Two bricks in the wall wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:03 AM:The published letter from Mark Corcoran is laughable on its face.

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Thomas Jefferson

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States, a practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” James Madison

I’m fairly certain these two fellas have read the Constitution. So who is it that’s ignorant and has his own agenda?

Chuck wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:23 AM:>>>Pat was going home on leave; he was scheduled to appear on the "Larry King" program to bare his grievances. That's why I think he was murdered>>>>If Cindy Sheehan Timman put the men in his squad and their missions are risk, he bacame a traitor. In that case, who cares if it was a Taliban or Ranger bullet who silenced him.

Chuck wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:30 AM:<<the recent Supreme Court decision affirming an individual's right to a writ of habeas corpus was shocking, but shocking because four of the justices do not consider it a basic human right, essential to a democracy.>>>>> Me.Liles, what a bunch of BS. First I doubt you even understand what habeas corpus is. Second if a liberal was president, showering you with freebees, nor would you care how murdering terrorists were imprisoned. For your type, it only matters who is in the White House at the time

to Ronald Ford wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:58 AM:You don't want to call it marriage, so let's be honest and call it "2nd class relationship". Bottom line is that you people think of gays and lesbians as inferior, abnormal, like whites used to view blacks. They are not. They are an equal part of the wonderful diversity of nature, created by God.

Research is fun wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:10 AM:Mark Corcoran writes, “By the way, Canada does not have a Constitution, it has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is not the same thing.” Really? I wonder, then, why they call it the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of it. Mr. Corcoran then writes, “Canada does not have anything like our First Amendment.” Really?

Section Two of the Charter reads as follows:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

In my humble opinion, that sounds exactly like our First Amendment. One has to wonder just where Mr. Corcoran gets his information.

Expletives deleted wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:44 AM:Mark Corcoran says that “Canada does censor what its citizens are allowed to watch….” Ever tried watching ‘Goodfellas’ or ‘Casino’ on broadcast television here in the good ole U. S. of A.? I doubt that Joe Pesci’s characters would ever use the word “friggin’”.
The United States is a sovereign nation, it can write decency standards into its own laws.

Good for the goose wrote on Jun 29, 2008 5:49 AM:Mark Corcoran complains, “Focus on the Family is forced to change and censor its radio programs about homosexuality when it airs in Canada.” The law in Canada:

"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons."

Canada is a sovereign nation, it can write decency standards into its own laws.

We call it spin wrote on Jun 29, 2008 6:12 AM:Now we know Mark Corcoran is just plain delusional. He finishes, “Canada does not want its citizens to hear the truth; the government decides what it wants its citizens to hear or see.”
Nixon tried to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers. Bush tried to squelch the story about his illegal wiretapping. Ever hear of The Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918? The Pat Tillman cover-up? The Jessica Lynch fabrications? The editing by the White House of the reports by the CDC on global warming? The entire basis for the Iraq war?
The list is endless.

Chuck wrote on Jun 29, 2008 7:13 AM:>>>The top national prize is a $30,000 VFW scholarship. There are many lesser prizes at all levels. Often our small local prizes go unrewarded due to lack of student participation.>>> The reason there is a lack of participation Ms Rivera is the topic. The public schools abhor such a topic "Service and Sacrifice by America's Veterans". If you change your topic to "Fitting condoms to cucumbers" or your gender choice rights under SB777, the public schools would encourage participation in your program

Roger wrote on Jun 29, 2008 7:19 AM:Just wanted to thank Bob Fisher for his letter. I will always remember Carter as the man who put solar panels on the White House, and Reagan as the fool who took them off.

Rick wrote on Jun 29, 2008 7:42 AM:Rider should change his opinion on everything.

To Peter Angelo wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:14 AM:The facts be damned is right because the only truth to your letter is "The San Diego Minutemen is an organization that for many years has fostered violence and discrimination against Latinos." Even Jim Gilchrist the founder of the Minutemen Project is denouncing the violence of the "spin off" groups. I agree with the Latino Caucus and I am grateful for Sen. Gilbert Cedillo and Assemblyman Joe Coto of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, Janet Murgia, Bill Flores, Enrique Morones, Tina Jillings, Claudia Smith, and others who have taken a stand against these vigilantes. I'll bet they were quite surprised to meet up with such powerful opposition. I bet they thought they would mow threw our cities with their violence, hate and racism and no one would say NO WAY!! Well you were wrong Minutemen. We still have the law on our side.

Chuck wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:40 AM:>>>I will always remember Carter as the man who put solar panels on the White House, and Reagan as the fool who took them off.>>> I will always remember Carter for letting our hostages rot in Iran for for 400 days, and Reagan getting them freed in 5 minutes.

He Said wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:42 AM:If we want to be sure the Canadians are on the same page as us perhaps we should "annex" them. Then we would also get their oil too.

Floyd wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:44 AM:Calling the law when you see a lawbreaker does not make you a "vigilante".

Bob wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:04 AM:The 8:14 AM poster contends: "We still have the law on our side". Actually, you don't, but if the executive branch of the federal government would enforce the law, those ruffians that upset you would go away, as would all the other problems posed by the unchecked flow of illegal aliens.

Yokozuna wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:05 AM:Mr. Elbinger's statement about the stimulus check being stolen from his children and grandchildren makes me wonder why he didn't just give it back to them instead of to someone else.

to Nick on second amendment wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:10 AM:Nick, perhaps you have similar trouble reading unambiguous posts as you do unambiguous amendments. When I posted yesterday, I said the amendment did give people the right to be armed, becuase a militia was necessary and required this. Other uses for those arms are, as I said, simply outside the domain of the amendment. I never said about this meaning that the amendment said people could ONLY use weapons in militias, only that the amendment doesn't speak to this. Your cited laws are an excellent example of my point. comprende?

Alf wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:14 AM:The letter from Barbara Harrison misses the guts of the problem. The problem is that this "marriage is for procreation" baloney argument is just another half-baked excuse offered up by the anti-gay-marriage crowd. They have many idiotic and irrational arguments against gay marriage; it's wrong, it's against God's law, it will lead to polygamy, it will lead to bestiality, it will lead to child molestation and many, many more. What these jokers will not and can not do is offer even so much as one LEGAL reason to discriminate against "gays" by denying them the right to have a "marriage" that is 100 percent (not 90 percent,and not 110 percent) as LEGAL and binding with EXACTLY the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual "marriage". Wild, insane, delusional and/or religious excuses and rationalizations are all that's offered as a defense for un-Constitutional discrimination. Yes indeed, wild, insane and delusional, as well as bigoted and discriminatory, describe the "anti" group quite appropriately. Regards, Alf.

Oh raoul wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:16 AM:Regarding Irish cops: your post yesterday was one of the most telling of your view of things that I've seen. First, in order to justify our military actions in Iraq, you scour the history books to find something, anything, that will serve as an analogy, as if having an analogy proved anything or spoke to the present case. Raoul, you can find another historical example of ANYTHING! So what? But even more amazing, you completely ignore the fact that both the NY police and the Irish WERE AMERICANS! Neither the Irish nor the police were an invasion/occupation force from another nation! You are so hooked into your militaristic view of things that you didn't even realize that WE DON'T OWN IRAQ! Raoul, you have outdone yourself in both making a dumb analogy and in failing to see that your analogy discloses an error in your thinking of enormous proportions. As usual, you have perfectly displayed your amoral, "might makes right" concept of how people and nations should behave. Most of us find this primitive and repulsive.

Alf wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:28 AM:Well, "Bob" at 9:04AM, call them "ruffians" or "vigilantes" or "purveyors of hate", if you will, just DO NOT have the audacity and stupidity to call them patriotic, for they are the absolute antithesis of patriotic. Attention-grubbing outcasts to the movement who's name they usurped is far closer to the truth. Regards, Alf.

reminder wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:29 AM:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they [ALL] are endowed by their creator with certain INALIENABLE rights, that AMONG these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" This is the founding philosophy of our nation. Notice that it's universalist, in that regardless of where you might live, and what laws apply, in the US you are thought of as having these, an other, inalienable rights, just because you are human. We aren't founded on a philosphy that only applies to people like us, or to people we like or approve of. All people. Comprende?

Cindy Sheehan put men at risk wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:34 AM:Before I would ever accuse someone as harmless as Cindy Sheehan of putting Americans at risk, I'd start with people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, and the others that have put ALL our troops at risk for reasons that we now know were made of whole cloth. Not just the WMD and 911-link reasons, but also the "bring democracy to Iraq" reason, the "we'll stand down when they stand up" reason, and all the other reasons we were given. We know, now, that there were only two real reasons we invaded Iraq: first, to give Iraqi oil rights to US companies, and second, to make Iraq a colony for US military bases. This is all on the table now, the facts are in. Cool stuff in ancient Rome. Internationally criminal and immoral in modern times. Cindy Sheehan's crime is to protest the real crimes.

Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:41 AM:Great words no doubt, Wanda Prosser.
Sure puts hope & change to shame.
But notice closely how these words of our Founders are phrased:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Considering how close we came to losing one of these unalienable rights this last week, it is evident to me that some in this country believe your rights are defined by what a court says.
For if they truly believe these rights were self-evident, given by their creator, and were unalienable the vote this week would not have been 5-4, it should have been 9-0.
The truth be told, we have those who believe it is the Government that shall determine what your rights should be, regardless of what the Founders have said so plainly.

Steve wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:02 AM:Ron Fords simple but very effective explanation of marriage is 100% correct. Since the dawn of creation, from the primative act of jumping of the stick to a more more modern full blown cathedral wedding, marriage has been between a man and a women. Thats just the fact. That is in no way being disrespectful to the gay population or classifying them as second class citizens. Call their unions something else if you will. Its hard to try to change the meaning of a word especially in its classic sense.
If same sex couples can get all the rights and benefits of a married man and women, why would they worry about what they call it.

RigorousConstitutionalists wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:06 AM:I see you rigorous liberal constitutionalists are celebrating rights for mudering terrorists and protecting the child raping perverts, and crying that the government cant disarm its citizens. When are you going to demand that voters show citizenship papers when they show up at the polls?? Or are you afraid too many illegals will be carted off?? Thats how rigorous you are. Imagine Hussein teeing the states to check all voters registrations against citizenship lists. LOL

Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:20 AM:If our system of Government says anything, the Founders made one thing very clear. When a Government no longer interested in protecting the rights and privledges of it's citzens, it was time to throw off that government. At the moment, the best you can do Fred O'Hara, when you believe those representatives are not acting in good faith, is to vote them out.
If the Founders had said it in one phrase, it would be: "Stop injuring me."
At present, we have 28 different migrant worker programs. The problem is, those who want to hire cheap labor
do not use current programs because it cuts into their profits. The current programs mandate the employer provide many worker benefits such as transportaton to and from the border, housing, medical, and other things. Employers looking to make a quick buck simply would rather hire out of a canyon.

And two...

From the employee point of view, if they choose to work "inside" a migrant worker program, once the job is over, they go back home. The thinking is clear, if I sneak in, then when the lettuce job runs out, I can move over to the packing shed, and when that runs out, then I can move over to cleaning the hotel. In other words, no lost time going back & forth.
Plus being able to freely move around the country allows them to pursue inter-personal activities too. Many of these men might have a wife in Mexico to which he is sending money home, but given the difficult task of transversing the border, many have developed "families" here.

The problem, it would seem to me, is that we have allowed the system to be gamed, and a lack of enforcement has produced decades more problems.
And it is the fault of weak politicians along with greedy employers who have allowed this to flourish.
Make no mistake, this is not about human rights of migrants, or illegals. It is about the money.
The illegals are gaming a weak system through self-interest. Criminal employers are gaming the system, because they can and are allowed to. And politicians who fail to enforce the laws they swore by oath to uphold, are the worse sort of infestation.

Nick wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:20 AM:To "To Nick on the 2nd Amendment":
My apologies for reading your post yesterday incorrectly.
I do comprende!
Unlike some others on these blogs, I am man enough to apologize when I am wrong.
Cheers, Nick.

Roger wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:25 AM:Chuck at 8:40 AM is essentially correct (hostages were freed 15 minutes after Reagan's innaugeration) as Iran's end of their arms for hostages deal.

Not at all surprised that true believers like Chuck still consider this as a terrific idea.

Thanks Nick wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:36 AM:I don't use a moniker for this space, but I have made errors or displayed ignorances that you have called me on in the past and I've owned mine as well. I salute us for having such an un-Bushian approach to our own fallibility. In exchange for looking (to very infantile people) like we are "strong and infallible", we get to learn and live among adults. I'm toasting you with a cool OJ this morning.

Alf wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:36 AM:Well, "Ron" at 10:20AM, politicians who fail to do their jobs and who fail to even come close to keeping election promises, politicians from BOTH major parties keep getting re-elected. If you want to blast politicians, that's fine, go right ahead. BUT ALSO blast the very people who keep the liars and incompetent politicians in office. This is another case of insanity - re-electing of people who can not or will not do their job and expecting that, this time, they will actually tell the truth and do their job. Regards, Alf.

Oh Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:40 AM:Sorry, but from my point of view, last week's gun decision was exactly legislating from the bench. I agree that the constitution gives individuals the right own guns. But when the court banned trigger locks, it was asserting something outside the 2nd amendment. That amendment insists on our right to keep and bear arms because we might be needed should a militia be called up by the state. In no way does a trigger lock requirement infringe on this. Scalia and the rest legislated from the bench, no doubt about it. (BTW, Scalia has also voted to consider flag burning free speech and protected by the first amendment. Even Scalia sometimes has respect for the actual document!)

Bob wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:40 AM:I, too, am man enough to apologize when Nick is wrong :)

Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:43 AM:Wow, you wait long enough and you get the perfect example of "the Hammock effect." Shirly Fletcher could not have put together a btter statement on behalf of liberals who believe you are too stupid to run your own life.
And two,
She simply does not appreciate what I like to describe as "the Bird Feeder effect."
The more you subsidize rotten behavior, the more rotten behavior you'll get.

If a person believes down the road they'll be "taken care of", what's the point in saving?

Over the decades, we have been taught by this Government that Social Security was to be 1/3 of your total retirement package. That has quickly given way, through the bird feeder effect, to where now very few actually save. Liberal Institutionalism has had it's effect, pulling more, and more into this idea that my Government will take care of me.
Like I've said before, I have nothing in particular against Social Security, except that it is currently being run as a ponzi scheme. It's insolvent, and will continue to be insolvent as long as we allow polticians to run it.
We need to take the system out of the hands of polticians, who use the surpluses of the system to spend on pet projects aimed at getting re-elected.
I know this is a totally unworkable solution in today's political environment, cause many politicians love to use your retirement as a blugeon over another's head.
But, let's at least agree on the facts of how this program actually operates, ok? Today's payments are pulled out of today's workers. We don't have some account where you have money waiting just for you.
In today's Social Security benefits, the average payment is around $1,000 bucks. I say, let's cut out the middle-man, the government. Tell your kid's that you need a $1,000 bucks from them.
If you have two, that's $500 bucks each.
If you have 3, that's $334 each. Four, $250 each, and so on.
And those who say they can't cut a check to their parent's, I feel sorry for you. You should have planned ahead.
But that's exactly what the system doesn't want you to do, doesn't it?

Apollo wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:58 AM:Re: Steve (10:02 a.m.)
Another classic example of utter failure to understand history, claiming that "Since the dawn of creation, from the primative act of jumping of the stick to a more more modern full blown cathedral wedding, marriage has been between a man and a women."
As has repeatedly been pointed out, including by 3D with extensive specific example of chapter and verse, in the Bible specifically and in most of history generally, marriage has actually been one man and multiple women, in arranged relationships, from the same clan or ethnicity, where the women become the chattel property of their husbands who have "dominion" over them (same as the men's livestock).
Fortunately, definitions of marriage have continually changed and evolved, and they will continue to do so.

This is attractive wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:17 AM:You want more reasons to vote for McCain? Not only has he been a rubber stamp and cheerleader for Bush's policies, but when you look at some of the staff of experts he's hired, you see that these folks represent the worst of the worst of Bush's policies and errors. His foreign policy advisor is Randy Scheunemann who headed a group (of which McCain was a member) whose mission in 2002 was to drumbeat for an Iraq invasion. His security guy is James Woolsey, the former CIA director. He was another of McCain's close group that was strongly swayed by, and rooting for, Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi expat that sold the neocons a story of why we needed to invade and what would happen after we did that has turned out to be completely false. Chalabi, in fact, had designs on power for himself in Iraq and now is closely associated with Iran. This is the crew that McCain wants us to believe has him steered in the right direction to protect the US. They are among the most enthusiastic of those who, like McCain himself, moved our military efforts from Bin Laden and the Taliban to Iraq. The Taliban have rebuilt and stepped up the war in Afghanistan into a deadly insurgency, getting more violent by the month. McCain wants us in Iraq permanently.

Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:23 AM:The point is Todd Saier, even if Sempra/SDG&E only put "clean energy" through the PowerLink, you guy's would oppose the too. Because you hate profits, period. Your anti-capitalist.

And two...
There is some kind of weird nature worship going on here. You know, Anza Borrego was a desert long before we got here, and will remain a desert long after we are gone.

Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:32 AM:"Alf" @9:14 AM, I have the solution to all this bickering about same-sex marriage. And it will help our economy at the same time!
If we can agree that some couples do not marry for reasons of procreation.
Then we need to put in place a policy to offset those. We can agree that if your population decreases, and grows older, the vast amount of resources required to take care of that aging population will be drawn from a smaller, and smaller group of young people.
I say, let the polygamists marry.
what do these people have? 20-50 kids at a pop?
Problem solved.

Bill Too wrote on Jun 29, 2008 11:41 AM:- SECOND TRY -

(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 the ones 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?)

hardtack wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:07 PM:Shirly Fletcher’s letter asserts that Richard Rider “can't see that some people cannot manage their monthly income.” To the contrary, Mr. Rider seems to fully understand that some people can’t handle their money – and, I’m sure, the first group that comes to Mr. Rider’s mind would be politicians. As Ms. Fletcher states: “They cannot manage their money in a way to pay their [financial obligations], and some spend everything on everything that is advertised as the latest or the best or as a status raiser.” (She WAS referring to Congress, was she not?)

What Ms. Fletcher doesn’t seem to understand, that Mr. Rider apparently does understand, is that some people are quite competent at handling their money – and should be allowed to opt out of Social Security to do so. But it doesn’t work that way in the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” does it?

In the early ‘60s, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater proposed to make Social Security voluntary. He was widely condemned as “heartless” because the Social Security system would, allegedly, collapse if we were not all forced to participate. Within the next decade, the Social Security “trust fund” was dissolved so Congress could put 15.3 percent of every paycheck directly into their sweaty palms. Of course, with that came the promise that Congress will take care of everyone from retirement to grave – and they do that by borrowing money they can’t pay back. Yes. “Some people can't handle their money.”

Apparently, Alexis de Tocqueville’s quote can’t be repeated too often:
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness . . . it facilitates their pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances. What remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

to Apollo wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:17 PM:Irregardless, marriage has still been between a man and a woman. I dont care what kind of history you want to dredge up. Some words need to stay the same and marriage is certainly one of them. Words shouldnt change and evolve to fit that persons agenda or lifestyle. Call it something else other than marriage.

I wish Ron luck wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:38 PM:While the citizens and the courts debate gay marriage, I want to salute Ron for deciding to make polygamy his special project. Perhaps he has more than one spouse and wants to take it to court. I would follow the matter with great interest. In the meantime, good for you, Ron, for boldly stepping up to stand for expanding our concept of marriage in yet another way. Shows a lot of moxie for such a traditionalist.

Ron wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:41 PM:Margaret McCown Liles has obviously been watching too much Keith Oberman lately. Perhaps she could next describe to us about all the encampements being built by Halliburton around the US?
The Liberals will get their way, we will apparently have to bring these terrorists under our civilian court system, hook them up with some ACLU slip & fall lawyer, who's hero would be Lynn Steward. When they start letting them out, or gett'n them off on technicality's, the Liberals will cheer, and the head cutter's will return to kill more. Hopefully this time they will kill more American soldiers, and the liberals will again cheer.

Surfer wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:44 PM:Two bricks in the wall Dude is Focus on the Family the group that it is administered by that Rev Dobson. See ya!

Focal Point wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:52 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:40 AM:
I recall that President Carter did order a military rescue operation for the hostages. It failed due to the helicopters not being equipped properly for desert weather. The Iranians then separated the hostages into smaller groups and held them at various localities. Regan did not get any of the hostages released. The Iranians kept them right up to the last minute to humiliate Carter.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:58 PM:RigorousConstitutionalists Well Chuck. Why did you militaristic Great Decider just put those citizenship lists and requirement to prove citizenship into place by executive order or through legislation when he had a Republican Congress for seven years!? Was he too busy with your green cucumbers? I wanted the child rapists hung, drawn and quartered. But, Alf persuaded that me real life washout parole was applicable.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:00 PM:For one, Ron is actually correct, when he says at 11:32 a.m.: "even if Sempra/SDG&E only put "clean energy" through the PowerLink, you guy's would oppose the too." Although it is not because we hate profits, we hate filthy, ineffecient means in which private stockholders profit from special government-protected monopolies and unfair use of public lands and public resources.
Why should public lands and resources and a very delicate environment be put at risk of disruption and fire danger to tranport energy, even clean energy, from hundreds of miles away, when it could be produced cheaper and more efficiently right here at home?
Oh, I know!
Because on-site local generation decentralizes the power monopoly on which greedy investors use special sweetheart deals to take advantage of everyone else. There is nothing these corporate bullies fear more than moving the power from their centralized control to decentralized on-site individual empowerment of individual property owners.
My question for Ron and his ilk: why do you hate individual property owners so much? Why do you so despise individual empowerment? I know! Because you want all the power and profits in your own greedy hands, even if you need the heavy, brutish hand of government force to bully others into submission.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:00 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:30 AM:
nener nener nener. Chuckie acting so juvenile again. Back to the sand box for you.

Alf wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:00 PM:Well, "Ron" at 11:32AM, you just exemplified precisely the attitude and sort of character I refered to in the last two sentences of my 9:14AM post. Thank you for proving my point beyond the shadow of any doubt. Regards, Alf.

Surfer wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:04 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:14 AM: Big Kahuna is right again. Cheeyah. Man and woman were foolin around long before marriage as a contract or as a sacrament came bumping along. See ya Brah.

pianolady wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:06 PM:To Apollo.....

Since you were the one to bring up the Bible, let's make sure you have your facts straight. Yes, there were men who did have multiple wives, but this was most certainly not acceptable to God. In fact, entire cities were destroyed because of homosexuality as well as polygamy. You can't pick and choose what you want to read from the Bible. If you are going to use it as a reference, you must use the whole book, not just the parts you happen to like. And as for polygamy being the norm for "most of history", not true!Fro most of history, men might have had their mistresses, but they weren't "married". Even the Morman faith has disallowed polygamy. So please don't use that as a platform for changing the definition of marriage. It is a completely different subject. Let the gays have their relationships, legal rights, benefits, etc., but call it something else. Can we re-define the word man? Or woman? No, it is what it is. Same thing with marriage!

Men at Risk wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:07 PM:Cindy Sheehan put men at risk GWB put her son at risk. She got him back in a coffin. It was all for GWB's oil war.

Apollo wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:08 PM:Re: To Apollo (12:17 p.m.)
You seem to simply dismiss my comment on history.
But I'm not the one who brought it up. I responded to someone else who made the outrageously false assertion that marriage has been "one man and one woman" over a period of history he described as "since the dawn of creation."
All I did was point out that it was FALSE.
You are simply changing the subject.
Why must it be "one man and one woman" just because that is the current definition in the U.S. today (not the entire world)? Why must marriage inherently include a mandate that men MUST discriminate against other men and women are LEGALLY REQUIRED to discriminate against other women? Why? Just because that is what YOU want for yourself? Fine, no one says you have to marry a particular person, so why do you demand to tell anyone else who they can or can't marry, like a pompous little two-bit dictator?
In many of our lifetimes, it was illegal for whites to marry blacks, which the U.S. Supreme Court overruled as recently as 1967 (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1). Many bigots ... were outraged at changing the definition of marriage, just as you are today, but the definition has steadily evolved through time.

Brass n Rail wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:12 PM:to Apollo[-] wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:17 PM: There were no "marriages" between homosexuals in the hist oral path because you could get burned at the stake for being gay. This is today and in the USA. Gays are entitled to be married now. Get over it. No one is changing your church or sacrament or invalidating your male/female marriage.

Three D wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:17 PM:Pianolady at 1:06 p.m. is simply wrong when she says that "entire cities were destroyed because of homosexuality as well as polygamy."
Two entire cities were reportedly destroyed by God due to unspecified sin that many have interpreted as being homosexuality, though this is not explicit in the text (see Genesis chapter 19).
As to cities being destroyed because of polygamy, this was never claimed in the Bible. Nor can you find one single place where it is forbidden or even discouraged. In contrast, it is explicitly permitted, and with God's approval and blessing.
Gen 29: Jacob given Leah and Rachel as wives at the same time
Deut 21:15-17 Laws in the Law of Moses concerning multiple wives
Judges 8:30 Hebrew war hero Gideon acclaimed for "many wives"
Many wives given to David: 1 Sam 25:43; I Sam 27:3; I sam 30:5;18; 2 Sam 5:13; I Chron 14:3
Solomon: 1 Kings 11:3 [700 wives; 300 concubines - criticized for foreign wives but not multiple wives
Other examples of multiple wives of Hebrews (polygamy of foreign kings not incl) reported with approval as opposed to any indication of disfavor:
I Sam 1:2; I Kings 20:5; 1 Chron 4:5; 2 Chron 11:21; 2 Chron 13:21; 2 Chron 24:3;

There, I can cite chapter and verse to show the widespread practice and approval of polygamy.
Can you do the same for your claim of disfavor?
And please cite the Bible reference in which God is reported to have destroyed an "entire city" because of polygamy?
Are you making up your own version of the Bible?

Alf wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:17 PM:Well, "to Apollo" at 12:17PM, words do evolve in their meaning. My favorite example is the word "slut". In current usage it is only used as an insult, a demeaning word, yet it also meant, according to my 1893 Websters unabridged, "2. A servant girl; a drudge [obs.]" (obs. is obscure). No matter what you call it, unless there is something that conveys EXACTLY the same LEGAL rights, responsibilities and recognition in ALL the states as a heterosexual "marriage" (no second-class bull), this issue will remain an issue. Regards, Alf.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:22 PM:pianolady[-] wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:06 PM:I just love the people who refer to the Bible and to God on various topics.
The Bible is not an objective historical document. It is book or rather books written by Jews, to Jews and for Jews. The New testament is about a man/god who first came to save the Jews but decided later to save everybody. But God has never asserted that He is the author of the Holy Bible or any so called holy book. God was not at any book signing. In fact, no one has ever seen God. So, I do not think anyone know what is and what is not pleasing to God.

to Bill Too wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:23 PM:All I said, reading the 2nd amendment unambiguously, was that it gives the reason for the right to bear arms as being needed for a militia. I said nothing, nor does the amendment, about other uses of weapons. That was one of my points, that all other uses of firearms lie outside the scope of that amendment. Comprende? I disagree with you very much that people can read "anything" in Constitution or Bible. Many people try. And many other people seem to have a difficult time reading unambiguous language for what it obviously says. Your post is an example of the latter. Some language in constitution and Bible is ambiguous, often deliberately, especially in the Bible where the language is used metaphorically, poetically or in parables sometimes. But just as the Bible would say "abortion is forbidden" if it wanted to, the founders would not have put in the stuff about the militia if they hadn't meant that as important somehow.

Surfer wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:24 PM:to Apollo[-] wrote on Jun 29, 2008 12:17 PM: Dude, if words did not evolve, there wouldn't be any languages. Oh Brudda!

pianolady wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:32 PM:To Focal Point:

I did not bring up the Bible. Apollo did. I was responding to HIS reference to the Bible and its position on marriage.

And to Alf: yes, the word slut has certainly evolved into something else hasn't it? And it isn't a good thing, is it? So you want the work "marriage" to evolve in the same direction as the work slut?

Again, just call it something else! Why does it have to be called marriage?

Alf wrote on Jun 29, 2008 1:37 PM:Thanks, "Surfer" at 1:04PM. Do you know when the state became an authorizing entity with respect to marriage in the first place? I don't. As you pointed out, indirectly, the term "marriage" refers to a religious ritual and the term "marriage" also refers a legal, state enforced contract. For the word purists out there,