Ralphie wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:34 AM:That lady is right about the suffering dogs and cats. Let's be humane and put them out of their misery. I'll volunteer...for this sad duty...we owe it to them.

Chuck wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:01 AM:The news is reporting that Iran says Gulf oil route at risk if attacked over nuclear program. LOL. That only serves to get the liberals giddy and in celebration mode. After Iran gets a taste of the B and F brothers, they'll cowl like liberals, who because they dont have a gun in the house, watches a thug slit the throats of his kids and wife, while he dials 911.

Yokozuna wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:07 AM:Re: Mr. Koenig's letter. Without commenting on the evil or goodness of unions.... Mr. Obama is already working on behalf of a union which has promised him major support. This is being done with the British Company Tesco which is opening the Fresh and Easy markets. For additional information type supermarketnews in a search engine (Google?)and when the home page opens, type Tesco Obama in the site search box.

Chuck wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:10 AM:>>>Scott McClellan says invading Iraq was sold with political campaign propaganda.>>> It's funny that he wasnt of that opinion when he was press secretary. He only came to hold that opinion when George Soros's publishing company paid him huge money to do that book. It's OK, if one needs to sell out their country, and prove how void of character they are by writing a book (more likely, one of Soros's servants wrote it)for the money, we understand. Just like Cindy Sheehan-- when Soros's money dried up, she clammed up. She only opens her mouth when a big check is handed to her.

Chuck wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:12 AM:How many women fainted during the Hussein love fest with Hillary. It had to be quite the show, women swooning and fainting at the sight of Hussein, and women swooning and fainting at the site of HIllary

Chuck wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:17 AM:Hey June, lets not get your panties in a twit. Oceanside isn't loosing a penny with that airport there. The tree huggers would never allow commercial development of that plot. It's best that Oceanside leave it alone and let all development stop. Eventually all the agendized tree huggers in the planning departments will be fired or retired and sanity will be brought back in

Focal Point wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:37 AM:Walter Koenig: Why are you surprised? He is a Kennedy. He is a Democrat. Unions are supporters of the Democratic Party. It is a non brainer. Robert Kennedy, Jr. will not cross a picket line. If you wanted a speaker that would cross a picket line, you should have invited John McCain.

Ron wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:08 AM:You know, I understand what Sherrie Kontros is saying about reducing puppy, and kitten abuse, but unfortunately, generally the same people who neglect animals are generally those who also neglect their children, neglect their jobs, and neglect their obligations in life. I really don't know what the problem is, and mandating neutering or spaying will work as it always does with mindful people, but you will still have this group who'll overburden animal shelters because they could give a "you know what."
But let's be real here for a second shall we? Sherrie Kontros comes off as a PETA member to me, and frankly I think that's kind of weird. I'm sorry, they just are.
Which bring me to my story. My grandson thought he wanted a dog, a puppy actually. So I took him over to the local animal shelter, you know.. to look at the dogs. Well, I was informed that the shelters no longer allow "walk-through's", that I would have to set up an adoption appointment. During that "appointment" we would be matched with an animal we felt "and they felt" fit our needs, based on the needs of the individual animal. Too weird.
I thought we would go and look through the field and maybe choose one should my grandson like the dog, and the dog wouldn't chew his arm off. Silly me.
But, I really have to hand it to the guy or gal who started PetSmart. They saw this whole thing coming, and my hat is off to them.

Ron wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:16 AM:I really don't know what you
Democrats see in the present day liberal Democrat party. Afterall, they are attacking your very livihood.
Gone are the days when everyone in the world wanted to "buy American", as we are now in a global market.
The current crop does not want oil, so that cuts car companies already in the hurt. No more Detriot, but Toyota is booming in non-union Kentucky.
Coal miners, your sunk with this party.
Natural gas, out.
Truckers... Teamsters... out.
The fact is they no longer represent your interests.
As Walter Koenig says:
"You get what you pay for, and with the Democratic Party, you will get the union." I'll add bosses. Cause that's really who'll make out here.

Scary Unions wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:29 AM:Sure am glad someone is talking about those scary, scary unions. God only knows what horrible things might happen if the Democrats get elected and they tip the balance back in favor of the masses of working people in this country. Things are much better now, with the ultra-rich and mega-corporations controlling things. They definitely have our best interests at heart. I mean, heck, things are great in the U.S.A these days! Let's keep the old status quo. Go McCain!

Vista Granny wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:39 AM:Ron: What animal shelter did you visit anyway? There is more than one in the area, you know. As for matching pets with people - that's a good idea. You see, dogs (and cats) have personalities just like you and your grandson do. And, great big dogs need great big spaces to run in, little dogs need warm laps to sleep in -- cats like peace and quiet -- you get the idea? Actually, I believe you made the whole story up just so you could complain about animal shelters and people who love animals in general. In fact, you are so anti-anti, I believe you're not even real.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:40 AM:There you go again, attacking Democrats by telling us that if we vote for them, things might just as bad as they were under Republicans! Oh, no! All those jobs that stayed right here under Bush will vanish! The economy, which improved so much since Clinton left office will take a dive again if Obama is elected! And the federal budget, why it might -- Oh No -- BALANCE again! Folks, there is definitely a theme developing in this election: the Republicans have nothing, nada, zero to sell us. So they are in full-bore, no-lie-to-big, no-scare-too-bizarre mode. Just be alert to the obvious and we should be fine.

His character hasnt changed wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:51 AM:I don't know, Chuck. A few years ago, Scott McClellan was the White House press secty. He was paid big bucks by the taxpayer to broadcast to the whole world propaganda that only served his boss's party, was written by others, was lies, and which sold out his country. Seems like his career has been perfectly consistent at worst. If he's doing what you say he's doing, it's just stuff he learned working for your President.

Is the NCT patriotic wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:56 AM:You all know about the FBI's sex offender list, right? And how you can find out where convicted sex offenders live? Well they also have a list of people who are traitor-celebrities, and you can find out what they are currently doing to promote themselves. Ollie North, for example, is now writing (or at least taking authorial credit for...he never was exactly, um, a truthful guy) a column. Really! Of course it has his picture, are you kidding? Well, anyhow, this column is right here in our neighborhood so keep your kids away from that area of the newspaper if you want to protect them from the propaganda of ego-inflated traitors to their country. Just a friendly warning. You're welcome.

McCain Cunningham wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:15 AM:Sherrie Kontos' letter points out why it is so important to vote for the McCain Cunningham ticket.

McCain is against puppy and kitten abuse!

He's all for motherhood and apple pie as well.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:17 AM:There goes Irvin Forbing, the most anti-science radical to consistency rail against science, whether it be evolution or, now, climate change.
His great sources? A map maker and a TV weather reporter.
Irvin boasts that his amateur sources operate: "independent of grants, "acceptable" peer reviews or position." Translation: science? science? We don't need no stinkin' science!
Like I said, an anti-science Flat Earth superstition monger.

Its right there folks wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:22 AM:Just as a reminder, as a way of parsing the rhetoric of conservatives, you can always see one picture that is a constant in the background of their desires. In their view, the US in the late 19th Century was how it should be. No government regulation. No safety net for society. No unions. Any peep of a socialistic sentiment was met with police wielding billy clubs. Child labor. No minimum wage. No health care for the poor. No public education to speak of. When you read the posts of Ron and others, or letters from folks like today's Walter Koenig, you can see this ideal guiding their opinions, whether or not they are willing to say so or even admit it to themselves. But there it is, the perfect society in their view. Social darwinism with all the chutes and ladders controlled by the wealthiest few. Some people found ways to claw their ways out of the gutter in this system. More died in childbirth, of preventable diseases, or of plain poverty. This is their great society.

liberaljim wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:23 AM:Irvin Forbing isn't on the "Faith and Values" page this morning where he pushes his superstitous theory that a sky god intelligently designed the universe in six days. This morning he's on this letters page trying to convince us that man is not responsible for global climate change because John Coleman told him so. Sorry Irv, John Coleman seldom got tomorrow's weather right. A meteorologist is to a climatologist what a medical assistant is to a brain surgeon. You need to go back to the "Faith and Values" page, Irv, where the readers aren't concerned with analytical thinking.

Alf wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:38 AM:Two things - #1 Happy day after your birthday to "DD Wiz"! #2 Yesterday I made a mistake in my 1:24PM post - It should have read - "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 YES, 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 YES, they cannot understand that the Bible is not what governs the United States, the Constitution does that just fine. Regards, Alf." My apologies for using NO when I meant YES. Thanks for not calling me on it. Regards, Alf.

Oh Irvin wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:44 AM:Gosh, Irvin, isn't it as clear yet to you as it is to anyone who reads your letters that you have the entire thing exactly backwards? Your efforts to give us "evidence" are always, ALWAYS, obviously the result of a diligent search for anyone or anything that agrees with your already-formed beliefs! This is the opposite of intellectual integrity, Irvin. An honest person looks at all the evidence, especially what are obviously the most reliable sources, and COMES to a conclusion. You have your conclusion beforehand and look only for anything or anyone that agrees with you. What rational, fair, objective, honest person can take you seriously?

Surfer wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:44 AM:Troller Dude: Sets acceptable this morning. Didn't mean to do a backhand on the blogs. Sorry about that, See ya!

Better in Iraq wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:55 AM:I don't know what Ollie has been reading. Last Sunday's NY Times, for example, had extensive reporting of "the numbers" in Iraq and all, as I recall, were very positive. Casualties down. Iraqi troops way up. Oil production back to pre-invasion levels. Even political benchmarks showing much progress. But there is one problem: now that the surge (or whatever combination of factors) is "working", the next logical step, promised by Bush, was that we would stand down. But Bush and McCain, incredibly, now want the exact opposite of this! They want more than 50 permanent bases in Iraq. They want the purple-thumbed Iraq people AND their government to mind their own business while our military has the blanket ok to do whatever it wishes in their country. And they want all US personnel, military and mercenary, to be immune from Iraqi law. No, I think it's the Republicans that don't know how much to play up the "success" in Iraq because too much success means we should leave, and that's the last thing they want. This shows, finally, that EVERY reason we've ever been given for this invasion and occupation has been a lie. And McCain says "stay the course". Wake up, folks.

Floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:21 AM:The global warming crowd is quick to announce that mankind (especially their SUVs) is the cause of the situation but cannot explain how they are causing the global warming occurring on Mars. The global warming hoax is just another example of politics run amok.

Bill Too wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:29 AM:(Not to be confused with Bill ONE) - Chuck – whichever Chuck that is - wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:01 AM That I would be cowering while some thug was slitting throats. WRONG! He evidently didn’t read my blog very well. I said I didn’t have a gun for 20 years because I didn’t feel that I needed one – NOT that I was defenseless. Anyone entering my home with ulterior motives doi3ip5es so at his own risk. The battered and bruised hulk will be bagged and tagged for pickup by the local constabulary. I’ll call 911 AFTER I get through with them. I grew up in a coal-mining town in Pennsylvania where you didn’t turn the other cheek if you didn’t want to chase your head down the street (figuratively speaking).

McCain Cunningham wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:31 AM:The 9:55 AM poster claims: "...EVERY reason we've ever been given for this invasion and occupation has been a lie."

What's up with that?

While reasons 1,2,4,6 & 9 were perhaps less than truthful, reasons 3,5,7 & 8 did stretch the truth, and reason 10 was not entirely "reality based" in the accepted sense; reasons 11 & 12 were simply misspoken.

#13: We're only there to protect Chris' freedoms!

He Said wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:00 AM:Wow!! I guess that's two positives for Vista Granny. One is her figure which she bragged about to DD and the other is no one can accuse her of assumption about Ron's personality or honesty with all the evidence she provided in her 0839 post.

Chuck wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:02 AM:I see the Husseiniacs are gathered singing "Kumbaya" as their Savior declares that their jobs and massive inflation are not enough justification for additional drilling and nuclear plants. Hussein instead prefers to send hundreds of billions of our treasury a day and be held hostage to two-bit despots.

OMG Floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:03 AM:Mars is warming? Who knew? Thanks, Floyd, for singlehandedly disproving the whole GW nonsense. (Gee, you'd think all those fancy "expert" scientists would've known about the Mars thing.)

Sorry the second amendment is not ambiguous to me wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:53 AM:When I read the second amendment, I just don't see a lot of ambiguity, sorry. The only place that requires a modern person to seek interpretive help is in the meaning of the word "militia". Otherwise, it's perfectly clear to me, though I'd be happy to be shown wrong. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a state to be free. And that to have a well-regulated militia, it is necessary to have citizens who are ready to become members of such a well regulated militia if one is needed. For this, it is necessary for the citizens to keep and bear arms. Why is this ambiguous? It clearly says that gun ownership is a personal right of citizens, but strictly for the purpose of being ready to join a militia (well regulated, not a bunch of neighbors) if needed. What else citizens do with their firearms is outside the scope of this amendment. There could be a law that spells this out, for example: ANY use of a firearm by a private citizen could be a felony, for example. I'm not advocating this, just making a point. I conclude from this that when Scalia and the others made their decision earlier this week, they were absolutely correct in saying that gun ownership is a personal right of citizens. But when they said that, e.g., trigger locks cannot be required, they were legislating from the bench. In no way does a trigger lock impede or infringe upon someone's ability to be ready and armed should there be a call-up from the well-regulated militia. If I am wrong about this, please, show me my error(s).

Chris wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:05 PM:Once again I must protest another column by Oliver North. Why can't we get Amy Goodman. To have a column by North every week is sickening. North once again tries to put over how we have all this success in Iraq. Why can't we get the true story of what is going on. Instead all we hear about is how the violence is down. We just sweep the deaths of over a million Iraqis under the rug. How about the millions of those displaced who cannot return. In the same issue of the NCTimes there was a story of how the Iraqis feel like they are in prison because of all the separation barriers separating all the neighborhoods. Of course the story was buried in the back pages of the paper. How about stories of the doctors and other professionals having left Iraq. The lack of clean water and electricity. No all we hear about is how violence is down. The life of the Iraqis is worse after our invasion and now we have to read all the drivel from this liar North every-week.

The Times sends reporters to Iraq and they go holding hands with the military. Why can't the NCTimes tell us how bad off the Iraqis are instead of touting how great our military is. How about telling us how many millions of dollars we have to give to the Iraqis so they will not attack our troops. Does the Times answer to the corporation that owns the NCTimes?

Oh No Mr Bill wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:35 PM:Bill Too
[-] wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:29 AM:(Not to be confused with Bill ONE) Don't you mean Bill Two?

omg floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:37 PM:11:03: Suprise! They Do.

Roger wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:54 PM:Vista Granny at 8:39 AM may have hit upon something when, in response to Ron's post, she quiped: "...I believe you're not even real."

I've suspected, all along, that Ron's posts are actually the work of some reincarnation of Jonathan Swift doing a terrific parody of North County Republicans.

Oh Chris wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:23 PM:One of the things the NY Times reported in their "numbers" feature on Iraq progress was the number of Iraqis whom we pay not to shoot at anyone. It's up over 90,000 now. Think of it: we taxpayers are shelling out billions of dollars to pay Iraqis not to shoot at the soldiers we sent over there! Boggles the mind. If we'd not have SENT them there, or if we'd bring them HOME, then our soldiers would be even safer AND we wouldn't have to pay the Iraqis not to shoot them. As a solid conservative, I say: isn't this yet another example of how foolishly the government spends our hard-earned money? And Bush and McCain want us to stay there permanently? My conservative vote will go to the man who realized how Reagan spoke to true American values (individual responsibility, hard work, faith): Barack H. Obama.

Bill wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:29 PM:How come we didnt figure out that intelligence was flawed when Bill Clinton bombed an asperin factory?

Bush wasnt in charge then was he?

The Democrats failed to leave Bush with a CIA and Intelligence agencies that could protect America.

How else did we bomb an asperin factory and why didnt they do something?

Floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:41 PM:At the time the second amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "skilled" and "accurate" as in "able to hit the target". Have you ever seen one of those old pendulum clocks that have the word "regulator" painted on the front? Now you know why.

Floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:45 PM:Now that we've dismissed the global warming hysteria as a political power grab, we can move on to more important things like the punitive legislation to tax grocery sacks at 25-cents each.

Reality evidence wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:49 PM:I always wondered why Ron was so often impervious to corrections. How many times have posters told him about his spelling, even offering the correct usage for many of his most common errors? He pays these no mind. Real people attend to information from the world that helps them become more effective. Unless they are so incredibly egotistical as to suppose that "no one tells ME how to spell!"

An X Ray of Hope wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:06 PM:ACLU, There you go again, Protect the pervs at all cost.

Oh Bill wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:15 PM:You seem to assume that all of us who think Bush is a horror also think Bill Clinton was just great. This is a terribly erroneous assumption. On the other hand, Clinton DID leave W with a lot of information about bin laden, which W promptly ignored completely. (Did Clinton force W to ignore that stuff?) Bush was in office for 9 months and it happened on his watch. Given the warnings, the previous failures and bone-head plays that Clinton had managed, one might have thought that a tough-minded Cowpoke like Bush would've jumped right on that terrorism issue from day one. He, like his VP, had other priorities, I guess. But thanks, Bill: if, god forbid, there is an attack on us after Obama's election, I know we can count on you to blame Bush. LOL

to X ray wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:19 PM:Well, you know X ray, that's the ACLU's job, to protect those whom the majority wants to exclude from their constitutional rights. They help out the minutemen when this happens as well as "leftist" groups. They even help out "perverts", not to free them, but to be sure that the Constitution is upheld and justice is served. They remember that in Germany in the 1930s, Jews were considered pervs, remember. And in Mississippi until the 1970's, a black man who looked at a white woman was considered a perv, too. Why even you might be considered a perv under the wrong circumstances.

hardtack wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:56 PM:The three comments (Greenergy @ 9:17 AM; liberaljim @ 9:23 AM; and Oh Irvin @ 9:44) all validate one point Irving Forbing makes: “. . [W]hen someone disagrees with another . . denigrating the personalities or institutions . . they oppose inevitably ensues.”

An X Ray of Hope wrote on Jun 28, 2008 4:46 PM:to X ray
[-] wrote on Jun 28, 2008 2:19 PM:Well, you know X ray, that's the ACLU's job, to protect those whom the majority wants to exclude from their constitutional rights. Well, to X ray, you know what. I may be wrong, but I don't think having sex, gay or otherwise in a public restroom is at least for the time being, anyone's constitutional right. That's what the story and my comment were about my friend,(gay sex in a public restroom) Not your right to eat popcorn in the library, or whatever else you want to add to it.

Oh Floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 4:48 PM:Floyd, when you use a dictionary and a word has multiple meanings, you use the "context" to figure out which definition is most likely intended. Try reading the second amendment with "able to hit the target" or even "skilled" and see how it reads. You really think the Founders intended "skilled" to be an important part of the law? Or let's put it another way: if they'd meant "skilled", why didn't they say "skilled", unless they also meant "regulated"? Are you seriously advocating that they meant we needed to have an UNregulated "militia", whatever that is, made up of good-shots? Puh-lease.

JW wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:08 PM:June, run for a council seat on that single issue. Then we will know what the public sentiment really is. Until then you are just blowing smoke.

Bill Too wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:25 PM:(Not to be confused with Bill One) – I wonder why most of the “Conservatives” – what a misnomer – categorize “Liberals” as spineless wimps. All of the Liberals I know would rather confront an enemy or problem “Mano-a-mano, Cara-a-cara (hand to hand, face to face for you unschooled conservatives) rather than use the cowardly “blow the hell out of them from hundreds of miles away” with cruise missiles or Nukes. You talk about “Surgical strikes” when there is a “collateral damage” area anywhere that these methods are used. Up close and personal – looking the enemy in the eye eliminates that problem. There was a lot to be said about the old Roman short sword – it was a lot more “Civilized.” NOW – just who are the spineless wimps?

Oh No Mr Bill - wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:35 PM: Bill Too (Not to be confused with Bill ONE) Don't you mean Bill Two?

NO. I know who I am. Just because I do not neatly fit the mould that some use who like to lump people neatly onto categories – and I can think for myself unlike a lot of sheeple in this country – does not mean that I am lost.

People only get that way when they let OTHERS (political parties anyone?) think FOR them. Of course it is much simpler that way, but then I suppose that they would need to be pretty simple (minded) to accept that method in the first place.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:11 PM:U.S. History: The Irish murderously rioted in 1863 in New York City killing hundreds perhaps thousands of free blacks while allegedly rebelling agaisnt a military draft.

After much of the city was burned to the ground by rioting irish, the powers in New York, the White Anglo Saxon protestant power str6ucture opened up the polcie and fire departments to irish men and hired the rioters, all to keep the peace.

In Iraq we have done the same thing and hired the shooters tos top shooting.

This is deja vu all over again and it doesn'tr bother me. If it bothers anyone, especially the mentally limited antiwar critics perhaps we should regress and not hire the Irish in New York City even though the goal was to keep the Irish off the streets and in
the firehouse and precinct house, with a paycheck.

Nick wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:14 PM:To "Sorry the second amendment is not ambiguous to me": It seems you are yet another with their own interpretation of The 2nd Amendment, even though you state it is not ambiguous.
It states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It does NOT insinuate that you only have a right to bear arms to support a militia.
It clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

To clarify the matter even more, I give you this:

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense (1780).

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state (1776).

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).

Tennessee: The freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense (1796).

Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State (1777).

These are but a few parts of the individual State Constitutions. One thing you will notice is that they implicitly state the right to "Self Defense" and "Defense of The State". They made sure folks like you COULD NOT misinterpret our right to bear arms granted us under the 2nd Amendment.
You are correct in saying that the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous, your only problem is that you don't know how to read. Nice try though.
Cheers, Nick.

Alf wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:29 PM:Well, "to X ray" at 2:19PM, you are right. The Constitution was not written to apply ONLY to the good, righteous, law-abiding citizens, it was written and its rights to apply to all, each and every one of us within the jurisdiction of the United States of America, even the bad, the horrible, the lawbreakers and even the likes of those who would seek its demise and treat it like toilet paper as GWB does. Regards, Alf.

To Reality evidence wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:09 PM:Apparently, you continue to read Ron. So, how bright are you?

Bill wrote on Jun 28, 2008 7:58 PM:Bush had no specific information to go on so what was there to jump on?

Clinton left nothing that specified anything.

Had Bill Clinton just taken the Sudanese up on their offer, then 9/11 never WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Monsoor Ijaz told all about that deal that could have prevented 9/11 from happening in the fist place.

Thats a bigger story than the war.

Dont blame Bush for that.

Its about time a President had the guts to do waht Bush is doing.

I dont care whether they like us. They are trying to kill us so we need to kill them first to survive.

Bush gets that.

Our enemy was at war with us all throughout Clinton administration.

One unprovoked attack after another.

Its about time we fight back.

Apollo wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:49 PM:Re: Irvin Forbing (letter) and Hardtack (2:56 p.m.)
So typical of irrational concservative circular thinking!
Forbing denigrates the need for credentialed, peer-reviewed scientific protocols and cites amateurs as sources despite their crackpot acceptance of oil company propaganda that contradicts the scientific concensus of real experts.
Several bloggers rightly jump all over him for this, so Hardtack uses their denunciations as an (irrational, circular) "proof" that Forbing was right!
Sorry Forbing and Hardtack: if you want to denigrate real credentialed scientists published in real peer-reviewed journals using real scientific methodologies without giving one single reason why your simple amateurs are more qualified that real Ph.D. experts operating under peer review, then, yes, you can expect to have others call attention to this.
Congratulations on, yet again, showing the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-science purveyors of superstition and myth. The Earth is flat!

Chris wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:17 PM:I see that Mugabe's mother told him he was chosen by god. So I think we should just let him go ahead and be ruler. After all who are we to question god. Just ask Bush.

Floyd wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:33 PM:Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics.

Bill Too wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:18 AM:(Not to be confused with Bill One) – Sorry the second amendment is not ambiguous to me wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:53 AM When I read the second amendment, I just don't see a lot of ambiguity, sorry. The only place that requires a modern person to seek interpretive help is in the meaning of the word "militia".

---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

As David Hardy explains, "Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy." (The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987)

Notice the wording - except in private self-defense. It is obvious that this was an accepted idea at that time, and considered so apparent that it was not required to be specifically spelled out as such.

It appears that some who read the Constitution – or the Bible – see only what they want to see. They can accept the words as written without considering what the thinking was 200 – or 2000 – years ago, or alternatively they can interpret it as they want the outcome to be without any supporting documentation. Many words today do not necessarily mean the same things as they did in those times. Things were much simpler then – they did not have 7 times as many lawyers per capita as any other nation in the world arguing about what the word “is” means (remember that fiasco?)

Bill wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:46 AM:God?

Oh thats right Chris, Bush didnt wiit for any authorization from Congress.

He did it all on his own.

I forgot.

Now the dummys that were duped by him want to be rewarded with power.

First Bush was a bumbling idiot and now hes a briliant mastermind of stealing 2 elections and rendering Congress impotent.

Not bad for a C student huh?

Jack wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:24 AM:Global warming is a hoax on the world! If the elites of the world can get us little people to believe we are the cause they can have a world tax on just us breathing. This gives the government’s complete control on what we need to live like food, drink, fuel etc. It is a power grab which has been pushed in our country by the so called liberals for years and now is being pushed by the so called conservatives. I am telling you it doesn’t matter if you are Democrat, Republican, left or right your leaders are in bed together. That is why there is no common sense in Washington or your State government. They only do what is good for the government not for the people (they used to be civil servants now they are our leaders). Do a search on the internet for Agenda 21 and Codex alimentarius. The United Nations is the world government! Do some research on your own before it is too late to get our freedom and liberty back.

Oh No Mr Bill wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:10 AM:Bill Too
[-] wrote on Jun 28, 2008 5:25 PM: "NO. I know who I am. Just because I do not neatly fit the mould that some use who like to lump people neatly onto categories". OK Sure, Say what you will Bill, You just sound like a guy with a chip on his shoulder. Good day!

Nick wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:16 AM:"Jack", I've been telling them that for a long time, and they just say I'm a "conspiracy theorist"...LMAO.
There are a few on these blogs who are intelligent enough to figure it out, but the majority are sheeple.
To oblivious to see the writing on the wall, and when it is to late, they will be the ones whining "why didn't anyone see this happening".
All you can do is keep trying amigo.
Cheers, Nick.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:48 AM:How heartwarming it is that Jack at 8:24 a.m. and Nick at 10:16 a.m., two of this page's best-known conspiracy theorists, once again have the inside track to all kinds of secret insider knowledge.
Unfortunately, until they come clean with their Big-Oil funded sources, or explain why it is they are able to know more than all these evil workaday scientists, toiling in nondescript laboratories, they can hardly expect their tinfoil-hat theories to be greeted with much credibility.
And for Floyd at 11:33 a.m., you are still wrong. Consensus is neither science nor politics. It is AGREEMENT, nothing more, nothing less. When it is agreement by politicians about a political issue, then it is political. We have no such political consensus right now. When it is agreement by qualified scientists about a scientific matter in their specialized field, it is scientific. And we do have scientific consensus on a number of issues, including round earth, relativity, gravity, plate tectonics, evolution and, yes, human activity as a contributing factor in climate change.

Jack wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:58 AM:Thanks Nick! I woke up a couple of years ago when Bush (who I voted for both times) and the Republican party wanted to give amnesty to 35 million people who live in the USA illegally. I thought the republican party was for law and order and common sense boy was I wrong! The Democrat party and the Republican party are now the same party! The more people understand their is no true left or right just the elite power brokers who own the news media and government. They only give us the news they want us to know so they can control our opinions and get the outcome they want. The more people who will take the time to find out the truth of how our world is run the better off humanity will be.

Poor Bill wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:35 AM:There still seems to be a person or two who thinks Bush has been terrific. Bill and Bush don't care if "they" don't like us. "They" want to kill us, so we should kill "them". The problem with Bush/Bill's approach is not realizing that all three "theys" are different people. Just about everyone, friends and foes alike have come to not like us. Al qaeda and the Taliban want to kill us (and Bush cut and ran from that fight, so that they are now back up to full strength and harvesting opium at record volumes). We are killing Iraqis, who had nothing to do with anything. This is the level of wisdom and acuity that Bush has used for his foreign policy, and he still has follks like Bill eating it up. We really are doomed.

When they get a taste wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:38 AM:I see that some faux-patriots still insist that the path to peace and victory consits of bombing people in other countries. After 5+ years of Iraq's shock and awe campaign began, some people who loved that idea now think the same plan will work in Iran. Never bet against the stupidity of many Americans.

Nick and Jack almost right wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:48 AM:I thoroughly agree that the Dems and Reps are hard to distinguish. Both work for the corporate donors. Both pay lip service to some chunk of the electorate every now and then, and return to business ASAP. So I think about not bothering to vote, or about voting for a third party person to make a statement, but then I see that a few of the Supreme Court justices are getting up there in age, and this alone reminds me that I must vote for Obama. I do not want to overturn Roe. I do not want the President to accrue unlimited power. So that vote for Obama actually IS important and meaningful for me and for the majority of Americans that feel the same way I do. Rove/McCain will try to distract us with talk of taxes or bomb scares. But Obama has made it clear and consistent that he will be tough on terrorism, much more so than Bush or McCain, who steered us away from the fight with al Qaeda. So, sad and mad as I am about our almost one party system, that little one percent matters to a lot of people, and I'll vote for Obama even as I think about how we can change the larger system.

Jack wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:13 PM:I believe most of the time the left is telling the truth about the right and the right is telling the truth about the left. I don’t believe we have one leader in this nation that is not a front man for the money brokers. Sorry to say that includes Obama who is saying the correct words to get elected but mark my words will not get any thing done for the people but tax us to death. McCain (McCain is a neocon = fascist) and Obama will keep us in endless war. Iran is next on our list of terror nations. Did you hear all of a sudden North Korea is of the list! How did that happen? Why are we friends with communist china who still torture there people? Study the history of Germany and how the Nazi party and Hitler took control of a republic like the United States. Look into what corporations backed Hitler. A partial meaning of fascism is the marriage of the government state and corporations working together for what is best for them and total control of the people. It sounds a lot like communism and now our country is almost their. I would love to be wrong but my eyes have been opened and I can not shut them again.

Jack is correct wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:34 PM:The intimate relationship between the commercial sector and the government is one of the most important defining features of the Nazi state. It is not like Communism in that private individuals own the corporations and they and their government lackies get extremely wealthy in that system. It doesn't require a RACIAL scapegoat, but often benefits from having some kind of scapegoats or "enemies of the state" that the people are duped into fearing, distracting them while their pockets are being picked and their rights are being dissolved (always for their own protection, of course). Who are the scapegoats now? Just read these posts! "Liberals". "Anti-war ilk". "Panty waists". and the ever-popular "illegals". There's never a problem finding or manufacturing scapegoats. Notice how, at this moment in our history, whichever label or group is blamed, they are "linked" to terrorism. The left is described as "pro-terror" (or "America-haters"). The border's being porous links Mexican migrants to bomb (and drug) wielding terrorists. As long as you keep people afraid, tell them they are the "real patriots", and point to someone to despise, your power is secure and will grow. This has been happening right before our eyes.