Now he tells us wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:22 AM:During the primaries, Obama said that Hillary would say and do anything to get elected. Apparently in contrast to his new kind of politics. But now that he’s all but assured of the nomination, Obama’s doing a little dancing around the issues himself.
He’s now for Telecom immunity in the FISA bill when he vowed to fight against it.
He supports the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment when he said previously that he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.
He supported public financing, challenging the Republican nominee to join him, that is until he started raking in the dough.
He supports the death penalty for non-murderers.
He’s for expanding Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives.
He’s backtracking on Roe v. Wade and late term abortions; according to an interview he gave Relevant magazine this week.
Last but certainly not least, he said this week that he reserves the right to rethink and refine his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
I guess the only “change we can believe in” from this man is his constantly changing positions.

Thy will be done wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:49 AM:Not sure how Don Steigerwald sees his freedom of speech “now taken away” when he just used it to write his letter. He then makes the absurd claim that “Homosexuals have always had the right to practice their sexual preferences.” Always? Really?
But he is right about one thing; his dissenting opinion is considered bigoted. By some, anyway.
If the proposed amendment fails in November, I wonder if the Don Steigerwald’s of California will still be talking up the “will of the people”.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 6:28 AM:The letter from Steve Stults, is remarkable in a few aspects; 1) He advocates the use of common sense and common courtesy, commodities that I've noted seem to be in short supply of late. 2) It is not until the end of his letter that he implies that he rides a bicycle, so one must reflect upon the fact that he is offering a critique and advice to both bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers. 3) His letter is in no way insulting to either group and this is quite effective. Regards, Alf.

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 5, 2008 6:50 AM:Oh dear! I hope Don Steigerwald doesn't choke on his anger and fears. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" said Chicken Little -- What on earth does homosexual marriage have to do with churches losing their right to preach? BTW - I hope all bicycles riders paste Steve Stults letter on the fridge. (That's right - paste!) I have nearly run over more than one bicycle rider who was pedaling down the wrong side of the street when I was looking for traffic from the left before making a right turn. Also, it's scary when you're walking and a bicycle comes whizzing by you on the sidewalk. Thank you Steve.

Chuck wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:14 AM:Please clean up road 101. I was driving to the office this AM along the coast road, and Joe ButtCrack was in front of me, on his bike, in the middle of the lane (obviously a liberal) with his ample lycra shorts. I'm in favor of law that says "Lycra is a privilige, not a Constitutional right"

Chuck wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:20 AM:>>Nice job, NCRT. ... I ended up driving to the Del Mar Fair after all.>>> Why anyone on the NCRT still has their job, pension, and house is beyond me. They should all be in orange jumsuits in leg chains picking trash along the choo-choo's track

John wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:24 AM:North County's self appointed ex-military dictator Junious Montgomery is at it again, deciding which rights we should have. He says "Emotional freaks should not be allowed to vote!" Will that not preclude him from participating in the next election?

John wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:27 AM:Now he tells us? Get over it. McCain is toast. Obama will be the next president. Issa will be isolated and Bilbray will be replaced.

Paul wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:53 AM:Junius Montgomery gets away with bashing Obama without citing any reasons and referring to people who vote for Obama as "emotional freaks"

after 7 years of GOP/Bush rule will these guys ever take responsibility for the people they voted for. Life is too short for personal insults, so I will point out that this fall the GOP will likely take a well-deserved beating, because of their failed policies, and no amount of insults is going to save them.

why not learn about Obama's career before claiming he has accomplished nothing, and take a critical look at McCain's career? I guess I'm tired of hearing the people who foisted Bush on us complaining about a hypothetical Obama presidency. As a Bush supporter, you sir are in the minority

Just Curious wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:57 AM:Is this a new letter from Junious Montgomery or does NCT keep this on file for whenever they need to fill up some space on the letters page?

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:30 AM:I too, have been thinking of ways to increase the ridership on public transportation, allbeit, for very selfish reasons. Since the total operating cost is funded by my tax dollars and not rider fees, I think it's high time for the NCTD to improve their service. And here's how:

1) Sell coffee, juice, muffins, bagels, and whatever else at the stations in the morning. And let people take them on the trains or buses. In the afternoon, sell snacks, sandwiches, whatever. Plus Beer, wine, and liquor. This extra money will offset rider fees that fall short.
2) Have a cart on the trains for the late starters, selling the same.
3) Have a smokers car, or section. I think many are driving their cars cause they can't smoke on the buses or trains.
And sell cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco on the carts at the stations or on the trains too. Any extra money to offset rider fees will help.
4) Make handicap sections optional. If the point is to make them full, hence more riders, it should be first come first serve.

You have to make this service attractive to get riders. As i come upon more suggestions, I'll let you know.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:36 AM:Obviously, this "Dump the Pump" thing was some kind of bird feeder attempt to get people to ride mass transit.
It was the wrong way to do it, when your running red ink each & every month.
Try discounts, or half off's first, before you give away the store!
I think people like Ann Palmatier would have been just as satisfied with saving a little money, instead of requiring me to subsidize her transportation at full cost.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:48 AM:The letter from Chuck Mol reminds me, yet again, why I am averse to having "dog parks" built from public funds. Part of the reason is dog owners who are so callous, disrespectful of the law and society as a whole and/or lazy that they either let their dogs run free where it is not legal or let their dogs defecate wherever they want without picking up the feces. I carry several newspaper wrappers in my pocket and am awaiting the opportunity to return their pet's feces to the owner in a most unpleasant way. Regards, Alf.

Amazing but true wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:49 AM:I don't get why so many bloggers oppose government intervention as a liberal/socialist thing. Isn't it obvious that government regulations are written by big business? If some regulation is an obstacle to a good American entrepreneur, you can be sure it was written by a corporate lobbyist or lawyer out to eliminate the competition. The government is the opposite of anti-business. The government WORKS for business. I know, you'll start yelling "FDR, FDR". I hate to tell you, but since the 1970's, the government has worked non-stop to undo anything left over from those days. But our Nixons and Reagans and Bushes haven't been trying to get rid of government, they've been working to return government to what they see as it's rightful home: the pockets of the big spenders. That the Republican party has persuaded so many Americans that it is anti-government and for the entrepreneur and the regular guy is one of the greatest PR coups of our lifetime. It's a campaign based on (1)demonizing the poor and (2) calling any opposition "communist", and it works, just as poor whites' votes and support could always be had via racism and other kids of bigotry. It's also a flat-out, monumental lie. If ordinary people, including good middle-class ones, who have been Republicans would realize this, and join with similarly enlightened and disgusted Democrats, we might have a chance to get our country back.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:52 AM:John Musser confirms for us that, "Good news in Iraq, would be bad news for Democrats."
As you'll recall, the Leftists predicted over 50,000 bodybags would be our future, should we go into Iraq. Remember the "Human Shield's?" Hussein used them to protect WMD sites.
After having to listen to comments about our troops being Nazi's, or the War is lost from Democrats, I agree with Ollie, the press should be reporting both good & bad news. That's their job, to report objectively.

As for Ollie's so-called "utter contempt for the First Amendment."
He wrote his opinion, you wrote your's, John. I think it works just fine.

I believe it is people like you John Musser who would violate Mr. North's 1st Amendment rights by not allowing him space in a newspaper, simply because you disagree with his point of view. I think it's people like you who are actually more dangerous than Mr. North.

Sad but not saddest wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:53 AM:Yes, here goes Obama, inching towards his inevitable position of being "just to the left of McCain". It's sad for all of us who had hoped for better. But, as he knows, he remains so much better than McCain, who takes his stand with Bush, pro-war and anti-choice (and all other issues are, well, flexible), that he cannot but get our votes. Obama's remarkable intelligence, his pro-choice stance, and his anti-war-for-profits attitude will be like a cool, refreshing rain after the stifling Bush years. But still, many of us will mourn what we had hoped could've been.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:02 AM:Thank you "Ron" at 8:36AM for some inspiration. We have been in Iraq for over 5 years, much longer than the Sprinter has been running, yet GWB makes sure that his "War on Terror", more accurately known as a "War for control of Iraqi oil" is "running red" BLOOD of American Troops "each & every month", is "running red ink each & every month" and GWB is in violation of the Constitution and Geneve Conventions "each & every month". GWB has mastered the insanity of "the wrong way to do it". So, if you want more of the same insanity, more of the same spilled blood and deaths of American Troops, more of the same destruction of our economy, more of the same erosion of our Constitutional rights, more of the same slow destruction of our Constitution, then vote for McGWB. Regards, Alf.

A. Rose wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:08 AM:It appears the “dead enders” on this blog who oppose drilling are shoveling against the tide – and another Obama flip-flop is surely on the horizon.

The latest CNN Poll shows “drilling” favored by 73% of the population, opposed by 26%.

The latest Pew Research Center poll shows 60% prefer finding more energy than the 34% who support protecting the environment. When asked specifically about ANWR those who favor drilling there are 50%, and 43% oppose.

In the most recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, those supporting President Bush’s drilling proposals (with some controls, or no controls) are 69%, those who oppose are 22%.

The latest Fox News numbers are similar: 76% support drilling in US immediately, 20% oppose; and 53% support drilling in ANWR while 43% oppose.

All numbers do not add to 100% because some people have no opinion.

Dale wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:16 AM:Honest people must ask themselves why the anti-gay people find it necessary to use hysterical lies. Cecil Sowers pretends that if Prop 8 is defeated, anything goes, all rules and limitations are out the window, "Pandora's box is open". But this defies logic, as well as the California Supreme Court decision, which held that Prop 22's discrimination against same-sex partners violated the state constitution. It did not open Pandora's box, indeed, the "marriages" he hysterically imagines are not taking place under this decision, or in Massachussetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004.

To A Rose wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:25 AM:Your post is a testament to the abilities of the oil companies and their employees at the Bush administration to market ideas. The current high prices contribute to the companies' record profits. They have billions of barrels of oil, undrilled, in land we are already leasing to them. But the squeeze on the consumer is a great excuse for them to persuade us that the only thing between us and cheap gas is the environmentalists. And your statistics are proof of how easy the American public is to manipulate. "Yes! Let's give them MORE land! More offshore sites! More tax-funded subsidies! Then we'll have cheap gas again! Oh, thank you Bush, McCain and Exxon for finally getting those people who care about the environment and our oil addiction out of the way for us. Our saviors!" What did PT Barnum say about suckers?

Fredo wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:28 AM:Who is Don Steigerwald trying to kid? His free speech rights to criticize homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not restricted by the Supreme Court's decision, and will not be restricted after Prop 8 is defeated in November. Likewise, his freedom of religion is fully intact. Nobody is going to make him violate his religious principals by marrying another man, or make him eat shellfish, either. And his church will be free to continue preaching it's hateful and hysterical lies without fear of lawsuits.

In a democracy it's hard enough to make good decisions when we agree on the facts. It's a tremendous disservice to spread falsehoods.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:30 AM:The letter from Cecil Sowers Jr. reminds me of the old saying "consider the source". Well, the source of that sort of hysterical drivel, that sort of hyperbolic nonsense comes not from any logic or any reasoning or any rational thought process, but from the mind of one who cannot stand to have the law favor "equal protection of the laws" over the unequal protection of the laws using religious beliefs as a guide. Such nonsense is part of the reason why the Constitution has built in a "separation of church and state". Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:32 AM:I'm no fan of career politicians, and that would include Darrell Issa. But, just because I'm tired of one, does not automatically send me into the arms of another for "change sake."
I still need to ask questions, and I require very direct, clear, and precise answers.
As you know, any new idea by Congress about how they intend to run my business by proxy, concerns me.
It could be the difference between staying in business, and going out of business.
So, I'm reading Rachel Rott's letter today, and the first thing that hits me is, this thing reads like a talking point memo. Halliburton..this, and Big Oil.. that. Does she even know what she's talking about, or just spewing her contempt for Mr. Issa? I think it's the latter, no help there.
So, I got to Mr. Bob Hamilton's site, per her request, and read this:
"Provide affordable, quality healthcare for all. {and} Reducing the deficit through fiscal responsibility and by eliminating reckless spending."
Now, I'm told by Ms. Rott that Mr. Hamilton has a background in "finance."
So, I read both those two things, and know the guy is just saying what he needs to say, to get elected.
It can not be done. It Can't
You can not reduce the deficit spending by adding a huge entitlement program. It simply can not be done.
And note, he says "deficit", not debt.
Even he knows. Words mean things folks, and he's counting on you to not see subtle differences, and buy the load.
In all the Government Run healthcare programs around the world, only a few do not run debts. Those countries are rich in oil, and they drill it.
In the Western European countries, every single healthcare system is running a deficit, and then borrowing running up a debt. Their only option is to pass off these medical costs onto the backs of employers.
Hamiltion would do the same, to ensure he could do both by his promise.
From my point of view, it is not my personal responsibility to provide healthcare to employees. I do it only because it helps to attract productive, and educated people to bring value to my business.
But to have a guy mandate upon me yet another burden, just doesn't work for me. Who's know's, I may sit out. Given how I feel about McCain, and other career politicians. But I just can not bring myself to voting for a socialist.
I can't.

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:34 AM:Really, Ron, you should read the main stream media and these posts more carefully. As has been posted many times, the good news from Iraq HAS been reported. The Sunday NY Times covered extensively the improvements in violence, in political benchmarks being achieved, in the Iraqi forces now up to a half-million, in oil production up to pre-invasion levels. All good news, due to the surge in combination with many factors on the Iraqi side. I'm a liberal and I say this. But here's the interesting thing, Ron. This was supposed to be great news for Republicans, especially McCain, who was for the surge after he was against it. It was the Republicans who insisted that we were moving towards victory in Iraq, towards "standing down when the Iraqis could stand up", remember? Hey, the Iraqis are standing up! And about 3/4 of the Iraqi people want us out ASAP (about the same number that want offshore drilling, as you are always reminding us). Seems like the PERFECT time for McCain and Bush to declare that we are turning the country over to its purple-thumbed leadership and exiting with the dignity of victory. But no! In the most telling turn-around in recent history, Bush/McCain take this good news as a reason to demand to STAY in Iraq permanently, to build over 50 US bases there, and to have the Iraqis guarantee that they will not interfere with ANY US military operation conducted on their soil, and will not hole ANY American personnel (military or mercenary) to Iraqi law. This was the agenda all along. So any talk of "good news" and "victory" or even of "terrorism" turns out to be just advertising campaigns of the past. It was all about imperialism, about military colonization and getting that oil into the hands of American/Texan oil magnates' hands. Is that "good news"? For whom?

Lack leadership wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:36 AM:Amazing but true 8:49 am is on track.

It is so easy to spread lies that people believe.

Last minute 2006 Horn (Repub) campaign mailers smelled worse than 3 day old fish. The [alleged] lies about Bruce Thompson (also Repub) were horrific. Received a flyer with a large photo of a Las Vegas woman or women and some words. This and other nasty last minute flyers probably caused Thompson's loss.

Lies continue in the County.

Liars like Hitler work to make their population believe suicide bombs are good.

Liars only care for themselves and others in power.

We need forward thinking leadership.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:38 AM:I am all in favor of more drilling for oil ON LAND in the United States IF AND ONLY IF the oil that resulted would be priced at "cost plus 10 or 20 percent", AND NOT at international market price, seeing as how the international market price is artificailly high due to speculators and producers who restrict their output. Since I am certain that the conditions I just laid out will not be met, I oppose any new drilling especially ocean drilling. Why not uncap those wells that weren't profitable that would now be profitable. Regards, Alf.

liberaljim wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:40 AM:Before I do anything this morning I want to thank Cecil Sowers for the warning of what will happen if prop. 22 is defeated. Canada has permitted same-sex marriage since, I believe, 2003. I've been there many times since then, and I never realized that so many of the married couples I see there are brothers and sisters and mothers and sons. From previous writers against same-sex marriage I alreay knew that when I see a people walking their dogs in Canada they very well could be a married couple out on a stroll.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:54 AM:Alf, buddy, I love ya man, but...
You gotta start waking up and smelling the coffee here.
We can not leave Iraq swinging in the breeze, like we did Vietnam. Vietnam is the model the Leftists in this Congress want to follow.
Barack Obama, on the otherhand, is shifting his positions, as he should be. It's smart, actually.
You gotta read what "Now he tells us"
@4:22 AM wrote. He's right, this guy has shifted positions when it suits him.
When he said eariler that it might take until 2013 to withdraw, I knew right there, right then, he knew better.
It was the first of his "let downs" to his leftie base.
They should be getting a clue by now.
And so should you, my friend.
This guy is good at selling, as all good politicians are.
No real commander in chief quits half way. In fact, if you read about our own Revolutionary War, some colonists wanted to quit half way through. Especially when your opponent says that exactly what he expects you to do.
I throughly suspect, that as Iraq's situation continues to improve, we will continue to see more shifting by Obama, eventually the bases will be manned, and the embassy protected. Iraq is to be modeled after Korea, make no mistake about that.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:00 AM:I hereby challenge Don Steigerwald and anyone else, for that matter, to name EVEN one "lay" person or minister or priest, anyone, who has had their freedom of speech or freedom of religion taken away by the recent California Supreme Court. Public employees, those who SERVICE THE PUBLIC, have been told that they may not discriminate against "gay" people or couples, but their freedom of religion and freedom of speech have NOT been abridged. The only thing abridged has been their percieved "right" to discriminate and if their perception of a "right", that does not exist ON THE JOB, hinders their job performance, they are in the wrong job. As a Citizen of the United States, I DEMAND freedom FROM your religion as is my ACTUAL RIGHT. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:13 AM:You stand corrected "Oh Ron" @9:34 AM.
Good news in Iraq, is good news for all Americans and Iraqi's, not just Republicans.

Yokozuna wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:15 AM:Same O, Same 0!! To those who concern themselves with flip flops, position refinements, or whatever else you want to call it.... it is a standard condition that after primary candidates use their wiles to win over a large majority of their party members they then have to centralize their positions for the general election in order to gain additional votes from independents and hopefully members of other political parties. That's politics!!

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:17 AM:Well, "Ron" at 9:54AM, when you say "We can not leave Iraq swinging in the breeze", I must ask you several things 1) Aren't the Iraqi people able to care for themselves YET? 2) If not, Why not? After all, it has been over 5 years that we have been "just a little longer"ing, "just a little more time"ing. 3) If the people of the U.S. AND the people of Iraq want us out of Iraq, what is the reason for staying? 4) How stable is stable enough? 5) Why does the U.S. need to have over 50 permanent bases in Iraq? 6) Why does the U.S. feel that it can dictate that the military AND our hired guns, blackwater, have total immumity for anything that they may do? (that is the mark of cowardice, by the way) 7) As I have asked others for many months HOW MANY MORE dead American Troops is acceptable? 8) HOW MANY MORE dead American Troops are acceptable in order to achieve control of Iraqi oil? (which is the first, middle and last REAL reason for us being in Iraq) Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:25 AM:"Vista Granny" @6:50 AM:
"Oh dear!... I have nearly run over more than one bicycle rider..."

Am I missing something here, Granny?

Surfer wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:26 AM:Alf[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:00 AM: Right again. It is all just fear mongering and obsessing about so called Christian domination of this Repbulic. See Ya Dude.

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:27 AM:Good news for all Americans would be the return of our troops from a place they had no business being in the first place. But that's not what Bush/McCain want. They want those bases, they want our troops and mercenaries in harms way as long as there is another nation to demonize and invade. Such is life in an imperial nation. Sometimes I think the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals foolishly believe there is hope of reclaiming a moral national soul, while conservatives know that soiul was lost long ago and are trying to make the best of it. That's why liberals are called idealists and conservatives realists. I could admire conservatives if only they would admit this instead of trying to persuade us that their way is actually morally good. I don't see why they can't live without lying so often. Maybe they think that if their deal with devil wasn't actually necessary, they'd realize the crime of it all. This is why they hate liberals so much.

Surfer wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:28 AM:Now he tells us[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:22 AM: Dude, are you worried about Obama. You need to check the flip flopin record of McBush. There is a reason for concern. See Ya

Chris to Bill wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:33 AM:Your comment from yesterday about the national debt is nonsense. I guess that you get your economics from Rush Limbaugh or maybe Dick Cheney. Almost a half trillion dollars go to pay the interest on the debt in one year. That money could be used to buy things. The main reason for the dollars fall is the debt. It is you who are totally ignorant about economics.

Not swinging wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:37 AM:Why would 75% of Iraqis ask us to leave them swinging in the breeze? Why would Bush/McCain demand 59 PERMANENT bases in Iraq and immunity from Iraqi law if their "swinging in the breeze" had anything to do with it? Oh, Ron, you continue to buy the big lies over and over. Either that or you enjoy identifying with the rogue imperialists, thinking they have anything to do with you beyond the checks they trade you for the things you manufacture. Please, spare us the sales pitch. Let's be real: whenever the US invades and conquers a country rich with resources our corporattions desire, no matter what happens to the people there, no matter where this stands under the rule of law or morality, I'm down with it. All that matters is power and wealth, might makes right. Why not just admit that like esteban and raoul, you are in favor of destroying others who have what some of us want. It fills your coffers. You know as well as anyone that the Iraqis and most Iranians are not terrorists, but the label is handy. Like "communist" was, and still is, such a dandy one. Because we still have the empty shell of needing our citizens' approval for our adventures, alas, we must sell them on each new one. Wink, wink, Ron. Leonard Cohen: "everybody knows the war is over; everybody knows the good guys lost". But at least be honest about it, Ron. All those movies about the post-apocalypse world? The Mad Max movies, the planet of the apes, etc etc. That is already where we live, Ron. Those landscapes of desolation were a metaphor for our inner, moral landscapes.

Chris to Ms M wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:37 AM:I do not have the faith in Obama that you do. As I have said Obama is rethinking his position on Iraq. We will see buy I have no faith that Obama will keep his promise about all troops being gone in 16 months. You see I have see it all before.

A.Rose wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:40 AM:On April 24, 2006, current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: ““Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

On that date, average gas prices were $2.16. Please advise me how Nancy is doing in the Democratic Party Plan to reduce gas prices below the then $2.16?

Frankie wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:41 AM:When Don Steigerwald talks about his freedom of religion, I think he means his freedom to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else. Sorry, Don, you don't have that right. That's one reason the Pilgrims left Europe and the Founding Fathers declared independence. Nobody has the right to impose their religion on everyone else.

Chris wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:52 AM:Of course Ron agrees with OLiver North. Ron and North don't give a damn about how many people are killed, maimed or left homless just as long as we Americans get the spoils that we want. There is no right or wrong in Rons or Norths world. It only matters that we get what we want.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:53 AM:"Alf" @10:17 AM, buddy, settle down.

1) Aren't the Iraqi people able to care for themselves YET?
Apparently not, with more than 30 years of no democracy, plus tribal/religious strife, it's taking a bit longer. They are beginning to get the hang of it, but they have no history of these groups working cooperatively.

@) If not, Why not? After all, it has been over 5 years that we have been "just a little longer"ing, "just a little more time"ing.

We have over 236 years to refine our "working together", and refining our military, laws, and government.

3) If the people of the U.S. AND the people of Iraq want us out of Iraq, what is the reason for staying?

I've answered this before, you can not run a war, based on a poll. Even during our own Revolution, many colonists wanted to quit half way thru. We didn't.

4) How stable is stable enough?

Iraq will be modeled after Korea. Make no mistake, even Obama will come around to this truth. Can not leave Iran unfettered.

5) Why does the U.S. need to have over 50 permanent bases in Iraq?

Trigger forces. Just as we have successfully deployed in Europe, and Korea. Why change a strategy that has worked successfully in other places?

6) Why does the U.S. feel that it can dictate that the military AND our hired guns, blackwater, have total immumity for anything that they may do? (that is the mark of cowardice, by the way)

It's a war zone, Alf. It's confusing, it chaotic. Those who have done illegal things we have prosecuted.

7) As I have asked others for many months HOW MANY MORE dead American Troops is acceptable?

Given historical perspective, we have lost a lot less here, than in any prior engagement. 25 million free men & women to 4,000 American lives I'd say is a pretty fair trade off.

8) HOW MANY MORE dead American Troops are acceptable in order to achieve control of Iraqi oil? (which is the first, middle and last REAL reason for us being in Iraq) Regards, Alf.

Of course, I reject this constant made up critism of why this war was fought.
Your beginning to worry me Alf, your buying all this left-wing claptrap.
And even if true, after telling us the otherday about your hour drive to work, you seem to be a big customer of Big Oil. If today you truly believe this, you should stop driving all together, as should any anti-Iraq war type.
Who know's? You could be driving on Blood Oil?

sdraoul wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:10 AM:Alf reveals his secret fascist tendency of allowing free enterprise but controlling it to location, pricing and profits.

Typically fascist. Allowing oil drilling "only on land" and pricing of "cost plus 10 or 20 percent" not free market pricing that includes many silly little factors like supply and demand.

Poor Alf, his secret is revealed.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:19 AM:The state is cracking down on nude sunbathing and other related activities at San Onofre State park.

Where are the great freedom fighters who blog here? Where are Libertarian (AKA Fascist) Alf and his followers in this crackdown on freedom?

Not a single word from these great freedom fighters, not one.

sdjuan wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:54 AM:A.Rose[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:40 AM
We will be glad to notify you once your oil man,GWB, has left office.

sdjuan wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:02 PM:Ridership: Ron[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:30 AM: Thank you Ron. I did not know that "my tax dollars" was funding the public transportation system. I guess that we can stop having to pay the $100.00 plus monthly pass fees while at the same time having our ear marked tax dollars returned to us. After all, everybody, Ron is paying for it. He told us so.

Apollo wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:12 PM:Re: Cecil Sowers (letter)
Amazing how Cecil completely concedes the actual issue of gay marriage. He is just one more ... who can't actually find any real reason to oppose gay marriage, so has to switch gears and argue issues such as incest or polygamy that aren't even on the table. Ho hum. Same arguments they used against interracial marriage.

Re: A.Rose (10:40 a.m.)
Tsk, tsk, poor A.Rose needs to re-take that high school civics class.
Democrats do not have actual majorities in both houses of Congress (in the Senate they are joined by two independents to give them committee chairmanships), and certainly can't override the oilman President who can obstruct their plans.
Pelosi is right. Give her true legislative majorities and a president who owes his allegiance to the people, and we will change the Bush/McCain policies that have tripled the price of energy and allowed their cronies to bask in obscene, record profits.

A. Rose wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:30 PM:Apollo: That is NOT what Ms. Pelosi said! She SAID she and the Democrats " have a plan..."

In April of this year, on the second anniversary of the announcement of Ms. Pelosi's "plan" The Hill newspaper had an article saying that the Republican leadership had asked her for a copy of her two-year old "plan."

To this date, there has been no reply from the office of Ms. Pelosi.

If you have a copy of the "plan" -- may we see it?

Apollo wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:54 PM:Re: A.Rose (12:30 p.m.)
You are correct.
Pelosi does have an energy plan, which includes developing alternative energy sources, increasing CAFE (combined average fuel efficiency) standards, and ending the diversion of millions of gallons of fuel for a misbegotten war in Iraq.
It is a PLAN to protect consumers rather than corporate profiteers.
There is a difference between having a PLAN and being able to put it into action because it is being obstructed by the Senate and president.
See how lousy things are?
Ready to try something different?
Don't you think it is about time we stop obstructing the Democrats and implement the liberals' PLAN for reducing dependency on our addiction to oil?
Bush's oil cronies have done well enough. Now it is time to do something for regular consumers.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:57 PM:"Alf" @10:17 AM, buddy... I stand corrected.
After reading what "Apollo" @12:12 PM wrote, I have to concede that my response "Ron" @10:53 AM was a bit premature.

"Apollo" @12:12 PM has it right.

In my post: "Ron" @10:53 AM I said:
"We have over 236 years to refine our "working together", and refining our military, laws, and government."

In our 236 years, we have not perfected our government and laws, we still have many things lacking a great nation.
And, I will concede we still have a nation fill with racists, bigots, and homophobe's. I have been enlightened by Apollo's post @ 12:12 pm.

Iran has no homophobe's, in fact, it has no homosexual's.

They are, by far, a better country than us.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:07 PM:Then, "To A Rose" @9:25 AM...
by your response, are we to assume you have completely "kicked" your oil addiction? Got your solar panels up, driving your electric car?
No more oil usage in your life, at all?

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:26 PM:I'm telling ya folks, they are sooo far gone, they can't even write a convincing statement to garner support for their positions. I'll point you to "Amazing but true" @8:49 AM, who I suspect is the same un-named poster throughout the day, but I digress...

Notice the usage of the word "enlightened."

QUOTE: "If ordinary people, including good middle-class ones, who have been Republicans would realize this, and join with similarly enlightened and disgusted Democrats..."

Notice please how in reference to people he uses "ordinary." And then in reference to middle-class he uses "good." Followed by "...who have been Republicans..."
Of course, his mental picture here is clear: "ordinary", "good", "middle-class", "Republicans."

But, in relation to Democrats, he uses a different word: "Enlightened."

The sentence construction is very interesting, just wanted you to see it.
Now, that's how you "de-construct", my friend.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:38 PM:Washington, D.C. – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in response to Senate Republicans blocking consideration of the Consumer-First Energy Act and the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008:

“Senate Republicans have once again shown themselves to be unwilling to break free of the costly, failed Bush energy policies of the past. They have again adopted President Bush’s ‘drill and veto’ policy that is driving up the price of oil, diesel, and gasoline and leaving us dangerously reliant on Middle East oil.

“President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Senate Republicans have shown no leadership on energy issues for seven years, which is why we face a growing energy crisis. If Republicans will not lead us to a cleaner, more independent energy future for America then they should at least get out of the way.

“The House will soon put forward new, innovative legislation to help tackle high energy costs and make us more energy independent.”

* * *

Now he tells us wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:41 PM:Sad but not saddest at 8:53 and Yokozuna at 10:15 illustrate my points perfectly.
Obama branded himself as a new kind of politician practicing a new kind of politics. Yokozuna correctly identifies what Obama’s doing now as same ole, same ole and says it’s politics as usual.
Sad but not saddest confirms what I’ve been saying under various monikers since January. That Obama is a fraud and a charlatan. Elmer Gantry and Professor Harold Hill rolled into one. That anybody who bought what he was selling was being naïve at best if not outright delusional. The letdown for those poor souls must be tremendous.
Yes, Obama will be better than Bush (how could he not?) and probably better than McCain, but make no mistake, he’s just another ambitious politician attempting to be all things to all people.

Surfer wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:45 PM:GAS PLANS: Lets see all the gas plans Republican and Democrat. What is Bush's plan other than doing nothing? See Ya Brahs.

GAY MAN wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:47 PM:.... Letterwriter Steigerwald is in favor of Big Brother spying into people’s bedrooms, to assure that they do not threaten his own freedom of speech?? Can anybody out there in blogland explain this line of thinking? What Steigerwald seems to be promoting is church control of marriage, and he wants to do this by the marriage of Church and State, to deny certain segments of the population of equal protection of the law.

In 1840 the world’s first Anti-slavery Movement convened in London, but women wanted to attend. It was finally agreed that women could attend, but had to sit in the balcony behind a curtain, and had to remain silent. This met the objections of the religious institutions.

The religious retards become reactionary to progressive changes, but fortunately there are enlightened congregations, Christian and Jewish, which open their doors to all people, including today’s same-gender couples who want to marry.

I do have my reservations, however, about Jewish lesbians having children. Can you imagine a little boy growing up with TWO Jewish moms? Kind of overwhelms, doesn’t it?

FASCIST wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:56 PM:== Let me be the first to assure sdraoul (11:19 am) that we Fascists DO NOT condone nude sunbathing. In fact, we do not condone nudity at all in any form at any time. This could becoming a paralyzing distraction from the order of the State, which is supreme.

esteban wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:04 PM:Hope everyone has a fun and safe 4th. I did, in case you were wondering. Chris, did you have fun celebrating the 4th? Or did you sit in your basement all day with a scowl on your face cursing the great red white and blue?

A. Rose wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:05 PM:Apollo: PLEASE! Pretty Please! Pretty Please with Sugar on it!

No one is "obstructing the Democrats" -- no one can get the "plan." The Republicans have begged for the "plan" and it would not take many moderate Republicans to pass it.

Obviously, we need a plan, and you have a copy of the "plan" because you know the contents.

May we see it?

SOLON wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:32 PM:== If for no other reason, I will vote for Bob Hamilton (rather than ISSA), because Bob is a genuinely likeable fellow, who LISTENS to people. Issa seems to treat his constituents with disdain, as if they are a nuisance to be avoided. At least Hamilton is accessible, approachable and amicable. That, combined with his world-wide business experience puts him way above Mr. Issa. I took the suggestion of letterwrier Rott and read his issues website. Very impressive. We've got a reasonable choice here.

Apollo wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:37 PM:Re: A.Rose (2:05 p.m.)
You seem to not understand what the word "plan" means. A "plan" means proposals, policies, and ideas.
You seem to require some specific, formal document, but a "plan" doesn't have to be that formal.
What you seem to want is something spelled out in flowery language, you know, like the old "Contract on America" - how's that workin' out for you?
Or, more specific to energy policy, something all written up, but kept utterly secret, you know, like the Cheney secret energy policy worked out in secret meetings with Kenny Boy Lay and the other energy crooks.
Now there's a PLAN!

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:38 PM:Let me observe, that "OBSERVATION"
@1:38 PM must love government pork and subsidys.
Under the "Consumer-First Energy Act"
one such provision is to steal 25% of income from individual stockholders, including pensions, 401K's, and other retirement funds, and then give that money to "green" corporations.
Yeah, that's something we've never seen before.

And under the "Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008", the theory is that by taking subisidys from oil, and then giving them to "green" corporations they will create jobs.

This is nothing more than trading pork from one to another.
Why not just eliminate the pork altogether?
If the price break point for alternatives to gasoline is $3.00 a gallon, why do we need this?
The marketplace has already given them incentive, and cost competitivness.
Talk about a "Hail Mary" pass.
Where's the cooking oil subsidy?

sdjuan wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:02 PM:A. Rose[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:05 PM:
Republicans have already filibustered two pieces of legislation. A two year old plan is hardly applicable today and since GWB is reluctant to pressure is hand holding Saudi prince.

Vista Granny wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:16 PM:To: RON -- Yes, dear, you missed something. Actually quite a few things I reckon!

GAY MAN wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:41 PM:.... Cecil is SOUR ....
Letterwriter Cecil Sowers tries to make a case for adding incest as permissible for marriage. Seems like a perverse stretch to me. As long as we’ve had heterosexual marriage we have had incest, but I do not see a causative relationship there. I’m all for keeping this taboo Pandora’s box shut.

jvc wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:23 PM:The Republican Plan:

Brother, can you spare a dime?

They use to tell me I was building a dream for the glory ahead!

Why should I stand in line just waiting for bread?

Brother, can you spare a dime?

They use to tell me I was building a dream and so I followed the mob!

Brother, can you spare a dime?

They use to tell me I was building a dream just for peace and glory ahead!

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Once, I built a railroad and it's done!

Brother, can you spare a dime?

When there was earth to plow or guns to bear arms, I was always there right on the job!

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Say, don't you remember, I'm your pal!

Buddy, can you spare a dime?

FYI wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:39 PM:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in response to Senate Republicans blocking consideration of the Consumer-First Energy Act and the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008:

sdjuan wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:43 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:19 AM:
Here he is again just slumming and just trying to pick a fight with insults. Raoul must indeed be a juvenile.

Almost there Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:46 PM:Ron gets close but still won't just admit he is an imperialist. There are still excuses: it's a war zone, a trigger point. Like the US, of all nations, just has the right to insert its military wherever it feels that there might be a danger? Were we asked to come to Iraq? On the contrary. Were we welcomed there? Not in the least: we created an insurgency that had the unexpected nerve to want to be a sovereign nation. Do they want us there now? What do polls matter? This is democracy we're talking about! Should our military be above the local law? Of course! As long as there is any potential for violence, we NEED to be there in the tens of thousands. How will there ever be peace without our being able to kill whomever we please, whenever we please? And if someone catches it on camera, well, all they saw was a bad apple. Iran is next. The drumbeat is loud and clear. They are dangerous. They WANT WMDs. They don't like us or Israel. The Iraqi leadership LIKES them. Sorry: they have to go. They provoked the whole thing. It's self defense. Is Exxon ready for Iranian no-bid oil? Suit up! C'mon, Ron, just admit it like esteban does: destroying other lands and their people for the sake of US corporate profits is great! It makes us feel like the God-blessed macho anarchist killers that we love to be! Barbarians were always the coolest thing in Europe anyways..

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:15 PM:Well, "Ron" at 10:53AM and 12:57PM, why do we need "trigger forces in a sovereign nation? ATTEMPTED domination of an oil-rich region. Your answer to #6 "Why does the U.S. feel that it can dictate that the military AND our hired guns, blackwater, have total immumity for anything that they may do? (that is the mark of cowardice, by the way)" is "It's a war zone, Alf. It's confusing, it chaotic. Those who have done illegal things we have prosecuted." is way off the mark. The plan is to have such "free passes" AFTER we have our bases, as a condition of our partial withdrawal, AFTER there is, supposedly, no war. It's as if I say that I'll stop killing members of your family, but "my guys" will live in your house AND they cannot be held liable for ANYTHING that they do at any time, EVER! As for your "Iran has no homophobe's, in fact, it has no homosexual's", we have a Constitutional "separation of church and state" for a damned good reason, to prevent ANY church from forcing its views into law. The U.S.A. is not a theocracy, it is a republic. Ain't that grand? Regards, Alf.

ShawnP wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:38 PM:To sdraoul @ 11:19 and Fascist -

I am a moderately conservative, registered Republican, and I am a nudist. I have enjoyed San Onofre many times, and seen no indecency or problems. On the contrary, the majority of the people there behave, we just enjoy bathing in the sun in the suit that God gave us. It's the few bad apples who have spoiled it for the many---ah, but isn't that the story anywhere, anymore? So, your judgements and comments mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:40 PM:Well, "sdraoul" at 11:10AM, twists things around again when he says "Alf reveals his secret fascist tendency of allowing free enterprise but controlling it to location, pricing and profits.". I stated what would be MY PERSONAL conditions to allow oil companies to drill new wells BECAUSE I am absolutely certain that "big oil" will screw us, that no matter how much oil is produced from any and all new or capped wells, the price of crude in America will not drop so much as one cent, ditto for the price of gasoline at the pump. If the promises of lower prices at the pump are not kept AFTER new wells and capped wells go on line, WHO BENEFITS? Not the American people as a whole! Not our dependence on oil!
BTW, "supply and demand" is not involved today, the game is rigged by the purposeful reduction of output and by speculation. The ACTUAL supply is there, it is the oil companies and cartels who are "price-fixing". But don't let me confuse you with facts.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:44 PM:Well, "Ron" from yesterday - NOW as to my commute to Chula Vista, that was part of 1990, 1991 and part of 1992. What was the price of gas then? Did we have the OVER 4,100 DEAD American Troops in Iraq at that time? Did we have GWB invading and occupying sovereign nation(s) as president then? Did you know that I rode my Yamaha 750 most of the time, not some gas guzzling tank of an American car? Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:47 PM:Well, "Apollo" at 12:54PM, I had alwas thought that CAFE stood for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, but both yours and my definition mean pretty much the same thing. Regards, Alf.

liberaljim wrote on Jul 5, 2008 6:32 PM:I hope the above posters subscribe to this newspaper. Newspapers will not survive if people only support them by reading the on-line edition. When newspapers in the U. S. die, democracy dies. I read the NCT and the LA Times every morning. I can't imagine starting my day without coffee and my newspapers. We get very little real news on TV or radio. We must support the press by our subscriptions. Tomorrow I will have two big thick newspapers to give me the news, and inform me on many other matters. I do not work for a newspaper and have no financial interest in them. I write this because the press played a major role in our independence over 200 years ago and continues keep us informed in a way that TV and radio and the internet never will.

Karl wrote on Jul 5, 2008 6:52 PM:GAY MAN
[-] wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:47 PM

"Can you imagine a little boy growing up with TWO Jewish moms? Kind of overwhelms, doesn’t it?"

It doesn't overwhelm me because I don't get your point. Please explain further so that I can understand your point.

A. Rose wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:27 PM:Apollo: Ms. Pelosi spoke in the present tense: “““Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

English is pretty specific...they had a “plan.” There was no "tautological inexactitude." She even enunciated the aims of the plan. Even if she did not have it in writing at the time (in which case it was a “concept" and not a "plan"), she has had two years plus to get the ‘plan” on paper -- assuming that it was an "idea" and not a "plan."

In the meanwhile the price of gas has jumped terribly – and there is no Democratic “plan.”

If and when the “plan” finally surfaces, there will be some drilling offshore and in ANWR, as Obama “recalibrates” to meet the poll demands mentioned previously.

At least Chris has the intellectual honesty to admit that Obama is flip-flopping just like all politicians, and particularly Chicago machine politicians. It will be interesting to see the Obamamaniacs doing the shuffle over the next few months.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul