any name. You should have a problem with the man who killed your people. Bark Hussein Obama had nothing to do with the loss of your family members. I am of Irish decent. Your analogy is that I should hate all the people with the surname, Cromwell.

Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:20 PM:The name, Hussein. Should the King of Jordan change his name since it reminds you of Saddam Hussein? I suspect that hundreds of thousands of Arabs have the name as a personal name or the surname. In fact, I would wager that the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, probably killed a number of Iraqis who had the name Hussein. I emphasize with your situation. However, the unacceptable tactics used must be challenged. And by the way, if you don't like the name on this blog, you should also address your concern to Chuck. He uses it daily.

To Thomas Arnold wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:20 PM:Don't forget the $16M the City paid for the Farmer's Building site. There are no plans for this site AND the City continues to pay for monthly upkeep and maintenance.

Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:27 PM:"Ms M" @1:20 PM just admit the Obamaman is an opportunist calculating politician, and I'll leave it alone.

I voted for public financing of my campaign, before I voted against it.
- Barack Obama

So Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:27 PM:Let me ask you: if the ACLU does NOT get involved in the gang arrests, would you consider modifying your opinion of that group? After all, you seem sure that they will hop to the defense of these people. If they don't, you must be wrong about them, right? Put another way, is there any actual fact that could occur that might lead you to change your opinion? The ACLU defends minutemen, nazis, etc etc, and yet none of this seems to matter to its critics. Oh, Reardon, when did you decide to stop being someone who could learn and grow? Before, during, or after college?

I Agree With Wayne wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:27 PM:My, what a fuss over Wayne Strache's letter. I hardly believe that he doesn't care about the "civil rights of our gay and lesbian citizens," as DD alleges. I understand him to mean that gay marriage is one of those issues, like abortion, that flare up every now and then, only to excite the militants on both sides of the question and divert attention from the more urgent problems confronting us in an election year. And so what if he supported Nader over Kerry? A denial of choice in our general elections for over the last half century is precisely what's got us where we are today, with no relief on the horizon from either major party. Today the case couldn't be clearer for ballot access and political reform so that third party candidates like Ralph Nader could put political power back in the hands of citizens, giving us a chance to dictate terms to the special interests instead of the other way round.

Aside from the misunderstood reference to gay marriage, it's hard to see what DD's so worked up about. But then maybe the problem is that we've misunderstood DD Wiz for too long. Maybe he's satisfied with the recent establishment policy hires that Barack Obama's brought into his campaign, a la Bill Clinton, to assure Wall Street and our NAFTA trading partners of a seamless transition ahead from one administration to the next.

To All Readers wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:32 PM:RE: Focal Point at 2:09PM, Is there anyone else out there following this that can see that I of all people have been trying to seperate the name Hussein to this campaign, and have been asking for it not to be used. What is wrong with this guy focal point anyway? And thank you guy for showing a little humanity. I hope you are the exception, not the rule. Have a long and healthy life. some don't.

Apollo wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:38 PM:Re: SDRaoul (12:07 p.m.)
Raoul says the Iraq war "was sanctioned by ... the United Nations for Saddam's not living up to 14 separate U.N. resolutions" and that "no intelligent person can declare the Iraq war illegal when the Congress of the United States voted to authorize force by the President."
This is legally ignorant and factually preposterous.
The U.N. never sanctioned this action; in fact their weapons inspectors found no WMD violations. And the U.N. Charter specifically forbids any member nation from taking enforcement action. Ssince the U.S. Constitution ranks international treaties (such as the U.N. Charter) above statutes (but below the Constitution), no statute passed can authorize a violation of the U.N. charter.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:43 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 1:24PM, at least you put quotation marks around "let". The notion that "we" are the ones to "let" anyone do something is anathema to me. Mutually Assured Destruction is what has kept "the button from being pushed" both here and in other countries. Sorta makes Israel look like the foreign guy with a gun in a town that has removed guns from all its people, doesn't it? BTW, we haven't picked a concert to go to at Humphrey's, instead we may go to Big Sky and visit Jellystone, I'll ask Ranger Smith if he has a pick-a-nick basket. Regards, Alf.

Lets find out wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:47 PM:raoul and apollo: was the Iraq invasion illegal? I suggest that we write to the World Court and demand that the question be brought up there. Let's have them call Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz and the rest onto the stand, under oath, with transcripts taken. Let's have the World Court bring in people from the UN to explain precisely what the terms and boundaries of the UN's actions at the time were. Let's find out from our leaders, under oath, exactly how the invasion came to be, based on exactly what evidence. Then let the court decide if it was legal or not. I'd trust the court's decision. Of course, if our "leaders" refused to testify, that would tell us all a great deal as well.

My Oh My wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:58 PM:Lets find out[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:47 PM: My God Man. We would have to send them GITMO.

Ms M wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:05 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:27 PM:"Ms M" @1:20 PM just admit the Obamaman is an opportunist calculating politician, and I'll leave it alone....Yea right - in whose lifetime. Typical, you give your guy a pass. It's okay as long as the cons do it.

to My Oh My wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:05 PM:Why that's right! That same crew, plus Gonzales and Yoo, will be called back to the World Court to explore whether, by international standards (that the US has signed), Gitmo, Abu Graeb, and the rendition programs were in violation of the law as well. A whole new set of charges to be examined. I would give anything to have this whole crew brought in and interrogated by a good law team, under oath, with transcripts, one at a time, the trial on international television. The world is owed the truth about all this stuff, and if the court finds them innocent, I'll be fine with it. Bring em on. (Seriously, can anyone imagine Bush on the stand? By himself. Under oath. Cross examined. Testifying about details, bringing in executive records and emails. Then we can all learn what the man is really made of, once and for all.)

Allan wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:16 PM:I don't think we really get the fight between modernism and regressive, pre-industrial ideology that is occurring in our world. Many of us in the West completely gloss over the fact that much of the world still lives or is just evolving from, an antiquated pre-industrial lifestyle. Those evolving from this lifestyle share a suspicion of and resentment toward modernism, which is increasingly embodied by the United States. Those evolving from this lifestyle also share anti-individualist, nepotistic, group-oriented personality characteristics that are dangerous for the future of this planet, far more dangerous than the United States ever will be. Romantic notions of socialism, the prevailing political choice among people in this situation, may actually prevent them from going through the steps that allow a truly individualist orientation to develop. In truth, the fight between modernism and this philosophy was a big cause of World War II, and it has been a big cause for many wars in which the United States has been involved since that time. I pray that people in other countries can overcome their dysfunctional regressive family systems and find a true individualist orientation. I think many wars would be stopped if this were to occur.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:20 PM:Well, "My Oh My" at 2:58PM, they have worked for and earned far worse, but that's a start. Regards, Alf.

My Oh My wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:20 PM:to My Oh My
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:05 PM: Yes!
Justice! What a concept.

to Allan wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:31 PM:Thanks for your thoughtful post at 3:16. I would disagree with your apparent belief that our radical individualism is in the utopian direction. Looking around since the industrial revolution, I don't really see a lot of evidence that individualistic countries or cultures have been particularly peaceful compared to more family-oriented or collectivistic cultures. Do you think that a suspicion of modernism might not be altogether irrational? When you look at current American culture, at the level of almost unbounded consumerism that we display, can you honestly say this is impressive? Morally admirable? The best humans can do? Might collectivist ways of life be preferable in some ways? (And collectivist most certainly does not equal socialist/communist. Remember, for Marx, communism was something that developed out of capitalism. It wasn't a reversion to pre-industrial forms. On the contrary. It's an error to conflate them.)

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:43 PM:The post from "Bill Too" (1:11pm) endorses a "REAL flat tax" and then immediately makes it not a "REAL" flat tax by exempting the first $25,000 -- which really makes it a graduated tax with two brackets, zero and whatever the flat rate is, which is necessary
to acknolwedge the basic principle of the differing marginal utility of money at differing income levels (in which case why not just have a progressive system in the first place?). He allows fixed deductions for corporations, which have no relation to actual costs, but does nothing for a self-employed non-corporate sole proprietor to allow for the actual costs of producing income; he does not seem to understand how small businesses operate. Any "REAL" flat tax gives huge breaks to those who benefit from (and therefore owe the most to) the current systemm while always squeezing the middle class -- the economic engine that drives our economy -- ever and ever tighter.

The post from "Chuck" (1:54pm): "I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friends of mine, and Hussein, you are no Jack Kennedy."
Why don't you be the one to read that line to JFK's daughter Caroline, as well as Ted and Ethyl Kennedy. Unlike Dan Quayle who made the comparison, Obama never has. The Kennedy's themselves did. I suppose "Chuck" "knew Jack Kennedy" better than these three? What a phony!

The post from "I agree With Wayne" (2:27pm) wonders if I'm "satisfied with the recent establishment policy..." Obviously this person can't grasp the difference between being "satisfied" (I never am) and preferring the viable better choice to the devastation we have actually suffered. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I was against torture before I voted for it.-McCain
I voted against the Bush tax cuts before I voted for them.-McCain
I was against offshore drilling before I was for it.-McCain
I supported cleaning up climate change before I missed 22 chances to actually vote that way.-McCain
I supported immigrant rights before I was against them.-McCain
I've always consistently supported Bush's failed Iraq policy.-McCain

Question for Ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:43 PM:Is Obama more calculating and opportunistic than McCain? Less than McCain? Same as McCain? Care to share your opinion on this question? Please tell us the reasons for your opinion, whatever it is. I'm really curious.

to Ms M wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:49 PM:Your efforts to engage Ron are silly. We know from a thousand posts that Ron believes that it's important for him to show us all that if we could only see the Democrats for what they are, we'd see that, believe it or not, they are like Republicans. Just as bad. Amazingly, Ron uses this to somehow "prove" (maybe to himself) that Republicans are better. He's done this thousands of times, literally. For example, when people screamed about Bush's use of extraordinary rendition, Ron was quick to point out that Clinton used the same tactic a couple of times. See? Clinton is just as bad as Bush (unless you count the frequency of use). By showing that Clinton, too, was an immoral law-breaker, Ron feels that this proves that Bush's use of rendition is hunky-dory. He seems to think that liberals thought it was fine when Clinton did it. Which, of course, is 100% false. Having proved that Bush and Clinton are both bad, this additionally proves to Ron that when Bush did it, it was good. I know, it makes absolutely no sense. But that's Ron! This is why I stopped reading his posts a long, long time ago and suggest that all thinking people, who disapprove of rampant dishonesty, do the same. Have a great day.

Cluck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:56 PM:It's pretty easy to understand why some of these morons keep using the name Hussein. It's all they got. They're a one trick pony these stupid conservatives. Their desperation reeks because the rest of the world is about to see just how empty their values are and just how terrible their ideas have been. Conservatism is dead because it doesn't work; we know it, they know it, the whole world knows it. And after this election it will once again be proven. So keep up with the Hussein. We know how you all need a dumbed down society. However, the only ones dumb enough to fall for it are the 22% of Americans still supporting this idiotic administration. And Obama ain't gonna get their votes anyway, and it just helps to prove how stupid these conservatives are. LOL!!! Remember, a terrorist attack is a BIG advantage for McCain. And Barak Obama's middle name is Hussein. LOL!!

Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:04 PM:to Karl
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:11 AM:

Did I miss something? Which of my posts were you responding to? Was it one from days/weeks ago? Help me out on this one. Without knowing what your basis for "to Karl" is I cannot accept your "deal"

Peace

Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:33 PM:The beautiful name, Hussein. should also be printed on our money. Songs should be written about the name Hussein, Music to my ears. Keep saying my name.

Puzzling wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:34 PM:Are American voters really as stupid as some people claim? Let's see. The basis of our system is that each individual will vote motivated by his/her self-interest. Looking at the last 8 years, we see that the numbers of people who are poor has increased significantly. The middle class' income has been utterly stagnant. The gap between the wealthiest and the rest has grown astronomically. Since poor and middle class people make up the overwhelming majority of voters, it seems that enough of this group voted for Bush to make him President. In other words, as a matter of simple fact, they voted against their own best interest. They also oppose the Iraq war, but voted for the guy that created it out of whole cloth. They also believe that a human contribution to global warming is probably real, but voted for the guy who denies it. And so on. It really seems that our system is flawed in some really core way: the majority of American voters did NOT vote in their own best interest, but in the best interests of the wealthiest few percent. Interesting. Why did all you people who voted for Bush DO that?

Oh PS wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:35 PM:Oh, and you Bush voters who apparently voted against your own best interests and for the best interests of the wealthiest couple of percent...are you planning to do the same thing again in November? Just curious.

Yes McCain the independent maverick wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:39 PM:How does McCain still get away with the "maverick" or "independent" labels? He voted for every single thing Bush asked of the Congress except torture the first time, standing by smiling as Bush made a signing statement rendering our hero's stance null and void. And then voted for torture the second time. He also has voted against a woman's right to choose perfectly consistently. He has changed his mind on every other issue that distinguished him from knee-jerk Bushies. Maverick? LOL

Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:44 PM:Apollo
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:20 AM:Re: Karl (9:48 a.m.)
You ask: "how one can criticize Barrack Obama without being called a racist?"
Answer: Challenge him on issues instead of pretending he doesn't have extensive specific proposals, or attacking him based on false rumors about his background or holding him responsible for what others say. Defend your guy instead of passing along rumors that any well-read person knows to be false.

First of all Appollo, I thank you for your candid response. My question arose from Focal Point's response to Leon Smith's letter today. I just read Leon's letter for the 4th time and cannot find any racist statements there and was asking Focal to educate me (I'm serious).

As for your response I still dont't get it.

"Challenge him on issues ...." I agree with your sentiment but this crap has been going on for eons in politics and Barrack is not the first nor the last candidate to be treated like this and this goes for both party's. Specifically what does this or Leon's letter have to do with racism ?

"or attacking him based on false rumors about his ........." again see my response above. I have no idea how this kind of political sliming is racist. When I read any major negative comment or "false rumor" about any candidate I check it out on snopes (who I find very reliable). I have received many of the baloney emails on both candidates containing flat out lies and after finding it false I "reply to all" with the info from snopes.

"Defend your guy...." If this statement is directed at anti Barrack folks, I agree and would ask that all candidates receive this kind of treatment not just Barrack (this will never happen). If this statement is directed at me you must have read something from someone else that professes to be me. I have not come out on this site in favor of anyone except for a luke warm approval of Ron Paul.

My concern on Focal's post is the very loose interpretation of racism and believe that using the term without basis in fact is absolutely just as disgusting as the slimeball racists that still exist in not only our Country but world wide.

Your reply to me shows me nothing as far as my question to Focal. From this I can surmise that you believe any and all criticizism of Barack is a form of Racism. Please tell me that was not your intent Apollo.

I implore all Barrack supporters on this blog to educate me on what can be considered racist when criticizing your candidate.

All I've seen so far (I haven't gone beyond Apollo's answer @11:20) is that if you are opposed to Barrack you are racist. Is this what you Barrack backers are trying to say? If it is the low you have reached in campaigning for someone you believe in is truly disgusting.

Peace

My Oh My wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:45 PM:Yes McCain the independent maverick Next, he'll want to be a Democrat.

Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:46 PM:Gosh, I make a post at 1:41 in opposition to an Obama policy, tying him to income re-distribution both nationally and internationally and no reply from the Obama Brigade?

No racial references. No reference to his middle name.

And no reply from the Obama Brigade? It seems the Obama Brigade wishes to keep the discussion on race and name rather than discuss substantive matters that are much more important.

I would rather discuss Obama’s proposed HUGE tax increases than his name or his race. Neither his name nor his race is going to hurt me one bit – but his policies certainly will!

Ms M wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:47 PM:Puzzling
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:34 PM: ..the majority of American voters did NOT vote in their own best interest...Bush did not get the majority vote and the jury is still out on just how many votes he actually did not get. It's those pesky new little voting machines that did not give out receipts (even though made by the same company that does ATM machines and will spit out a receipt) and other documented problems.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:01 PM:The World Court, ask the World Court, laugh out loud (LOL).

The World Court can't decide anything about the U.S. Constitution, nor can it decide whether any action sanctioned by Congress is legal or illegal.

Wwhen it can the United States is history.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:04 PM:Only when everyone is "on the same page", "to Allan" at 3:31PM, and only in an ideal plane can collectivist ways of life be preferable. I recently saw the movie "Animal Farm" again and it shows how quickly and easily collectivism can be subverted and perverted. As "Puzzling" at 4:34PM noted, many people vote against their own best interests. Part of the reason for that is that they vote with their emotions and not with their reasoning brains. Another part is because they are fooled by politicians. Yet another part is foolishness in the form of a type of insanity whereby they somehow believe that they can keep doing the SAME thing the SAME way over and over while expecting different results. They keep voting for someone or some "party" who has screwed up royally and repeatedly and believing the same "I'll change" ration of bull over and over or, worse yet, believing that "staying the course" of a failing and failed effort will somehow result in success. Regards, Alf.

Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:05 PM:Hussein[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:33 PM:
This was blogged by a fake Hussein just trying to stir up more trouble. Probably Chuck

Thanks raoul wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:29 PM:The international community of nations happens to include us. Was the war illegal by its standards? Was the treatment of detainees a violation of Geneva (which is also part of US law)? Those seem like reasonable questions, as reasonable as when similar questions have been asked of out of control leaders and Nazis in recent history. But for raoul, who is consistent, if it's the US and only if it's the US military or some function of the US expressing its might over others, it's a free pass for anything. Anything. As raoul himself says, if the US foreign policy, under Bush and others, were inspected by any international body of laws, we'd be toast. There you have it. The USA, even by raoul's standards, a rogue nation. (Ironically, unless one thinks of raoul as an anarchist, he repeatedly finds the UN resolutions, of all things, as justification for the invasion. Suddenly, if it approves his love-object, the US military, an international organization becomes deferred to. Great integrity there, raoul. I know your slogan: might makes right. Laws are for wimps. Folks, read raoul and you can see how anarchy and the love of military domination of others works. Maybe you agree with or admire raoul's way of thinking. I wouldn't brag about this to ordinary Americans. We tend to find this offensive, immoral, and disgusting.)

Floyd wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:38 PM:So if Barak Obama's own pastor had no effect on him, why is he so concerned about the comments by James Dobson?

To Reardon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:45 PM:To Reardon -
Reardon at 4:46 p.m. is way to full of himself.
Obviously people noted you expressed disagreement with Obama, which is not surprising, and everyone is just used to your silly labelling of every effort to help build people up instead of starting wars as "redistribution" that, unless you actually state why it is a problem, people just give you the old ho-hum.
For your ilk, anything that helps anyone other than yourselves to solve or prevent problems is "income redistribution."
Notice, however, that no one called you a racist, either.
Did you have a point?
The world doesn't revolve around you, Reardon.

ILK wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:04 PM:ILK, Funny, That must be the new Obama fan decoder ring secret word of the month? All you Obama folks seem to use it alot.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:15 PM:Karl[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:44 PM: I just reread Mr. Smith's letter for the fourth time. I am in error. The quote attributed to Michelle Obama was read incorrectly by me. My apologies to Mr. Smith. There is nothing in his letter that indicates racism. Opposing Obama does not make one a racist.

Oh Floyd wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:17 PM:Floyd, the flap about Dobson is that he claims to have a special relationship to God, or so he says. He claims that he, more than others, knows what Jesus and God are 'really' about. He has the unmitigated gall to proclaim that Obama's God, Bible and Christ are "fruitcake" versions. This has nothing to do with anyone's pastor's political remarks, this is vanity on a Bible-smashing scale for purely political motives. I know that as a liberal, I am destined for hell, but it's a tiny bit comforting to know that Dobson and his sheep will be far, far below me, suffering far more than ignorant I do, for their appropriation of Jesus Christ to serve their purely secular agendas. Shame on them. Comprende? And if Biff McCain panders to that crowd, all the worse for him, in November and in eternity.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:17 PM:ILK[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:04 PM:Its a play on words. We picked up along with filth,spew,and your kind mostly from Chuck and other conservatives.

OB wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:22 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:46 Do you think all we have to do is to be here on this blog all day playing in your sand box. We have gone home for the day.

Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:41 PM:Wow Apollo
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:46 AM:

I hope that you "wow" read my posts following the original and have enough nads to apolgize.

Do not pass go and do not collect $200.

Your response is outdated for forward thinking people. Instead of pouncing with talking points, read all that is on the subject at hand and reply with good points instead of "yeh what he said". I look forward to your next comment after you have had time to reflect.

To OB wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:42 PM:To OB at 7:22 p.m.
Reardon just can't believe someone thought his post just wasn't worth responding to.
It's all about him.

Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:51 PM:Focal Point
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:15 PM:

You are a stud FP. Can I convince you to vote for Ron Paul?

Karl wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:03 PM:To Reardon
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:45 PM:

Right on "to Reardon". As a right wing Republican I can say without refute that the world revolves around you and me, should we disagree, to heck with you.

Oops I said it wrong. I guess because Reardon disagrees with most of your personnal tenets he is a an "ilk". Take a look in the mirror when expousing your political views and see if you are what you doth protest.

One last time two biggies wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:29 PM:Does anyone here seem to notice that (1) the Bush administration illegally turned the United States Department of Justice (JUSTICE!) into an arm of the Republican party? and (2) Bush and McCain want Iraq to become a military colony of the United States, harboring 58 bases, freedom to conduct military operations without consultation with Iraq's government, and immunity from Iraqi law? Uh, does this, like BOTHER anyone? Does this seem, um, unamerican to anyone but me? Do we want to elect someone who finds all of this good and moral? Are there any real Americans left? Anywhere? Chuck? Is this ducky with you? Ron? Even you? Are imperialism, soviet political tactics, and an international stance of being above and outside the law a good thing? Is this anyone's morality? Surely SOMEONE in blogville finds this repellant besides me! No one? Have we gone that low? Is there a bottom to this pit?

The Happy Christian wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:38 PM:Oh Floyd[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:17 PM: Reminds me of the Reformation and then the Counter Reformation. Anyone outside the universal church, the state church or my church is a fruit cake church. Any Christianity not in complete with my Christianity is not Christianity.
LOL. Dobson and his band are just trying to get publicity for the conservative right as they did during their hey day. They do not understand that their day of control of any political party is over.

Taxman wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:46 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:46 PM:
Yep. You could be right amigo. Its tough to have to pay for a war with real money in real time instead on credit.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:51 PM:Well, "Thanks raoul" at 6:29PM, how right you are. The world revolves around "sdraoul" and his pick-and-choose, might makes right, the only laws that matter are U.S. laws (the ones that he agrees with, that is) attitudes. Let's not forget his revision of history to suit whatever is his current misconception (load of manure). Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:01 PM:to Ms M
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:49 PM:Your efforts to engage Ron are silly....shucks you'd think I'd know by now. Thanks for the reality check!

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:05 PM:I'm so confused, "Karl" at 8:03PM. I don't know whether I'm an "ilk" or a "your type. I know that I'm not "filth" because I just took a shower and I haven't "spewed" since late February. I guess that I must be a Libertarian with his own mind that enbraces more of the Libertarian philosophy than any other party. And I still may write in Ron Paul. Why? Because it feels good. Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:09 PM:>>>This was blogged by a fake Hussein just trying to stir up more trouble. Probably Chuck>>> Probably not. I don't change the tone of my posts to try to hide, Like the hair salon and others. My posts are the easiest to recognize on this board

Chuck wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:12 PM:The news is reporting Global warming may create 'perfect storm' of disease outbreak. LOL LOL. This will have the usual morons throwing money to the altar of Al Goreleone

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:18 PM:Well, "One last time two biggies" at 8:29PM, 1) Yes, I notice and am appalled. 2) Yes, see #1. 3) third question - Yes, it bothers me greatly. 4) Yes, it is almost as un-American as can be. 5) NO , I don't. 6) Yes, there are real Americans left out there somewhere even right here. 7) "imperialism, soviet political tactics, and an international stance of being above and outside the law" is a completely bad and evil thing. 8) " Is this anyone's morality?", ask "sdraoul", he seems right for this one. 9) Not all of us, HOWEVER, GWB and The Cheney Branch and Pelosi (I include Pelosi because she declares Impeachment "off the table") are vieing for the lowest moral fiber award, each in their own way.Regards, Alf.

ExtraExtra read all about it wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:25 PM:Welcome to the NCT Bloggo Hot Line, or as we call it, The Obama Free Press. Get your fix right here. Obama, All day, Every day, And Twice on Sunday. You say you're not getting enough Obama at home! No worries, Just Log On, We are here for you 24/7. And we guarantee less "ilk" then the other brand. So what do you have to loose? Get Typing.

Alf wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:26 PM:Maybe if gasoline prices get high enough people will stop buying gas-guzzlers. AND MAYBE if we had to "pay as you go" with this "madness of King GWB", if we felt the pinch of fingers deeper in our pockets instead of feel-good "stimulus" money paid for by an increased DEBT load, just maybe the madness would be stopped. Regards, Alf.

Chris wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:27 PM:I see that Israel says that if we don't take out Irans nukes then they will. If they do that then you can be sure we will join them in the war. I keep thinking things will get better but it just keeps getting worse. It was a dark day for us when those scumbags that ran Britain started facilitating the Zionist takeover of Palestine.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:35 PM:One last time two biggies Focal Point does. Have blogged a few times about the subject. What good does it do? Impeachment is off the table. No one will answer to the Congress or to the Courts from the Executive. After all, under GWB they are outside of the law, except from the law or merely change the law to suite their agenda. The people are just waiting out the clock. What concerns me is that even if Obama was elected, will he return to the spirit and letter of the Constitution or will he use the new unchallenged powers for his agenda what ever that might be?
I am not a Libertarian like Alf. But, I just might write in Ron Paul as well. I like feeling good too. Been a long time.

Hussein wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:43 PM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:09 PM:>>>This was blogged by a fake Hussein: As long as you keep saying that most Handsome of names. Hussein. That's all I want to hear, It's like music to my ears. Keep saying my name.

To Alf.... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:58 PM:I say Alf for President!!!!!!

Regina wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:53 PM:The fellow who insulted Mrs. Bledsoe is not fit to shine her shoes. She and her late husband have made significant contributions to the is community for decades. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oceanside has been fortunate to have Mrs. Bledsoe's wisdom.

Ralphs wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:41 PM:NCT would you please explain why my answer to Regina was not published?

Ralphs wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:34 PM:Regina - I attempted to send this to you this morning, for some reason it was not posted.
I would not shine her shoes if given the opportunity. It is amazing that when her and her crowd are majority, everything is fine, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they are not happy campers. I don't deny that they have probably made significant contributions to the community, but so have others, and they are not crying because the good old boys are not in power at this time. It appears that they want to just be patted on the back for everything they do. I have done many things for many people without so much as needing someone else to tell everyone what a good person I am. It appears to me that everyone mixed up in Oceanside politics has an elitist attitude. By that I mean no one can say anything against them without getting the wrath of the other elitists.
At the next election, things will probably flip the other way, will that make you and Ms. Bledsoe happy?