jvc wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:55 AM:Critical reporting, oh yes, that is why we need a letters letterors and bloggers!

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 5:37 AM:Yesterday, "Greenergy" {Jul 14}
@12:48 PM stumbled onto something, he, like other lib's are beginning to understand something about me.

In a response to "A. Rose" he says this, QUOTE: "Don't get to be like Ron! At least you have some respect from those who spar with you."

He right about "respect." I do not respect those who promote socialism.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:10 AM:Again I need to set the record straight, for the misinformed, such as "Mark" {Jul 14} @12:51 PM.

First, he wants to claim Clinton left us with one of the strongest economies in history. Sir, I do not know where you get your information, but as I recall we were heading into a recession in 2000, with the weakening beginning
in 1999. And I too could produce the "Enron" budget he & the Republican Congress produced too. For the uninformed, there are generally two budgets in business, one is a forecast & theoretical, the other is actual.
In every year Bill Clinton was President our national debt went up, each & every year. Sir, this is not budget control, nor is it surplus.
Just because I can take my short term liabilities, and transfer them to long term liabilities, does not make them go away. It just offset's them to the out years, for my children to pay for, so this year, my numbers look good.
It would be the same as rolling your car loan into your home loan. Sure, this year you get rid of the monthly payment, but your still obligated to the entire amount, plus all that extra interest.
That's how they did it, it was, in fact, a "paper surplus", it meant nothing. At no time did he or the Republicans ever pay down either the National Debt, or the out year liabilities in either Social Security or MediCare. Your right, I do not like
Clinton, but I will say this about him. He, unlike Obama did have some Centrist views, and was able to work from the center from time to time.

And lastly, Sir... please do not lecture me about "Christian" behavior.
Especially when you begin with politicians & some greedy Americans who believe in theft. We have one of the most progressive tax systems under which we do take care of the truly needy in this country. The problem, as I see it, is that some people, and they know who they are, but some people...
insist on giving stuff away to people who would work if the government did not give them a hammock to lay in.
You see, that's the real crime here. I do recognise we have those through no fault of their own need our help, as a community. The problem is we are giving away the store to those who don't really need it, and we are jeopardizing the truly needy by doing so.
This is why I advocate using my money to do these things. I know, and I don't trust this government to always act in a righteous manner. You hear lib's say this too, "if the government didn't build such a huge war machine, we really could help the needy."
They disagree with how the government is spending their money, but I don't think it dawn's on them, that if the government took less money, the government would have less to spend on things they didn't approve of, and Americans, in turn, would have more to spend on things they do approve of. That's where I'm coming from, I'd rather write the check myself, that way I know, the money is going to a good cause, and is not wasted on some 25 year old, who lives in his Mother's basement on government health insurance, trying to "make it" in some garage band.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:16 AM:Little difficult to completely understand what "this payment" is all about from her letter today.
But, my advise to DeeDee Dana is not pay, at least, not just yet.
I know many seniors are on fixed incomes, but they do have time, time to do some research and perhaps find an attorney to help them sift through this thing. If it does come down to paying the attorney, hopefully, they could get an attorney who would be willing to represent them as a group, and split the cost.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:30 AM:I don't disagree with very much in your letter today, Fred Schuster. In fact, I believe the current rally cry is "Dependence."
When George Washington left office, he gave some advise for the American public, and I think those words are still relevant today.

He basically said: There are two things required for our Nation to remain strong. The first is an informed electorate. The second, is a moral electorate."

If everything stems from "We the People", an uninformed electorate leads to a "know-it-all" political class.
And a corrupted political class rises from the electorate.

Truly, it was never said better than:
We get the Nation we deserve.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:45 AM:What the heck is Joseph Grant's beef with American's who want to own guns?
Astonishing... Hey Joe.. I'ts in the Constitution buddy! You know.. that document that limits what the government can do to you, as an individual?!

I really think that's the problem here, a very poor civics education. Some people just have it in their heads, that if the government says I have to do something, I just gotta do it because the government tells me to do it. Wrong answer.
The Constitution was specifically designed and written to ensure the Government would be limited in it's perview, and our individual rights were natural and abundant, beyond government control, unless consented to.

But, as I predicted he gives us the route the anti-gun groups will take to prevent real self-protection by making it such a huge hurdle to overcome, most will simply choose not to do it.
QUOTE: "Does this include a Glock with a supersized clip? The court left intact Washington's gun registration laws." End quote

And then he says this:
QUOTE: "Gun people believe in strange things. Years ago, it was an unorganized militia composed of every gunowner between the ages of 16 and 65. It disbanded because it never existed, but many gun people believed it was a real organization that proved their right to bear arms." End Quote

Hey Joe.. That idea is still alive my friend. And the militia still exists.
Should this country be invaded at some point, who do you think this government will need then? The Peace-Nik crowd? Singing "Give Peace a chance?"
No, they will call upon every armed American. This thought, this idea goes way beyond protecting oneself from a burgular.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:03 AM:Iraqis want us out, too : Dahl claims that the Iraqis have been lulled into believing that they can handle things without us. It is not they who have been lulled but the USA. Something might happen if we leave? Of course, something is going to happen. Iraq is going to settle its domestic issues among themselves through violence or negotiation. Sacrifice of our youth? That is what it has been. If we follow your suggestion,let us just keep sending them to Iraq to get killed! The UN mandate is up in December. We should leave muy pronto.

Roger wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:08 AM:Frank Dati has come up with a marketing breakthrough with his "...confidential timeline for withdrawl...".

This rates right up there with "Classified Top Secret Exit Strategy".

Oh Please wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:31 AM:RON: LOL.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:42 AM:Video of Guantánamo Interrogation Released.

Mark wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:08 AM:You ahve to have pity on Ron. After all as a "Christian" nation, aren't we supposed to pity the ignorant? Our forefathers believed in a free market, but they also believed that Americans would take care of each other. Americans ahve forgotten part two of the ideology. Ron and Chuck spout off about free market is great and Socialism is bad, and a substantial amount of other topics that neither know much about other than what they perceive in their own minds. The Free Market system is failing in America. We have more "working poor" now than we have ever had, corporations cry poverty while making record profits, the homeless population in America is rivaled only by third world nations, over half of Americans have no health insurance, yet Republicans still believe that the free market system is the best. Republicans like Chuck and Ron are your typical flag wavibg Republican, who believes that patriotism is best expressed, not by action, but by flying flags and spouting rhetoric. Socialism isn't perfect by any means, any system that depends on human beings will ahve fault, but with all of it's quirks, it is still a better system than what we have now. Unless of course you are a closed minded member of the upper two percent, who believ that America was created to give you the means to acquire wealth. The framers of our nation did not have the issues to deal with that we have today, but you can see in their readings that there was an understanding that we, as Americans have an obligation to other Americans, not the rest of the world. Continue to read Chuck and Ron's responses, take them as the comedic garbage that they are. America is strong because of the people who call it home, not the free market bastardizing of our forefathers ideals.

Mark wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:21 AM:It is amazing how Ron insults people constantly, yet rarely does he actually know what he is talking about. The second amendment si badley written, and it isn't until you actually read the works of Sam Adams and our other forefathers that you realize that many of them, did intend for Americans to own weapons for protection of life and liberty. They also believed that the Constitution should be revised every four years so that it stayed fresh. The intention was never to have Americans interpret the same Constitution yaer afeter year for 240 years. Does that mean that they would have banned guns eventually, probably not. The fact is they probably couldn't envision that America would have the aforementioned gun nuts that some people have evolved into today, but I have no doubt they would have no problem with RESPONSIBLE citizens owning guns. Now, the Constitution was not created to limit Government. That is what seems to be the rhetoric being expressed by certain groups today. While there are some Amendments that limit government, the Constitution was meant to lay out a guideline that emphasized the new America's ideals. The forefathers didn't believe that government was bad, just the people who abuse it, or misunderstand it's true purpose.

Yadda Yadda wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:26 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:10 AM:
Recall again. There was no recession in 2000.00. The government doesn't even call this downturn today what it is. We all know it is a real recession. There are bank lines now.

Oh Frank wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:33 AM:Surely you understand that under any rules of law or morality, feeling that we're better off staying in Iraq when their government and people want us out doesn't wash. Do you believe that just because we have the weapons, that we have the right to just do whatever we wish, on the soil of any nation? Bush even said that we'll stand down when they stand up; he said that we'd stay until the Iraqi government asked us to leave; he said that our mission was to bring democracy to Iraq so it could become a free, sovereign nation. So now, just because we don't want to, you and Bush are willing to just toss all that noble (but bogus) rhetoric out the window? Do you and Bush want to convince every Muslim in the world that our aims, as they suspected, really are imperialistic? Is this in our best interests?

Roger wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:46 AM:Mark at 8:08 AM encourages us to "Continue to read Chuck and Ron's responses...".

Why? Are you expecting something you haven't already heard, again, and again?

Those of you without Blowhard Blocker software can spare yourselves from this insipid drivel by clicking on the [-] below Chuck or Ron.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:47 AM:Obama Campaign Criticizes Magazine Cover Illustration

sdraoul wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:53 AM:Thank God, Obama says that he will end the tyranny of oil in our time -- read, his four years in office. Yeah, right.

$150 billion in "green" spending int he next ten years that willc reate 5-million jobs, wow!

Strengthen NATO, wow! NATO is in afghanistan and getting its but kicked. Our NATO partners did zilch to runt he Soviets out of town (except for Maggir Thatcher's Brits).

$50 billion in foreign aid to Africa!

Strengthen our ties to Japan -- where we have had troops for 63 years.

Obama! Obama!

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:03 AM:The Good News is that a US automobile manufacturing plant will expand by $1 BILLION – the bad news is that it is foreign owned (VW) and the expansion will be in Tennessee!

Yep, another Right to Work state – so while Detroit suffers 8+% unemployment, and Flint has 11+% unemployment, the United Auto Workers force another foreign manufacturer to expand in the South.

And the “Rust Belt” gets rustier!

Mark wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:08 AM:Roger, I am trying to be nice. You are absolutely right, neither Chuck nor Ron have anything intelligent or insightful to say, but the more they write in and express their ignorant viewpoints, the more people see what many, not all, modern Republicans stand for. The more they spout, the more people realize how regressive and dangerous modern neocon ideology is to the ideals and soul of America.

Asteroid wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:08 AM:I don’t read DD Wiz; if it’s any cancellation to you libs, I don’t read Ron either. But yesterday he caught my eye while honoring me to be the subject of his wrath (must have been a slow day on the global warming front) with a didactic spiel on economics after I made a facetious remark about $11.00 a head lettuce when mocking liberals and their soft racism. Man is this guy full of himself or what? Hey DD what can I read or where can I enroll to become an authority on everything, especially arrogance and ego?

Asteroid to focal point wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:10 AM:Yesterday you actually made a cogent lucid point for a change (1:28pm). I was surprised. But why not extrapolate from it and reexamine your reasons for calling yourself a liberal. I know, it’s Chucks fault you converted from being an independent. But seriously; democrats generally are pro nanny state, they do not adhere to JFK’s appeal to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can I do for my country”; they want the government to do everything for them. B.O. is an extreme radical leftist, of course he’s going to promise to create Nirvana ( at the expense of the productive sector). BTW, you really got me yesterday, catching me misspelling my own moniker; nothing gets by you! Regards, Mike America.

Oh raoul wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:13 AM:So tell us about McCain's promises. He will increase military spending. He will increase federal contributions to state health care money. He will also balance the budget! Apply your objective journalist's skeptical mind to THAT set of ideas! LOL

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:19 AM:Apollo: Re: your post last night: Actually my name is designed as a hypocrisy alert – and in fact I have a new line of T-shirts and bumper stickers with hypocrisy alerts under the rubric “Tweak-A-Twit!” Google “Zazzle” You have been tweaked, so are self-identified.

To believe that those who oppose hypocrisy in the environmental movement are also in favor of pollution is both disingenuous and juvenile. That sort of analysis is decidedly anti-intellectual and undeserving of carrying a liberal label.

esteban wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:22 AM:To Chris from yesterday...1932 Germany...you don't get it? Figures. You need to finish 3rd grade to understand it. You talk about how the jews are the world's biggest problem, just like Adolf did in the 30's. You seem to think you know it all. Well, what's your "final" solution?

Hallmark wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:23 AM:Oh Frank, the very hallmark of the current administration is that one can trust everything they say to be a lie. The only way to extricate ourselves from Iraq will be to have someone other than Bush or McBush in office. My considered opinion is that, while there may be some initial additional bloodshed, both Iraq and Iran will be much calmer when we are out of there. I did not say peaceful, I said calmer. What Bush and his like-minded followers refuse to understand is that our very presence, especially after over 5 years of occupying Iraq, IS one of the most de-stabilizing factors for the entire Middle East.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:29 AM:The published letters from Ray Boettger and Robert Neal represent some of the most amazing historical revision ever seen in this forum, and that's saying a lot!
Boettger supports Republicans but, ashamed of the record of fiscal irresponsibility and economic devastation left in the wake of Republicans, simply rewrites history. He claims that it has been Democrats who have caused historical deficit spending, but the facts say otherwise.
Do not trust either Boettger or me. We are just letter writers and bloggers. Look to the actual U.S. Government website showing the history of deficits and surpluses from the Office of Management and Budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
You will see that when Reagan took office, he amassed greater deficits than all the previous presidencies of our nation's entire history, including all the Democrats and all previous Republicans, PUT TOGETHER! Boy, you'd think that would be a record that would stand forever! But, no, the very next President, GHW Bush also compiled a new record, not only exceeding Reagan's total deficits, but also more than all the previous administrations in history added to Reagan! And he only had one term to do it it.
Then came that spoilsport, Clinton. He inherited those amazing new record deficits from GHW Bush, and every year after that through his first term reduced the amount of the deficits, until he actually had reduced them to less than zero -- A BUDGET SURPLUS -- for the first time since the FY1969 budget was passed in February of 1968 by, you guessed it, a Democrat, LBJ with Democratic majorities in both houses, running a surplus, despite the enormous costs of the Vietnam War, Apollo moon landing program, and efforts to begin the "Great Society" War on Poverty, which would die aborning when Nixon took over the following year.
Each year of the Clinton economic miracle increased the size of the surplus. If you look at it like a chart, you see the eight years of Clinton's presidency stairstepping steadily, no exception, from the first year to the last, crossing the zero line from deficits into surpluses at the midpoint of his presidency. By the end of Clinton's second term, the budget surplus was the greatest ever in our nation's history. Sadly, though, they were not enough to offset the accumulated deficits which make up the national debt.
And notwithstanding the outright LIE in the post from "Ron" (6:10am), since we have gone over this before and he knows better, the only way in which the national debt increased in the second half of Clinton's presidency is that he had cited a debt-tracker page that had an "asterisk" disclaimer noting that its calculation was based on the face values of all bonds, not the current payoff values. The disclaimer was right there on the web page he had cited, and he chose to ignore it. That would be the same as if I take out a home loan with a balance of $500,000 financed for 30 years at 7.5%. If I were to do a payoff shortly after taking out the loan, I would just payoff the balance of $500,000. But the face value for the total of payments would be $1,250,000. I don't really owe that amount today. The OMB figures show current payoff values; the figures previously cited by "Ron" acknowledged being based on the face values of the total payments due. In any case, if "Ron" wants to go apples-to-apples, compare the figures for Clinton against those for Reagan/Bush/Bush using the same methodology for the Republicans. Ooooops, "Ron" sure got quiet all of a sudden!
In a perfect reversal of Clinton's miracle of inheriting record deficits and turning them into record surpluses, Dubya Bush inherited Clinton's record surplus and turned it into, you guessed it, a new record deficit, not only a record, but greater than all the deficits of all previous administrations put together, including those of Reagan and his Daddy.
The record is there. Look at the OMB government figures. Don't trust bloggers and letter writers.

Baseless Bases wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:32 AM:SDRAUL: JAPANESE bases: Its about time that all our bases be closed as well plus the other 127 countries.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:41 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:53 AM:
Was he when he wrote this blog?

KTB wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:43 AM:First, I have no doubt that the Iraq people and government want us out of their country, and I have no doubt that the Iraqi government is saying so in public as a negotiating ploy. Middle Easterners are notoriously good negotiators – and they want us both there in some form for economics and stability, and gone for national pride.

And we want to be there as a forward base for protection of Middle East oil and vital shipping lanes, and we want our troops home for economic reasons, and for domestic tranquility.

The Iraqi people and their government have competing priorities. The American people and their government have competing priorities.

Getting the US off Middle East oil, indeed ALL antagonistic nations' foreign oil, would be in the US best interest – but in the US there is a small but noisy constituency against drilling here and drilling now, thereby insuring continuing use of oil from antagonistic foreign nations.

Oh Asteroid wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:45 AM:You guys are so predictable. When conservatives make up all kinds of junk to appear like they know everything, you're all gung ho. But if a liberal talks intelligently about something that s/he obviously really does know a lot about, you take your customary fallback position, calling them arrogant. In today's political parlance you'd say they were "elitist". In other words, if you actually DO know anything, if you actually seem to be intelligent, then you are dismissed for being a smarty-pants. It shows that you don't want leadership with brains, you want leadership to have a beer with and that doesn't remind you of your own ignorance, of which you are (paradoxically)so proud. Here's a simple way to test it: when you read an "arrogant" conservative, like Ron, take his statements and check them...you find they are often false, cherry-picked, or have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Do the same for an "arrogant" liberal like DD and see what you get. Simple.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:49 AM:Asteroid to focal point[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:10 AM: Firstly, I do not recall you misspelling your own moniker. I rarely criticize anyone for their misspelling on this blog due to my own inadequacy. Mike, sometimes, I feel that I have a split personality on political thought. I tend toward self reliance axiom whenever possible. Do it yourself when ever possible. Yet, there are times that a social contract with my fellow citizens needs to be used. So, we need to act in consort with each other. But, Mike, you are right about Obama and now even McCain. They both are promising everything to everybody in their first year of office. That is politics. Regards FP

Oh Mike wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:50 AM:You assert that Barack Obama is an extreme radical leftist. Can you support this claim, please? First, I'd like to hear your definition of "extreme radical leftist". Then I'd like you to find statements by Obama that lead you to say this is what he is. Not sound bites taken out of context, please. Real statements of Obama's position on issues that you conclude make him an extreme radical leftist. Thanks in advance, but frankly, I don't think you're gonna do it. I don't think you're up to it.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:10 AM:From the National Journal:

(Quote) Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. (Unquote)


The National Journal is a well respected, independent news group with 110 reporters and editors focused solely on Washington politics. They publish: “National Journal, CongressDaily, The Hotline, NationalJournal.com,The Capital Source, The Almanac of American Politics, Convention Daily, "National Journal On Air" and "Washington Week with Gwen Ifill and National Journal."

Asteroid wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:22 AM:Oh Mike
[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:50 AM:I have a dripping paint brush in my other hand so I’ll make a few quick points, then I’m afraid I have to get back to productive endeavors. 1) O.B. opposed the ban on partial birth abortion while also opposing a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in the Illinois state senate. I call that radical. 2)His speech the other day at the NCLR was rife with leftist propaganda; his criticism of ICE enforcement efforts "terrorizing neighborhoods" as opposed to illegal alien gangs doing such. "When nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn't working and we need to change it," This is leftist propaganda.
Also,choose a Moniker, or don't address me anymore

KAH wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:23 AM:KTB asserts at 9:43 a.m., or should I say assumes, that Iraq is not ready for us to leave. That may or may not be true, but the U.S. currently qualified to be the judge of that. We have our own problems that Bush refuses to acknowledge as serious problems. Having damaged Iraq and having "helped" repair some of that damage, it is long past time for us to leave. This garbage of "and they want us both there in some form for economics and stability, and gone for national pride" and "we want to be there as a forward base for protection of Middle East oil and vital shipping lanes" are mere rationalizations, excuses for remaining an occupying force in Iraq, an occupying force that is against the will of both the people and the government of a sovereign nation. Bush has no honor if he refuses to "stand down" when Iraq is "standing up".

Apollo wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:31 AM:Re: Greener Than Gore (10:10 a.m.)
Conservatives confuse non-partisan with neutrality of viewpoint.
Conservatives may have a fantasy about the National Journal being "a well respected, independent new group" but liberals do not agree with that assessment any more than they agree that Faux News is "fair and balanced," no matter what they (or their sheeple) call themselves.
But even this analysis shows that, historically, Obama was more to the center.
If you actually look at the analysis, the difference in 2007 was several reform bills, in which Obama was joined by several maverick conservative Republicans, which the National Journal had the temerity to classify as "liberal" votes.
Oh well, I guess liberals can take it as a compliment that efforts to clean up the stink in Washington are considered one of our issues, and I guess I won't dispute that.
But not a surprise that "Greener than Gore," who at 9:19 a.m. admits he is nothing more than a merry prankster, not really engaged in serious dialogue on issues, but merely trying to "tweak" the liberals he calls "twits" (hmmm, I used that word once and it got bleeped out - oh well, once again I accept the flattery in knowing that the NCT holds liberals to higher standards, and actually nodding in agreement at this recognition.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:49 AM:Apollo: Liberals have little sense of humor -- which is why Rush signs a contract for more money that God, while Air America can't scrape up enough money to properly file bankruptcy!

Even liberals should be able to see the hypocrisy of "Gulfstream environmentalists", but instead they find a thousand rationalizations for what is so obviously a joke -- I suppose because the joke is on them. I saw the same rationalizations, though in far lower tones, when fundamentalist preachers have been caught in sex escapades.

Liberals would do well to accept the reality of hypocrisy in their ranks, instead of trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Humor works -- but only because I AM Greener than Gore! FAR Greener! And even FAR more Greener than Arnold.

Mother Gaya does not know that there is good CO2 and bad CO2, she just knows that there is more CO2!

If CO2 is "bad" -- then I produce a WHOLE lot less CO2 than Al or Arnold. I hope you don't doubt that, and to be funny something must have some truth to it.

KTB wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:59 AM:KAH: I neither asserted nor assumed anything. You inferred that I implied.

My post was a simple analysis -- no one knows which of the competing priorities of Iraq or the US is dominant either in the population or the government of either party at any given time -- or what the outcome of the negotiation will be. Each government uses public pronouncement as a wedge to gain private advantage.

No public pronouncements should be taken seriously in ANY negotiation -- only the final, signed document. While that is obvious in any labor negotiation in the US, it is even more obvious in negotiating in the Middle East where even final documents are interim.

TFB wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:00 AM:Asteroid at 10:22 a.m. calls Obama's federal and state votes against the effort to ban the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion "radical." This is not surprising, considering that Asteroid's selection of terminology proves that he is the one who is the "radical."
Using the political term "partial birth abortion" to describe the procedure known medically as "intact dilation and extraction" is to utilize propaganda. That term is a public-relations invention of those seeking to outlaw a method that is very rarely used, but when deemed medically necessary, is the least invasive to the woman.
Please note that we are not just talking about "late term" or "3rd trimester" abortions, which are extremely rare (less than 4 out of 10,000 abortions) and ALWAYS the result of some horrible deformity or other threatening condition. We are talking about outlawing the method itself, even when performed in the 2nd trimester because it is the least invasive to the woman.
Yes, the wacko extremists who want to take control of women's bodies away from themselves, always describe what a gruesome procedure this is, but I can assure you that if you were to stand beside the operating table and watch an open heart surgery or brain surgery, or even something as routine as cataract surgery on an eye, as you watch the eye surgeon poke a scalpel into an eyeball and a small pool of blood start to form (I have seen this), many conservatives might also find this far too "gruesome" to stomach, but you don't see people marching around with signs depicting these types of surgeries.
The Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] did allow for regulation of third trimester abortions, but simply banning a METHOD outright, regardless of when it is applied, remains unconstitutional under Roe, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, and for Barack Obama to uphold this is a reflection of his expertise as a Constitutional scholar, and for Asteroid to ridicule it using PR terminology shows only his own ignorance of basic rights.

Chris to esteban wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:05 AM:I have never said that Jews are the world's biggest problem. But as is typical you can't take what a person said and leave it at that. Instead you put up another straw man. The point is that the Jews have garnered sympathy by their lies and use of mythology. All I am doing is exposing those lies and the fact that all this stuff about Moses and Abraham are ficticious. Yes Jews have caused a lot of problems in the world, like the Russian Revolution, but I am not ready to say they are the world's biggest problems. You also have to ask why the Germans and Poles hated the Jews and therefor went along with Hitler. There must be a reason. But as is typical you and your ilk will never ask why. Of course you don't hesetate to trash all muslims. We go into their country and murder millions of them but that is alright. So what is the difference between our treatment of Muslims and Hitlers treatment of Jews?

Not about honor KAH wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:11 AM:Bush's reasons for our being in Iraq have been a long list of lies. If anyone ever had any doubts about this, Bush's demand for permanent bases immune from Iraq law puts those doubts to rest. And when the government of IRaq joined the 70+% of the Iraqi people asking us to leave, and Bush didn't just do it, he confirmed once again that the reasons we went into Iraq, and stayed in Iraq, were twofold (1) Iraqi oil for US oil companies (no-bid); (2) establishing a military colony on their soil. When the rubber hit the road, these two things are what counted for Bush. This is hard, factual proof that all the rest of the "reasons" we were given for the deaths of our kids were mere marketing ploys. Evil.

esteban wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:40 AM:I love when a conservative expresses his viewpoint, libs attack him as spewing lies and hatespeech. But yet the libs are allowed to do just that. They express how the cons are degrading the Constitution, yet when someone says something they don't like, they wanna censor you. Keep it up Ron and Chuck...most of us agree with you. Pay no mind to those wacky lefty loons.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:41 AM:Told ya I know these lib's.. "Mark"
@8:08 AM. I said I could pick out a socialist at 50 paces, and gentlemen.. here's your sing:
QUOTE: "Ron and Chuck spout off about free market is great and Socialism is bad...The Free Market system is failing in America. Socialism isn't perfect by any means, any system that depends on human beings will ahve fault, but with all of it's quirks, it is still a better system than what we have now." END Quote

Do I KNOW these people or what?

Clear difference wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:46 AM:Both Obama and McCain spoke about Iraq today. Obama says our investment in the occupation is detrimental to all our other foreign policy concerns and that we should slowly and sanely pull out (which is also what both the people and the government of Iraq want). McCain says that he "knows how to win wars" and that we should stay the course and also add troops to Afghanistan (Obama agrees with this last part). Based on these statements of foreign policy alone, it's perfectly clear that Obama has better judgment about foreign policy and Iraq. Not even close.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:46 AM:And again, now the known socialist "Mark"
@8:21 AM is at it again with our Second Amendment rights.

QUOTE: "The second amendment is badley written, and it isn't until you actually read the works of Sam Adams and our other forefathers that you realize that many of them, did intend for Americans to own weapons for protection of life and liberty... They also believed that the Constitution should be revised every four years so that it stayed fresh. The intention was never to have Americans interpret the same Constitution yaer afeter year for 240 years." END Quote

I don't know, maybe this guy is studying more Russian history...
But Sir, our Constitution has very strict method of changing it, it's called the Amendment Process set up by those same Founders for us to revise, if we so choose.
The fact of the matter is, it is simpler for anti-guns nuts to deny gun ownership to law abiding Americans through statues.

George Washington wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:50 AM:"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington"

To Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:56 AM:Ron writes at 6:30 am:

George Washington QUOTE...basically said: There are two things required for our Nation to remain strong. The first is an informed electorate. The second, is a moral electorate.END QUOTE.

Where can I locate the 'official' GW quote?

Who was right Who was wrong wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:03 PM:McCain wants to go toe-to-toe with the inexperienced Obama, who has not even BEEN to Iraq or Afghanistan. In 2002, McCain bought every premise of the Bush administration's case for invasion; Obama wanted us to stay the course in Afghanistan and stay out of Iraq. Obama wins that round, big time. Then McCain was one of the loudest cheerleaders for how the Iraq invasion would go. He insisted we'd be greeted as liberators, and that a small force was adequate. Another couple of rounds to Obama. Five years later, McCain changed his mind and wanted a surge. This helped, although all experts agree the surge was one of several factors that reduced violence. But ok, one for McCain. Now McCain claims that Obama knows nothing about Afghanistan while Surge McCain (he wants a surge in Afghanistan) knows how to win wars. But Obama, having never been there, completely agrees with McCain's Afghanistan strategy. So this is a tie that McCain is trying to present as a win for him...that's a bald-faced lie. Finally, Obama thinks that we are in a good position to start withdrawing from Iraq, which is what the Iraqi people and government want, and feels that a large continued presence in Iraq hurts us elsewhere. McCain says stay the course in Iraq. Another point for Obama. Add em up, folks. I think we have a clear winner, don't you?

KAH wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:06 PM:I meant to say "That may or may not be true, but the U.S. is not currently qualified to be the judge of that." in my 10:23 post. The condescending attitude that is shown by the U.S.A., Bush and his supporters of war toward Iraq is nothing less than criminal. Also, when we have millions of acres of LAND leased to oil companies under which there is plenty of oil, it is ludicrous to go drilling off-shore. How soon you forget the disasters along the coast near Santa Barbara with oil slicks and wildlife coated in crude oil.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:28 PM:Baseless Base -- shall we laugh. Japanese bases just to have bases? Or, perhaps, to keep Japan under control so that the native-born militarists of Japan will never see the light of day.

Look how they blame everyone else for WWII in their schools and deny the slaughter of Chinese. We must keep troops there to keep their militarists down, under their rocks.

We are, by necessity, the policeman of the world. There is no one else. That is my view and the view of most Americans who even now say in polls that McCain will run the Iraq problem better than Obama. I don't make those things up.

To Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:52 PM:Hello Reardon.

American cars wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:08 PM:Funny how the conservatives here are so quick to blame the unions for the mess the US auto industry is in. Shows you how ideology-driven they are. Think about all the things that have caused problems for these automakers. Making large, large-engined cars and trucks. Making them among the lease reliable vehicles on the market. Having designers with their heads in the past. But no, none of these things count. Which is funny since, according to conservatives, the market drives it all and the market has told Detroit for decades that big, clunky, poorly made cars stink. No, no, say the conservatives: it's all the union's fault. These people who posture about regulation and self-reliance want the government to step in and ban unions, and in the meantime whine endlessly about them. It's a great case study of the difference between what conservatives say they believe and what they actually believe.

Oh raoul wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:18 PM:Here we go, "the world's policeman" because "there's no one else". Think, raoul, of where a police force comes from in any town or city. The people of that town decide that they need to hire people to help enforce their laws. The create and hire a police force to do this job. Now compare and contrast with what the US military does. Are we asked by Japan to station thousands of troops there to help enforce the laws of Japan? Are our troops employees of Japan? I am so sick of the completely empty "police" analogy being used mindlessly as an excuse for our military presence all over the world. We are there for OUR interests, not the locals'. Our troops follow the command of the chain of US command, not the locals'. We are there by "invitation" only in the most strained sense: more like we coerce the local government to ok our presence by offering wondrous gifts or threatening to punish if they don't. Even see a local police force operate that way? Of course not. Who DOES operate this way? One more accurate analogy is the mob: they come into a neighborhood and offer "protection" via deals the locals "can't refuse". They take orders from their chain of command, not the locals. Even the local real police is bribed to obey them. The motivation is to fill the mob's own coffers. This is nothing to be proud of. Raoul wants us to believe that in each country where we have bases, there are (or are potentially) some people who have ideas we don't like, and that justifies our presence. How moral is that? I hope I never hear that utterly phony, lie-based phrase "world's policeman" again. It's nothing but right wing propaganda and it's shameful.

Oh KTB wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:23 PM:Think for a moment. By what right does the United States get to "negotiate" with Iraq? Isn't the government of Iraq democratically elected? Isn't Iraq a sovereign nation? Don't 70+% of the people say we should leave? How about if I came over to your house, broke in, trashed the place, and when you asked me to leave, I said, "Well, let's negotiate. I kind of like your sofa so how about if I just keep myself confined for the next few decades to your living room?" We invaded a sovereign nation and eliminated their government. A new government was set up in a manner that we endorsed. They say our job is done. So it's over! We have no rights of negotiation. It's their country. D'oy

Concerned One wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:25 PM:Well with the quotes from George Washington and Fred Shuster's letter today, I have to try one more time with my modest proposal. Voters should be qualified to vote. I submit that voters need to pass a simple civics test when they register. That way, only people who make an effort would get to vote. There are all kinds of possibilities here, but the principle is we need a thinking electorate. What say you? Regards, C-1.

Baseless Bases wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:26 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:28 PM:
Cut it out. Thinking of 60 years of yesterday is not applicable. There isn't any cold war. The Japanese have used this rouse to make profits. They do not have to expend GNP for their military. Their young fire brands are vary small number. The USA
does not need Japanese bases.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:28 PM:Yes, Greener Than Gore is Reardon, and A. Rose & actually KTB (Known to Broker) & a few other names as well.

Ideas matter, names do not -- although I would have preferred to keep the same personality because it serves purpose of personality definition.

That is not an option -- a liberal blogger has diminished but not ended my access.

Only the Shadow Knows! As a writer I can cloak my missives if I wish, and easily pass myself off as a surfer, or a redneck, or any one of a number of other alter egos.

It's all entertainment, with a splash of philosophy, a little politics, and just a pinch of actual information.

Of course some of the bloggers are serious -- deadly serious. Too bad.

Baseless Bases wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:30 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:28 PM:
No we are not the policeman of the world.
Look at the debauchee in Iraq. Heck. we can not even police ourselves or defend our international borders. You call us the police man of the world. Forget it. Your language is that of a jingoistic xenophobic who does not see and does not understand that our time of Pax Americana is passing. We don't have the manpower, the money or the credit to police the world.

Ron wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:35 PM:My old revisionist buddy, the Wizzer
@9:29 AM up to same misinformation, again.

I hate to keep reminding people, I guess that's my job now, to provide civics instruction to all the public school attendees, but alas, it is.. what it is.

Notice how Liberals always take great pleasure in pointing out people who have little or nothing to do with spending money or raising taxes?
Come on, Wizzer.. I expect way better from you!

Reagan spent nothing. A Democrat Congress spent. Remember, first year civics? Congress disposes, President proposes.
George H.W. Bush spent nothing, his Democrat Congress spent large.

George W. Bush never spent, His Republican Congress spent huge.

Now, granted each of these men signed these spending bills into law, they aren't without blame. But the actual crafting, the line items of spending, tax reductions for buddies, etc. All put in place by the House of Representatives. That's where all spending and taxing authority lies, which is stated in the Constitution.

And then to point to LBJ as some hero?
When at the time, you have a top tax rate of 70%, plus your taking money out of Social Security to "balance" your annual budget, who couldn't? Oh, sure.. generations down the road will have to pay interest on that borrowed money and pay the principal back, but.. that's..way.. down.. the.. road. As long as I balance this year, so my numbers look good, that's all that matters, right? Oh, it couldn't be that he borrowed Social Security money to fund his bright and shiny Great Society, oh no.. we taxed for that, they'll say. Well, folks they did not tax enough to pay for those things, cause they stole it out of your retirement payments, right out of Social Security! As has been done by every single Congress sine Social Security started. The Great inter-generational Ponzi scheme that iit is.
Oh, but Ron.. they'll say.. "It's popular, can't very well do away with a popular program like Social Security."
No one said stop the program, but what I am saying is: Stop running it like the Ponzi scheme, trapping the net generation into a financial slavery.
Man, I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Oh, and thanks for reminding how Clinton & the Republicans also used a little slippery accounting trick to.. how did you say that? Oh, Yes.. to
recalculate "based on the face values of all bonds, not the current payoff values."
Thanks for that, I had forgotten that point. Yes, they did that too.
It was no miracle folks, it was rolling your current short term liabilites into longer term liabilites, a few inter-government tranfers, and Wa-La! An Enron style budget document, even Aurther Anderson would be proud of.
In case you didn't know, Author Anderson was the "paper account" for Enron, which sucked the life out of retirees. And that's what they have been doing since FDR put Social Security in place, sucking your pension away. Someone once said: "Why, those securities are backed by the full faith & credit of the United States.
Guess who is the backer of all government debt? You, me, and our children. Probably our grandchildren. And they've been stealing from us for way before GWB ever became the President. It's just that it's taken this long for all the papered over debt to catch up.
The only way to get out from under this massive debt is to cut government massively. Pare it back to within the Constitutional boundaries set up by our Founders. As my buddy Wiz likes to say:
"When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging."

Quotes wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:39 PM:Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. "
George Washington

George Washington wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:50 PM:Didn't Washington say "I cannot tell a lie."? I wonder what he'd think of our current President George. LOL

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:52 PM:Not certain how much American Cars has seen of the auto market, but European US and Asian companies have been making comparable cars in both size and gas consumption for decades. Even the quality control is close.

And since many foreign cars are made in America, it is not a difference in workers. The only imaginable difference is in union and non-union work rules, featherbedding, and the loss of flexibility.

But then the union is willing to pay the price in unemployment.

I'll just bet there is some reason that all of the many new foreign-owned plants are located in Right to Work states. I'll bet even American cars knows what that reason is!

Bill One wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:58 PM:To American Cars. I am a car nut and I have owned many cars through out my life. Asian, Eruopean and American. I have kept careful records on purchase price, cost to opperate and maintenance. My personal experince as been that the American cars have been cheaper per mile driven and much less maintenance costs. I know plenty of you are going to jump in here and say your Asian car is the best. I am mearly stating my personal experinces. I have had nothing but bad luck with Asian cars. I had to put transmisions in two of them and a motor in one. I have yet to do that with an American car. The American car manufactures gained a bad reputation back in the 70s. Those cars were in fact very poor quality. I personally believe that they have exceeded the Asians in Quality and value. I would agree they did not forsee the current gas crisis. But I also don't believe the Asians did either. It as al