Low wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:00 AM:How low will they go to deny same-sex couples their constitutional right to marry? Conrad Denarski treats us to his imaginings about sex with animals, polygamy, etc. I'll take his bet. The courts and legislature know where to draw the line. In fact, last month's Supreme Court specifically excludes such hysterical possibilities. This is obvious fear mongering for those too ignorant or uninformed to know any better. None of us choose our sexual orientation. About 15% of us are homosexual. High time they are recognized as full and equal human beings.

jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:06 AM:A case in point about the dishonesty of
the conservative ideology:
It is said the Reagan the actor quit
working when his income reached a certain level because of the high tax rate at that level!It never occurred to Reagan that his taxes were a means to support our government and that this
support was one of the highest forms of patriotism!The patriotism of Conservatives,indeed!

Paul wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:24 AM:'To Shaking in Fallbrook' I feel for you, as I grew up near a Strategic Air Command Air Force Base back East in the 1950s. Our house was right under the take-off path of the KC-147s at 4:00 am and then the B-52s about an hour later. Not much fun having fully loaded KC-147s (about 1 to 2 minutes apart) running at full power at about 1000 feet trying to gain airspeed. Many folks had cracked plaster, broken windows. I do know, that (eventually) my mind learned to ignore that sound signature and I would sleep right through the din.

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:32 AM:$142 per barrel, and Hussein and the liberals continue to say NO to drilling and nuclear. The liberals care nothing about your job, the massive inflation and the billions being sent to foreign governments each day for oil. In fact, instead of promoting jobs, they see what is happening and passed an increase in the unemployment insurance. Hey Hussein, people want their jobs back, not an increase in unemployment.As Hussein sticks his middle finger up at the American people, they will return the favor in November, and he'll then be known as Hussein Dukakis

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:36 AM:Gee Richard Johnson, to bad for you and the Camp Pendleton noise. You and your liberal friends hear noise, normal people hear the sweet sound of freedom. If you dont like the noise, move. In fact, you chose to live there in th first place. So, for once in your life, take responsibility for your actions

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:31 AM:The news is reporting that Marshals lead Zimbabwe voters to polls in one-candidate runoff. Mugabe has crushed his opposition and needs his thugs tio bring people and gunpoint to vote for him. As usual, his good friend, the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter will report to the world the election was fairly conducted

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:36 AM:Why is that the same sex marriage crowd is desperately petitioning the Califonia supreme court to invalidate the NOvember initiative? They keep telling us that an overwhelming majority of the state's population favors gay marriage. This initiative would be a way to prove it. Yet, they are so scared of the initiative, they want to quell the voice of the people by running to a blackrobe. See you in November

Roger wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:49 AM:If Richard Johnson finds artillery practice annoying, just imagine what it's like for illegal aliens camped out in the brush at Pendelton.

not only that jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:50 AM:So Reagan quit in protest to high taxes? That's even more rich when you consider that as President, he set a world's record for deficit spending (since broken by his wannabe, W). Refuse to give money to the government, enjoy spending the government's money as though it had no limit. Yep, there's an ideology that wins my respect!

He Said wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:58 AM:re jvc post 0406.I know that of which you write. I am a much better patriot because I am liberal and after I calculate my taxes I send in that amount plus another 50% because I know the government employees will be very frugal with the money.

To low wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:00 AM:I know. It's an old and amazing story. We heard the same thing during the civil rights era. "Let whites marry blacks? What's next? Animals?" The people who offer these things might or might not realize that they likening homosexuals (or African Americans) to non-humans when they say such things. They probably are of a mindset that doesn't see or care how insulting this is. They are beneath contempt and certainly do not deserve to live in a country that has a Constitution like ours, that values freedom and fairness. Ugh.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:46 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:36 AM: I served nearly 27 years in the Marine Corps. I never complained about the noise living aboard base or off base. I AM NOW A LIBERAL. I used to be an independent centrist when first coming to this blog. But, since being inflicted by the demnented drivel from Chuck every day. I AM NOW A LIBERAL. Thank you ever so much for showing me the correct path.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:49 AM:Told ya, folks. Their feeling the heat, and now we are to believe Peggy Hart as she pulls out one Democrat, the one "proud liberal" in the last 30 years who believes in offshore drilling?
In today's liberal party, he'd be drummed out of the party as was Joe Lieberman.
Best Dukakis moment:
..photo op in.. M1 Abrams tank.. as he stuck his smiling, helmeted head out one of the tank's hatches to wave to the crowd. "Snoopy Incident"

Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:50 AM:Dolores Wiener really puts that silly Chris Pulse in his place with: "Mr. Pulse can read his books. I'll stick to my Bible."

How are you going to argue with that?

Why would you even try?

Roger wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:56 AM:The 6:50 AM poster obviously doesn't understand "trickle down" economics.

Vote for McCain and get trickled on for four more years.

jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:15 AM:The Quality of Life tax: A euphemistic
phrase to placate our tax fighting Republicans?Is there no end to the dishonesty of our so called
conservative fiscal responsible Republicans? Let us make the State's
Republicans be on record as to how we are going to balance the budget inluding those taxes that they want to cut! This is their time to step forward on this issue!

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:34 AM:Yeah, I saw that too Peter Murnieks. A "quality of life" tax, and if I read the article correctly, the taxing authority was handed off to the Coastal Comission? It is yet another example of this massive, and growing, bloated over reaching government we have allowed to strangle us.

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:40 AM:>>> But, since being inflicted by the demnented drivel from Chuck every day. I AM NOW A LIBERAL.>>>>
Gee, I cant tell you how honored I am that I turned you into a liberal. I guess with all that time in the Marine Corps, you'd have enough self-discipline to think for yourself.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:41 AM:Yes Jeff Schwilk I am angry. I'm angry that we can't solve this problem simply and humanely. It's really simple: enforce the laws, focus on employers and punish them severely. Illegal aliens will self deport and our streets will be safer, and our kids will have jobs. There are hard times ahead folks, we need to relearn our work ethics and stop looking for easy ways out. Regards, C-1.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:46 AM:Shirley Bellero says: "We hear from some of our experts that drilling for oil will not solve our problems with higher gas prices."

Yeah, and what expert's are these?
Barack Obama? Please point for me the Barack Obama oil company. Or the Obama refinery. Or even a gas station.
Didn't think so.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:52 AM:To Peggy Hart: How is Michael Dukakis' position on drilling in 1988 relevant to the discussion today?

Jack_D wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:56 AM:Shirley Bellero says in her letter: "Whereas, in the near future, we can have our own oil and control the prices."

Question: How is that possible when we use 25% of the world's oil, but have only 3% of the world's oil reserves? Of course, it isn't possible. It's a fantasy born of ignorance.

Apollo wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:58 AM:Re: Our Online Community
Happy Birthday today to DD Wiz.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:58 AM:I want you all to take a look at Joseph Eichstaedt's letter today. This is the Liberal argument for Global Warming; "Better to be safe, than sorry."

I just can't tell how much this annoys me. This fear tactic that passes for science. It's the old, "Well, if we don't act, the ocean's will rise, and glaciers will melt, and where will the polar bears swim?"

It is a theory. It is not proven science.

Joseph Eichstaedt then says:
"let's choose to acknowledge the threat."
Hey Joe, let's not, and let the scientists prove it first.

jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:01 AM:Are those that practice our modern day conservative ideology fundamentally
dishonest? One thing we can definitly see about conservatives is that they put their ideology first before country and flag....they are conservatives first and Americans last! Why are
conservatives dishonest? They are dishonest because they have formulated
an acceptable corruptable ideology based on the priority and favor of the
individual over love of country!

To Bob re Ill stick to my Bible. wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:03 AM:I wish you would stick to your bible. I wish you would follow the precepts put forth in the Word of God. Love and forgiveness for one. Just as Chris Pulse tries to hit us over the head with his book knowledge you are no different by trying to hit us over the head with your bible belief system. She did not put anyone in their place she just made her stand for Christ null and void.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:26 AM:Did you happen to see the Obamaman & Hillary last night? In their so-called "Unity" moment?
Not a real vigorous endorsement, I must say. And really, how could it be? The first woman to run for the office of President denied her coronation.
Unity? LOL.. this guy obviously does not know the Clinton's. But, he will!

hardtack wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:27 AM:And “jvc’s” post at 4:06 AM is a case in point for the “usefulness” (as Lenin put it) of the statist/collectivist mentality he regularly brings to this venue. I suppose it would never occur to “jvc” that we may have 70% more government than we need.
If what “jvc” says about Reagan, the actor, is true, I consider it a patriotic gesture on Reagan’s part. 232 years ago, we went to war with England over taxes.
“jvc” shouldn’t accuse Reagan and others of being unpatriotic just because “jvc” is a contented serf.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:31 AM:In Global Warming news...

The Artic ice levels are today thicker than they were last year.

In a related story...

Russians are asserting the oil beneath the Artic ice is theirs, and are beginning to take measures to protect these known oil reserves.

To Roger wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:32 AM:Well, judging from the comments yesterday, it is clear that nobody on this blog is going to vote for McCain. The best anyone could come up with is that he and his wife have nice hair.

jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:32 AM:You know of which you write because of
all that written work of writing checks to the government...you are not only
a true patriot but literate!

Karl wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:34 AM:FOCAL POINT@ 8:39 PM: Yesterday.

I'm a little slow FP, now I get it. We are here for the exact same reason. I've had some of my posts sensored and some flat out deleted but never had the ed shorten my handle from Karl to K.

Karl wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:42 AM:Low @ 4:00 AM:

You're kidding right? "The courts and legislature know where to draw the line.". The only line these groups know is the one forming at the Public Trough.

Asteroid wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:44 AM:Does yesterday’s Supreme Court decision regarding the second amendment mean Commissar General of the North County Forum, Dick Eiden, won’t be convening a Joe Grant coalition any time soon? (see “marriage rights for all” June 18th)

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:49 AM:Right On jvc; "taxes were a means to support our government" Support our government; sieze it from the haves (productive people) and redistribute it to the have nots (the indolent and untalented). You are the man. Power to the peeps!

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:49 AM:Of course the liberals want higher taxes. They want them on people who make than they do and the employers. Why do they want to hose other people instead of demanding the government reduce waste and porkbarrel? It's their special way to get back at them for making more. Instead of working harder to earn more, they implore the government to hose people who do, to bring them down to their level. It's just how a liberal operates

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:13 AM:The letter from Shirley Crowe suggests that "Same-sex people, make up your own legal contract!". IF said new contract would have EXACTLY the same rights and responsibilities AND be honored in every state of the United States, I'm sure that they would be happy to do exactly that. Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:14 AM:Chuck, you are a master at getting the response you are after. I enjoy your show. Keep up the fine work.

Peace

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:27 AM:I offer some logic regarding the Jews in Israel, and you won't publish it?? Yet you publish the garbage Chuck and Ron write? You have been censoring almost all my comments lately. I can only assume that they are to true and too over your head!

Jeff Schwilk famous for exaggerating out does himself wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:33 AM:"Multiple middle fingers and shouts of "this is our land" by Mexican citizen "customers" to our peaceful observers. Photos and full report can be seen at www.SanDiegoMinutemen.com." If by multiples Jeff Schwilk means two than he is right but to me multiples sends a message of many. Perhaps a better word would be two or a couple which is closer to the truth. But we all know that Jeff and his type don't care about the truth. Sounds like Jeff is using the same out tactic of using r buzz words to make the American people angry. Jeff get a clue we are alot smarter than you give us credit for.

Say It Aint So Surfer wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:38 AM:I that was you, That was a gnarly wipeout you took yesterday eve at 8:17PM, over my post to Solon at 1:55PM. I was not even commenting on you dude, It was Solon's perception of people with money I was talking about. Dude,I was a fan, but if you are going to go off like that for no reasen, no way dude, you lost me. se ya!

Roger wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:40 AM:Ron at 8:34 AM quips: "...if I read the article correctly, the taxing authority was handed off to the Coastal Commision?".

Actually the article read: "Steve Aceti, executive director of the Encinitas-based California Coastal Coalition that represents cities and counties along the state's shoreline, and a bill supporter, said Schwarzenegger is likely to sign the bill."

You've got a serious reading comprehension problem, Ron.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:41 AM:Can you check you gap between 8:40 and 10:13. Some good stuff there. Regards, C-1.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:50 AM:You know why. "Chuck" @6:36 AM, it is because they have determined that anyone who would disagree with them, should not be allowed to speak.

Just like good little Stalinists.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:53 AM:"Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."
-- Charlie Black on the impact of a terrorist attack on US soil during the campaign on John McCain's candidacy [Fortune, 6/23/08]

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:54 AM:>>>Chuck, you are a master at getting the response you are after. I enjoy your show. Keep up the fine work.>>> I just enjoy sticking the knife in and turning it slowly. Its just entertainment to me

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:02 AM:The news is reporting North Korea allows nuclear tower implosion to be filmed. They probably used old film from Hogans Heroes to show the media. Thats plenty to fool the UN and Condi

Greenergy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:15 AM:I am not familiar with the proposal from Dukakis supporting offshore drilling in 1988 and would find it helpful to get some kind of reference on that. But in any case, it looks like the very best the backward-looking conservatives can offer is turning 20-year old bad Democratic ideas in to contemporary (but still stale) bad Republican ideas.
Loved the riff on last night's Daily Show, showing the back-to-back clips from George Bush acknowledging we are "addicted to oil" and then suggesting more drilling. Jon Stewart compared it to a cocaine addict deciding that the best way to ease the pain of his addiction to cocaine is more cocaine!

Bob and Dolores wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:20 AM:I'm glad that Dolores reads her Bible, and glad for her that she avoids reading about current events. If she read both, she'd likely come to the same conclusions as Chris Pulse does, seeing the immorality for what it is. If you want to root for what Bush has been doing, better stay ignorant about morality.

Never fails wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:22 AM:There it is again, this time by Chuck, the reference to the sounds of military planes as the "sound of freedom". Ding ding, dribble dribble. Too funny.

Suddenly democratic wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:28 AM:It's so refreshing to see Chuck suddenly favoring "majority rule". He sure disses the same when the majority favors getting out of Iraq ASAP, no matter if the majority is of Americans or Iraqis themselves. Sorry, Chuck, this is the USA and majority rules is not our way of government. You are correct: people can turn to the robes here because this is turning to the Constitution, that document that you obviously hold in such contempt.

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:38 AM:Well folks. We must have wore out the moderator yesterday. A total of 243 posts yesterday. Probably a record.
Great job Moderator!

Bill wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:39 AM:Can someone show me where in the constitution the president has any authority to spend?

How could Reagan engage in deficit spending when the President has no such authority?

According to the libs in here thats the case but the US constitution doesnt authorize it.

Sorry, but wasteful CONGRESSIONAL spending doesnt obligate me to pay more taxes either.

Im no less a Patriot because of it either.

That was weak!

Trailblazer wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:53 AM:RE: the San Diego Minutemen Web site. While we debate over oil and same sex marriages, I think it would benefit everyone to visit the SD Minutemen web site. Never having seen it before, I found it informative as it exposes the border situation. Keeping the terrorists from crossing our borders should be a top priority, they are not all illegals coming here to work the fields and clean homes.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:08 PM:Karl[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:42 AM:
Karl, I am feeling a little on the left side of the fence today. So, can I go to the front of the line? I need to obtain some public funds before they are exhausted. Or, could they ever be exhausted? I mean is everything administered on the good credit of the United Sates. LOL. Peace. FP

Chuck Ron should talk wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:09 PM:Chuck's comments about porkbarrel spending are right on. Ron's main customer is the government. Chuck, talk to Ron, would you? As a good conservative, he needs to understand that he must give up the government contracts he has, his income that derives from taxpayers, thanks to liberal scum. LOL

Brass n Rail wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:10 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:36 AM: Oh no were are not afraid. Go ahead and have your silly old iniative. The courts will just over rule all of you. All the couples at the Brass n Rail will still be married.
So, boo hoo to you.

Has anyone checked wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:11 PM:Newshounds: can anyone tell us if the crime rate in DC has decreased yet since the 2nd Amendment ruling. Looking forward to it. Might even visit the nation's capital if it gets safe enough.

Apollo wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:12 PM:Re: Shirley Crowe and Conrad Donarski (letters)
They still do not get it! It does not matter if you try to make "separate but equal."
The point of the Supreme Court decision was that you cannot have a legal institution that discriminates on the basis of gender; you can not have an official legal mandate that requires a person to discriminate based on gender, forcing a man to choose a woman and vice versa. You can allow them to make those choices of their own free will, but not legally mandate them.
And please understand, the Constitution does not have a requirement about numbers, so polygamy is irrelvant to any Constitutional legal issue and, at most, it would be a legislative matter.
And the thing about animals is just stupid. When animals can consent to contracts and are stated in the Constitution, then you can start talking about that, but don't hold your breath.
Are people really so desperate that they have to keep throwing in these irrelevant distractions from the real point? Do they really have nothing to say about the real issue?

Oh Marky wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:14 PM:I know a lot of people that, in the course of a very short time, were rollin' in dough (doing dot com work, doing real estate; people who were "productive") and then were rollin' in poverty (I guess they suddenly became "indolent and untalented" overnight). May this not happen to you, my friend.

Tommy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:20 PM:It was an annual ritual: Reagan's proposed budget was gleefully pronounced "dead on arrival" by congressional Democrats. They would pump the deficit spending into the budget and send it back to Reagan with a "take that" attitude. In a spirit of bipartisanship, he'd go ahead and sign it. Compare Reagan to a partisan Bill Clinton, who shut down the government when he vetoed a budget from a Republican House. Deficit spendinga is obviously the domain of the Democrats.

Heckuva job W wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:20 PM:I'm so glad Bush went to talk to the Saudis about releasing more oil. From the NY Times QUOTE Oil prices climbed further Friday and the Dow fell to as much as 20 percent below its high of Oct. 2007 before pulling back in afternoon trading. ENDQUOTE Releasing more oil into the world market is really something the Saudis could do quickly. Notice the big effect? Oh, man, but if we could just give oil companies the ok to drill ANWR, those prices would just tumble by Labor Day!

But Apollo wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:23 PM:I know several people who are just dying to marry their Sycamores, the frogs that live in their arroyos, and one guy who resents having to be hush hush when he visits the rock outside his front door. All these things will happen if we let consenting adults of the same sex marry. A slippery slope, my friend.

Bill is right wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:25 PM:Let's look at how the Republican Congress spent our money (and our kids' and grandkids' money) during Bush's first 6 years. Bush had nothing to do with this at all, of course.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:26 PM:Dolores Wiener: I just took a cursory look see at Jewish persecution. There are over 14 major persectuions agianst Jews in which hundreds of thousands to millions were killed. Then you have all these minor pogroms throughout the world as well. Now the persecutions and the pogroms are inflicted by all the major nations and empires through out history, Have the Jews ever asked themselves what they are doing that so many people from so many different lands want them dead?

Bill Too wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:27 PM:- SECOND TRY -

(Not to be confused with Bill One) The recent Supreme Court decision on guns has started up a hornets nest of replies from the anti gun faction – supposedly the liberals. I am among the “liberals” – a lot of us – who are NOT against gun ownership. My background is training Sergeant in the US Army during the shooting phase of the Korea “Police Action.” and was also a police firearms training instructor. I have also NOT had a firearm in my possession for over 20 years – not because I am afraid of them, but because I do not feel that I need them.

The problem we have with interpretation of the Constitution is that we attempt to interpret the document by reading the words as they mean today - not as the original writers intended them. We try to read their minds after all of these years. If we read the entire Constitution we see that as the years passed the wording became more verbose. The amendments became longer and wordier in order to attempt to avoid lengthy legal interpretations. What would the second amendment look like if it was updated to the original intent?

In a previous post I mentioned the Mexican Constitution of 1917. Here is their version. This was 1917 – they learned from our problems. This is the translated version – I can provide the Spanish version if anyone cares – no hay problema.

Constitution of Mexico
TITLE ONE
Chapter I
Individual Guarantees

Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations.

You will notice that it says INHABITANTS not CITIZENS. The weapons forbidden are military and police caliber weapons and full automatic weapons.

The Constitutions of many other countries have more up to date wording than the earliest parts of ours. That is why we have a Supreme Court to interpret what our wording means. We have a right to disagree, but that does not make it law. Only the Supreme Court decision has that power.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:34 PM:Bill[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:39 AM:
Oh Billy. You know he does what all Presidents do. He sent a budge to Congress that approved it. And believe me, Regan did spend it.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:37 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:02 AM:
Hogans Heroes. LOL. It would be old film from MASH.

jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:37 PM:I Would agree and promote any idea you have including eliminating 70% of the governmemt, especially a defense budget that is nearing three quarters of a trillion dollars, if that is what it takes to balance the budget...
get it done fellow! And if you want to pay the taxes to support a defense budget of a trillion dollars I would agree to that too... just do not scream at me to pay for it... Reaganites did not! Maybe more of us should join the conservative ideology to really be able to balance the budget!

Chris to Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:40 PM:Since the Bible is all myths and fairytails how does that put Chris Pulse in his place. This is why we need to keep religion out of our schools and government. There is no real hisory to back up all this mythology. So it is impossible to promote reason and science when everything has to prove the Bible. People living to be hundreds of years old, world wide flood, Moses parting the red sea. Really.

Asteroid wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:53 PM:Chris to Bob
[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:40 PM:
This is why despite all his alleged reading, intelligent people ignore Chris. Notice his understanding (mis) of Bob’s tongue and cheek post at 7:50. Just curious; why does Chris refer to himself in the third person when citing Chris Pulse; who does he think he’s fooling?

jvc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:58 PM:What are you talking about? This president for most of his presidency had a Republican dominated Congress
and deficits ballooned!Fiscal responsible Republicans, indeed!

Dear Mr. Donarski wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:59 PM:Just a thought, but you said "It will stop when marriage ceases to matter, which will be to the detriment of our already existing children and grandchildren." Please sir, tell me then how a 50% divorce/failure rate of heterosexual marriages is showing that marriage still matters? Aren't those of YOU who divorce the ones causing the detrimiment to your existing children and grandchildren? How exactly are gay marriages the cause of the downfall of anyone else's marriage? Then, you go on to say: "We have forgotten who established marriage and its reasons for being." You are right - YOU Bible thumping, God referencing heterosexuals HAVE forgotten. Or at least have ceased to give marriage the importance and sacredness you keep spouting that marriage should have. And lastly, "God forgive us for what we arrogantly do." Here we agree. To me there is nothing more arrogant than believing that you are entitled to prevent "legal" equality because your misguided "religious" beliefs give you permission. God and God alone is the judge and jury on this one. ONLY He has the last word. HE did NOT ordain you or others like you to sit in judgment of anyone else. I hope you find God's true Love and Forgiveness. It may be hard coming from the rest of us.

Help me wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:06 PM:I've never been able to really picture the creation of species by God. I get the picture on the big scale, but if I were actually sitting on a rock right by where God decided to create, say, the elephant, what would I see? Would a real elephant just appear out of nowhere right before my eyes? (No, I guess it would have to be two elephants at least. And they'd have to be adult elephants or close to it because an elephant can't live on its own, without a mother.) Would it have a full stomach when it appeared or be starving? Would its brain be all equipped with all the many things we know an elephant has to have learned to get along in the world already, or would the elephant have a "blank slate" at the moment of creation and have to figure it out from scratch, despite having no mother? And the bacteria in the elephant's stomach that are required for the elephant to digest its food properly, were those created at the same moment as the elephant, or were previously living bacteria zipped into the elephant's gut within moments of its creation? Well, you get the idea. Can someone help me out?

Reardon wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:06 PM:Chris to Bob is so right. We let these silly myths control too much. You sheep believe in some mythical being in the sky? Get real. Let everyone marry and be happy.

Yokozuna to DD wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:08 PM:If Apollo in his 8:58 post is correct (whether peer reviewed or not):-) ... I hope you're having a Happy Birthday!

Bob to Chris wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:15 PM:Chill out, Chris at 12:40PM.

Point of earlier post was: how can you argue with bible thumpers and/or why would you even try. Yes, in her tiny mind, she did "put Chris Pulse in his place".

Gotta go now. We're picketing down at Red Lobster today to save those ignorant sinners (Leviticus 11:12).

Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:23 PM:Regarding Richard Johnson's "Too much shaking in Fallbrook" letter, doesn't he realize they're only doing this to protect Chris' freedoms? :)

Alf wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:24 PM:Well, "Apollo" at 12:12PM, you ask "Are people really so desperate that they have to keep throwing in these irrelevant distractions from the real point?". The answer is NO, if they can't dazzle with brilliance, they attempt to baffle with barrels of bull. And you ask "Do they really have nothing to say about the real issue?". The answer is NO, they cannot understand that the Bible is not what governs the United States, the Constitution does that just fine. Regards, Alf.

to Greenenergy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM:Here is a start to your 11:15 post DUKAKIS ATTACKS BUSH'S OIL STANCE



By E. J. DIONNE JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: September 1, 1988

to Visa Granny wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:34 PM:Please resend your info. (post 10:27 am above)

Trust blogs from you and Alf. And, a few others.

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:40 PM:= Chuck awoke even earlier this morning than yesterday, with the good name of Senator Obama on his mind, and by 5:32 AM had already posted his comment about the Good Blessing Obama. Chuck never tires of reminding us that the Semitic name Barack translates as BLESSING, and the Semitic name of HUSSEIN translates as GOOD. This is a good and noble campaign which you wage, Chuck, because there are so many anti-Semitic people in our land. May President Obama's blessing be upon you.

Chris to Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:43 PM:I appologize. You have to understand that we are dealing with all kinds of people out here and there are a lot that believe the Bible is the utmost authority and so when I read your comment about how can you argue with that there are a lot of people that just think that if the Bible says something, that is true and you don't dare argue with it because you would be arguing with god. I see that I wasn't the only one who didn't catch the satire. Sorry.

Who is using wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:49 PM:Reardon's name in vain? Must be a democratic gay. Will the real Reardon, please stand up!

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:50 PM:=
Ron’s ATROCIOUS SPELLING =
I am loathe to criticize spelling and grammar, but Ron’s sometimes is unbearable. I know he is not a teenager corrupted by TXT MSG habits, so it must be a bad education. (7:49 AM). Use of the word ‘their’ is totally incorrect. We must overlook obvious typos and spelling of difficult words, but not totally incorrect simple words.

DUKAKIS wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:53 PM:......... Who is Dukakis and who can he do about the price of OIL?

Chris to Asteroid wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:54 PM:Nobody is trying to fool anybody. I will see if this gets posted. Anyhow it is stated that the blogeditors cannot be sure of who is blogging and so if a person let's on that they are the one who writes a letter then their blog may not get posted. So if you are the author of a letter then maybe if you refer to the author of the letter in the third person instead of claiming to be that author or putting things in your blog which would identify that you are the author by what you say then it may get posted. Does that make sense?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:55 PM:..
YES, Happy Birthday to the WIZ - the Wizzard is KING!

FABLES wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:59 PM:To Bob:

Have you tried Aesop’s Fables or Hans Christian Anderson. They are just as imaginative and won’t corrupt your mind with violent teachings.

heckuva job W wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:01 PM:Must be more of those crack Regent University Christian lawyers at work again. From the AP QUOTE WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department has agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit with former Army scientist Steven Hatfill, who was named as a person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Hatfill claimed the Justice Department violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case. ENDQUOTE This is what happens when you rate lawyers by their loyalty to party rather than to the law and see the Justice Department as an arm of the Republican National Committee. The job interview: question 1: will you do everything in your power to help Republicans win elections, regardless of the legal merits of the cases at hand? question 2: are you pro-life? If you answered "yes" to these questions, you may skip question 3: did you go to law school?

Pinky wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:04 PM:Happy Birthday to DDWiz! May you have many more. Always enjoy your posts.

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:20 PM:===
Surfer Hanging Ten
Even surfer, the coolest blogger on this site, is entitled to get his dander up a bit, and that is all he did. He has NEVER made a snide or personal attack on any other writer, and there are so many here who do just that, and a few who do ONLY that.

Surfer says is quickly, poignantly and keeps on ridin’ the high waves. He and I probably do not have a whole lot in common, but I like his style.

Hanging Ten is a surfing maneuver, considered one of the most impressive and iconic stunts one can perform with a surfboard. Hanging ten is when the surfer positions the surfboard in such a way that the back of it is covered by the wave and the waverider is free to scootch to the front of the board, hang all ten toes over the nose of the board, all while holding two "high fives" up in the air as a celebratory indication of this feat.

That is our SURFER!

to D.W. Oceanside wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:23 PM:Have assumed you read many books about history, Judaism, Israel, Palestine, crusades, and world wide wars, etc. And that you are educated by self and many accurate sources.

Others that read and blog are unable to understand facts, or scientific info, etc. They continue to believe the world is flat and that their faith is the only truth. They will never think otherwise.

Others prefer to be with those that mirror their physical and mental image.

Others do not realize how much Jews did to grow oranges etc. in the desert. And how much scientific, engineering, medical, agriculture, etc. knowledge they have which they share with the world.

The number of Jewish Nobel prize winners (approximately 160 in all), is far out of proportion to the percentage of Jews in the world's population of 0.2%.

Have personally been treated with hate in north county because of others lacking intelligence and common sense. They are college graduates who are not educated, not smart, not ethical, not rational. They are white, religious, Christians.

to Vista Granny wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:25 PM:spelling correction

to Vista Granny[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:34 PM:Please resend your info. (post 10:27 am above)

Trust blogs from you and Alf. And, a few others.

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:29 PM:>>Ron’s ATROCIOUS SPELLING>> Maybe he just sucks at typing, like I do. Nonetheless, Ron spelling is like Plato's compared to Chris'

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:30 PM:Yeah! I saw that too "Karl" @9:42 AM!

"Low" @ 4:00 AM said

"The courts and legislature know where to draw the line."

LOL... just add him to the "they can think for me" crowd.

Chris to Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:33 PM:The Russians want all the Jews gone because the majority of the Bolshevics were Jews and we know what wonderful things they did for Russia. Now of course it must be pointed out that many Jews suffered under the Bolshevics. In fact the father of Lenins right hand man Leon Trosky lost everything. But today a lot of Russian people hate the Jews and want them to leave because the Russians know the Bolshevics were Jews. Of course you don't hear about that over here do you. So this is one example of why they are hated in a certain place.

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:37 PM:=
And now to reply to yesterday’s blogger (1:55 PM): you got it all bass ackwards. Go back and read my comment yesterday. I was expressing my appreciation of cool guys who are rich and comfortable with life and get along with people.
When I used the term A-retentive, it was to writers like yourself who seem to think liberals, such as myself, regard wealth as evil. On the contrary, my friend. Wealth is wonderful. It’s just that bad people who are wealthy can cause so much more evil than poor people.

Bob the Bible thumper wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:41 PM:The 1:59 PM poster is concerned with my reading habits. Haven't read Aesop for years, but still read Hans Christian Andersen (not Anderson). Brothers (Jakob & Wilhelm) Grimm are also a big favorite (Disney really ruined some terrific bawdy tales, you need to read the originals).

While I do try to organize picketing of Red Lobster (based on Leviticus 11:12's assuring us that eating shell fish is an "abomination") hardly anybody takes me seriously. Sorry if you did.

Good one Bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:48 PM:I must say, I was taken in by your initial post too. Good job. It says a lot that those of us familiar with the opinions of many North County folks would just think you believed what you posted...it's not that unusual a sentiment around here. BTW, might there be hope in a state-wide anti-shellfish initiative? Let's do away with ALL the abominations!

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:49 PM:= Inquiry of Reardon: Did you really write this comment yesterday at 6:54 PM, or is there another Reardon out there? The comment seems so out of character for you. This was the comment:

QUOTE: “Reardon[-] wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:54 PM:I can see clearly now. That head extraction really worked. I don't bump into things nearly as much, and I'm beginning to comprehend that those Bush, Cheney and Rove guys haven't been telling us the truth.” END QUOTE

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:52 PM:Help me[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:06 PM:
Forget the elephant. What does God look like?

Concerned One wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:57 PM:My best wishes to DD Wiz on his birthday. Granny, it looks like the editors got back to you with compliments. Surfer: I remember that little shop across from the La Paloma. Or do you mean Sunset down the street? In these days of higher oil prices the water should be less crowded. I'm running a retro 9'2" Lance Carson Model and going right tomorrow. Peace Bra, take of deep and geev'em Hawaiian style. Regards, C-1.

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:57 PM:=
HA HA HA HA
“Baffle with a barrel of bull!”
Thanks, Alf, for your funny phrase. (12:12 PM) Love it!

Well solon wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:59 PM:At 1:50PM, I'll bet you Hussein's, (you know who I'm talking about) favorite saber, that you were left alone a lot as a child, Probably by choice would be my guess. Do you think most readers care what lothes you? I for one don't, maybe I'm the only one, who knows, don't care. Try adding something new and constructiave to the topic, but leave spelling corrections to the professionals. Most are out of work anyway! ...

Will this work for you FP wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:03 PM:At 2:52PM, Life is short. You'll see soon enough!!!

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:04 PM:I'm really beginning to enjoy this now. Those who have tried to defend the traditional view of marriage have been accused of being bigots, hate-mongers, and any number of things.
But now I'm sitting here, reading what appears to be a defense, and an apology as to why marriage is now redefined to incorporate same-sex marriage, but no other's. Written by "Apollo" @12:12 PM, amid others. This is just too precious!
We {the traditional marriage defenders} have been pounded by these same people, and now it is their turn.
Now, according to them.. Marriage can NOW include same-sex, but nothing else.
I appeal to my liberal friends, why the hate man? Why do you oppose the happiness of other's?
They tell us in their new definition,
marriage can include same-sex, but polygamy, or other arrangements are off the table, and just stupid.
SAY'S YOU!
Just because your unwilling to accept "their version" gives you no right to oppose it, simply because you have some fixation on what a marriage should look like. Even if it offends your own sensibilities, what possible business is it of yours?

We have a whole new set of bigots, folks. And they are the one's who brought you same-sex marriage.
Too funny!

Ron wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:09 PM:>>Ron’s ATROCIOUS SPELLING>> and Maybe... Ron does it just to P some people off.
Think about it.

Surfer wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:12 PM:Concerned One[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:57 PM: Surf boards Hawaii was right next door to the La Paloma. I still catch a flick now and then there. Of course, they have drama school performances as well. I don't mind a drink or two at the D Street. But, it was super to have a stick manufacturer in town. Hey gotta run, jump in the woody and drop in about two blocks from here south of Moonlight. Its set time, Dudes. See ya C1 Brah.

Surfer wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:15 PM:Concerned One[-] wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:57 PM: Oh yeah Dude. There was a Sunset shop. I remember it now. Was it down near the dry cleaners. They had some good sticks too. By the way man, that Lance board could stand the North Shore. Get there brah.

GAY MAN wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:28 PM:… Dear Mr. Dumbarseki (letter today): Perhaps you have not noticed that gays are waging a battle for monogamous marriage, not polygamy. Polygamy was began millennia ago by heterosexuals. Heterosexual polygamy is still legal today in some Middle Eastern countries, and was common in the Middle East during ancient Biblical times. The Old Testament speaks of many instances of plural wives. So this sin, if it be a sin, is a creation of the heterosexual persuasion. As for your statement about “who established marriage and its reason for being” you are dead wrong. Marriage was instituted by power brokers to control the personal lives of other people, except for those individuals who had the freedom to bond together in love and fidelity. It is this that gays seek.

SOLON wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:31 PM:= Surfer Hanging Ten
Even surfer, the coolest blogger on this site, is entitled to get his dander up a bit, and that is all he did. He has NEVER made a snide or personal attack on any other writer, and there are so many here who do just that, and a few who do ONLY that.

Surfer says is quickly, poignantly and keeps on ridin’ the high waves.

Hanging Ten is a surfing maneuver, considered one of the most impressive and iconic stunts one can perform with a surfboard. Hanging ten is when the surfer positions the surfboard in such a way that the back of it is covered by the wave and the waverider is free to scootch to the front of the board, hang all ten toes over the nose of the board, all while holding two "high fives" up in the air as a celebratory indication of this feat.

That is our SURFER!
Submitted 2:17pm Re-submitted 3:31pm

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:32 PM:The news is reporting thaT Obama says the American people need the Clintons. Yea, about as much as Hiroshima needed the atomic bomb. Their pandering is pathetic, but it does have the liberals drooling, and the women fainting

Chuck wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:35 PM:>>>My best wishes to DD Wiz on his birthday>>>
Maybe Hussein will wave his staff and the Pacific will part, just long enough to pick up a few lobsters and abalone for a birthday dinner

FABLES wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:39 PM:Begging your pardon. It is spelled Andersen (Danish).
And, sorry, but I do not adhere to the teachings of Leviticus about NOT eating creatures from the sea that do not have gills or scales. I love oysters, lobsters and shellfish, but you are welcome to picket down at the Red Lobster. Have FUN! God will punish all those bon vivant diners inside.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:41 PM:TO THE DD WIZ: Happy Birthday from FP.
Look forward to your contributions for many years to come.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:46 PM:The post from "Tommy" (12:20pm) repeats a common urban myth, that Reagan submitted conservative spending budgets but was overridden by Congressions Democrats.
This is simply a widely-circulated piece of propaganda and is utterly false.
Yes, the Democrats did offer competing budget proposals to Reagan's, which called for LESS SPENDING than Reagan's. The actual votes are a matter of public record. Republicans held together while Southern (Boll Weevil) Democrats crossed over to give them a majority, though the Democrats did wangle 16.1 BILLION dollars in cuts off what Reagan proposed. On economic issues, there was no "Democratic majority," as conservative Southern Democrats routinely broke ranks to vote with Republicans and gradually many of them, including Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm changed their party affiliations from Democrat (in name only) to Republican (reflecting their actual ideologies). One excellent source for the details of this is the book "Triumph of P