Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:36 AM:Did anyone notice the post by TFB yesterday at 11:00am, accusing me of being “a radical” for using the commonly accepted term; “partial birth abortion”, instead of the liberal preferred PC choice; "intact dilation and extraction"? It (the liberal) then went on to compare open heart surgery, brain surgery, and cataract surgery; all medical procedures developed to extend and improve quality of life, with ABORTION. Do I have a talent for bringing out and exposing the crazies, or what?

Bill wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:07 AM:Eric Parrish forgets to mention that the reason Israel swallows up Palestinian land is because every time Arabs get some land, they use if for hostile purposes.

Take the Gaza in 67 for example.

They kicked out UNEF to mount troops for an invasionexcept Israel preempted them.

They were recently granted the Gaza back and they immediately turned it over to Hamas.

Yet Eric wonders why they swallow it up?

Hey Eric?

Tell the Terrorists to end the war too OK?

Israel only wants strategic points for defensive purposes which is why they leave swamps like Jenin and Ramallah alone.

I spend 26 months in Lebanon and Israel and if Israel did what Eric thinks they should, they would be committing to a suicide pact.

How are we going to get the terrorists to agree to sing Cumbaya with us again?

Chuck wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:47 AM:The news is reporting that Massachusetts Senate votes to allow out-of-state gays to marry. Just great, first, they refuse to let the people vote on it, and now MA wants to export their gay agenda to other states

Chuck wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:53 AM:>>>The freshman responded with "Pi r squared." The father shouted, "No wonder you flunked algebra. Pie aren't square, pie are round. Cornbread are square.">>> By all means, lets give those teachers unions another raise so the kids learns his diversity lessions and his rights under SB777

To Ray wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:11 AM:Wake up and come to grips with reality. You cannot possibly be that naive. If your guidelines regarding blatant lying were imposed, no one would be left to include McCain who you obviously support and whose character is no better than Obama's. This is not sixth grade class president their running for. They are politicians, this is what they ALL do. Welcome to the real world of politics, Ray.

Follow the Leader wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:23 AM:Tis interesting that after doing everything they can to co-opt ALL national security issues, McCain and Bush repeatedly say that Senator Obama doesn't understand foreign affairs yet somehow amazingly slide towards his suggested policies daily on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to now even meeting with Iran diplomatically. Just sayin'.

To Tommy Boy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:26 AM:Geez Tommy get real!!!! Just how do you know "Three or four families in all the apartments,"? Did you go inside of these apartments? How can you make such a blantant general ridiculous statement and expect us to believe you. Do you really think we are that stupid? I guess your buddy the American Cutie Mari Hayden subscribe to the same theory of how stupid and gullible the good Americans are and we will believe every thing you say including lies!!! Give us some credit, dude. Also it really is not the fault of the illegals that we have a sense of hopelessness in our Country that happens to be the fault of our current President. Yes, it is true many people are homeless and many are losing their homes, jobs and much more but please don't insult our intelligence by trying to blame the illegal immigrants. Those Good Americans you speak of deserve much more from their government. Why don't you try to be part of the solution instead of creating more of a problem.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:35 AM:To Ray[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:11 AM:
Politicians have been lying to the American people since the inception of the nation. The American people expect to be lied to daily. Just look at the commercials on your TV.

Olaf wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:13 AM:Eric Parish: We all know that diplomacy is an option. How do you talk to the people who want to kill all of you? NOT just the military people but everyone? I like the rhetoric of all the weapons that Israel has. Why do they have those weapons? Oh that’s right your beloved Palestinians want to drive them into the ocean. And then your typical hate Israel banter of who was there first! One thing do agree with is negotiating should be done. Let’s start with the Terrorist Palestinians stopping the bombing, mortar attacks, etc. Let’s start with Lebanon stop with the kidnapping and killing of soldiers. Let’s start with looking at the big picture not just your narrow view of the world.

Fact Checker and the Poor wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:20 AM:Fact Checker yesterday gave us data showing that the average poor person in the USA is much better off than the poor are elsewhere, and that there are many "welfare" programs that support them. What can we conclude from this? If we think of an "average" poor American, shall we think s/he should not complain but should think of some Somalian and feel rich? Should we forget about the half of the population of poor Americans that are below the average? Maybe we should have contempt for the poor, since they are so well off, at our expense, and could easily do otherwise if they weren't intent on conning the system? I suspect that Fact Checker, if s/he had the power, would make deep and wide cuts in programs for the poor, so that they would resemble more closely the poor elsewhere. Fact Checker's post about this seems to say: hey, people, you have no reason to even give the poor in America even the slightest though; if you feel any pangs of concern for them, get over them, those feelings are not deserved. The poor are doing great and if you must think of them, think of them with contempt and vote to make them even poorer.

Not only that Follow the leader wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:28 AM:Thanks very much for pointing out the truth: that Obama has displayed the better judgment on foreign policy since at least 2002. While Bush and McCain were yammering about WMDs and how we'd be greeted as liberators and how Iraq would be a cakewalk, Obama said consistently that we needed to focus on Afghanistan, where those who attacked us were. Then, finally, after years, Bush and McCain changed their minds and decided to increase the numbers of our troops in Iraq, and violence decreased, these two acted like it was VE-Day and they'd been brilliant military tacticians. Puh-lease. Now, Follow is correct, in opposition to everything he has said on the matter (and in agreement with Obama's position all along) Bush is getting us involved in negotiations with Iran over their nuclear programs. Bush, comically, says, however, that our diplomat in these talks is "not talking, just listening". This to preserve Bush's ego, of course. Anyone who thinks the US ambassador will sit in the room silently has to be related to W, so preposterous is this idea. You got it right, Follow: Bush and McCain are, in most ways, finally realizing that the Obama approach has been correct all along.

To To Tommy Boy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:34 AM:DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!!
DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!!
DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!! DITTO!!!
Exactly those two and other nuts like them go around spreading lies, half truths, innuendo, exaggerations, scapegoating, spreading hate, and promoting racism all in the name of Patriotism. Your right Geez give us a break.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:41 AM:While I appreciate the responses from To Ray at 7:11 a.m. and Gotta Wonder at 7:35 a.m., the fact is not merely that Obama's positions need to be justified in terms of political pragmatism, but that the allegations of flip-flopping are greatly exaggerated in the first place!
So many people jumped on his statement in a press conference that he would be willing to "refine" his position based on information from the front lines, that he had to make a second press conference to clarify the misunderstanding and state that there was no change in his position. It was, and always has been, that when he takes office there will be a change in the mission, which will be to safely bring our troops home "as careful in getting out as we were careless getting in." This means that, in implementing the new mission, he will listen to commanders on the ground, but he - not they - will set the mission, and they - not he - will execute it. He also reserved the right to reevaluate regional security needs, including military options. Again, this was not a flip-flop. MSNBC ran a montage of clips from debates (which rang familiar since I had watched all of them), in which Obama had said the same thing over the last 18 months. As he has said, those who think he changed his position haven't been paying attention to his past statements. Either that, or these Kool-Aid drinking dittoheads get all their "news" from Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Faux News.
Same with the FISA Act. He did not change his position. He was against telecom immunity before, and still is. But one thing about voting for Senate bills, sometimes you vote for a Bill despite some details you disagree with because it has other things you want passed. While I disagree with him on this one, it does not represent a change in his position.
Now, do we want to go over all the flip-flops by McCain, which DO reflect substantial changes in actual policies regarding the Bush tax cuts for the rich, torture, offshore drilling, immigrants' rights, environment, Viagra/contraception parity, and the role of extremist Christian pastors?
If flip-flopping is the criterion for candidate acceptability, McCain is completely disqualified.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:41 AM:To Tommy Boy[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:26 AM: Gee. How do you know that he does not know? Just maybe Tommy went in for a la comida and counted heads. Could be the four or five cars parked out front. Could be all that human traffic that keeps going in and out of the front doors of those rented houses. OOPs Sorry. We don't know if they own them or are renters? Could be all that excessive trash untypical of a single family dwelling. Tommy just extrapolated from what his eyes beheld. You tell Tommy to be part of the solution rather than the problem? Ola! Gotta Wonder! What is the solution?

Mea Culpa wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:45 AM:To Tommy Boy[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:26 AM: Do you think that Tommy cares if you believe him or not? Do you think that he cares how stupid you are? He is making a statement based upon his observatin. You are making your statement based upon assumption. You know the same mortal sin of which you accuse Tom of committing.
Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa!

sdraoul wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:49 AM:It is nice to know that ignorance among North County readers continues to permeate these pages.

Today, both Mari Hayden and Steve Warrick demonstrate that they can't read or understand what they read.

Poor Mari thinks that "La Raza" is made of of shock troops from Mexico. Baloney! It is made of hundreds of social and community organizations most of which provide services to poor people.

When those groups take public money they are generally prohibited from taking political positions or they lose their tax exempt status. Those political positions "La Raza" is accused of taking are fictions of imagination by people whose IQ's are limited to double digits.

As for the attack on McCain about Social Security, Poor Steve, he obviously didn't see or hear Senator McCain's statement. he didn't call Social Security a "disgrace" what he called a disgrace is the theft of today's working people's wages by heavy taxes to send to people liek me every month.

The money I paid in since 1954 was long gone before I turned 62. My check is made up of money earned by those people working today, including that stolen from illegals who must pay the 15% (including the employer's share) taken from their checks that they will never see because they can't collect Social Security.

And, while we’re at it, don’t try that baloney that illegals don’t pay taxes because they are p[aid cash. Hundreds of studies, even by fanatical and rabid anti-illegal alien groups like the Center for Immigration Studies clearly prove that most illegals have with holding taken from their PAY CHECKS. The number of illegals who collect cash are few compared to the number who collect paychecks with holding.

Scream, all of you, but illegals pay 7- billion a year of their money so that my Social Security check won't bounce for at least another 20 years.

Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:51 AM:Did anyone notice the post by TFB yesterday accusing me of being “a radical” for using the commonly accepted term; “partial birth abortion”, instead of the liberal preferred PC choice; "intact dilation and extraction"? It (the liberal TFB) then went on to liken open heart surgery, brain surgery, and cataract surgery; all medical procedures developed to extend and improve quality of life, with abortion. Do I have a talent for baiting out and exposing the crazies, or what?

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:17 AM:Asteroid: It was just some feminist who thinks that babies are an inconvenience to their sexual dalliances. She thinks that if you package the language of murder it will be acceptable. Gotta Wonder! Don't you?

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:18 AM:Almost every night, Fact Checker posts a translated portion of a Mexican newspaper reporting the narco-crimewave in Mexico. Literally THOUSANDS of executions already this year in Mexico, with uncooperative police and rival gangs being the main targets. These crimes are committed by the same thugs who bring both the illegal aliens and drugs to the US, and who are beginning to operate openly in the US through their affiliated gangs, using kidnapping and murder of US citizens (primarily of Mexican origin), rape and murder of hostages and illegal Latino aliens of many countries being smuggled into the US, and murder of rival gang members in the US. The number of “rape trees” are growing, and the use of contraceptives is being urged for women willing to take the chance.

Wounded Mexican police are being treated in US hospitals in El Paso, but must be guarded so that gang members from Mexico do not execute them in their hospital beds, as they do in Mexico.

The Mexican narco-crime wave is moving north, not because of geo-political reasons, but for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks – this is where the money is. Latinos, and particularly illegal Latinos are the primary victims, because they are least likely to go to the police.

TFB wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:24 AM:I see that Asteroid at 8:51 a.m. has to resort to name-calling ("crazies") instead of actually addressing the point that he purports to be replying to.
I wonder why that is?
He calls the extremist radical term "partial birth abortion" a "commonly accepted term."
It is not.
It is not accepted in medical terms.
The correct medical terminology, and the only term used in medical circles, is "intact dilation and extraction." Asteroid dismisses this as a "PC" term but, in fact, it is correct medical terminology. The radical term "partial birth" was coined by propagandists trying demonize a medical procedure, and would be tantamount to calling cataract surgery "eye-stabbing lens destruction."
Yes, heart, brain and eye surgery improve the quality of lives.
So do abortions for the right person under the right circumstance.
I will repeat a question I have asked in the past. EEG brain waves (as distinguished from routine cell electrical activity that occurs in all cells, including sperms and eggs before fertilization) do not commence until about the 24th week of pregnancy, near the end of the 2nd trimester.
If the cessation of EEG brain waves qualifies for a clinical determination of being "brain dead" at the end of life, how can you call abortion prior to that point in the 2nd trimester the killing of a human person?
And if intact dilation and extraction is the least invasive method for the woman, why should that method be prohibited in the 2nd trimester?
And you will note that I have not used any name-calling, because I can discuss issues and ideas and I don't need to stoop to that level.

Interesting Observation wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:48 AM:Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but did anyone else notice that Ron, sdraoul, Mike America (asteroid) and Reardon (greener than gore and various other monikers), who all share a common world view, are the only ones who continually praise themselves? Seems another common thread between them is self-admiration. I don't seem to notice anyone else on this blog patting themselves on the back for their own brilliance, but I will eat my words if an example of a liberal on this blog congratulating himself can be provided.

Obamas Interpreter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:48 AM:What would Obama do if OBAMACAN was no longer around to explain and interpet for us little people everything he says?

To Todays Reardon Alt wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:49 AM:You can change your name every day but it doesn't matter. Your ego shines through every post you make, identifying you immediately. But I am enjoying the game, so please continue.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:53 AM:Yo To Fact Checker and the Poor: What one draws from the facts about the "poor" is up to the individual. I was simply replying to a post about the poor that did not contain any facts, as your post today does not, but thank you for providing me the opportunity to repeat the facts for any who may have missed them:

(Quote)The study, taken from government sources including the Census Bureau, says 43% of the “poor” own a home, own a refrigerator, own a microwave, 80% have air conditioning, as opposed to 1970 when only 36% of the entire NATION had A/C. 89% of the “poor” have a microwave. About half the “poor” have a stereo, and about a third have a dishwasher. 97% have a color TV, and about half have TWO color TVs. Nearly three-quarters of the “poor” own a car, and 31% own TWO cars. 78% have a DVD or a VCR, and 82% have satellite reception or cable TV. A third of the “poor” have both a cell phone and a landline phone. A third have a telephone answering device.

To quote one of the sentences form the Report, “The average poor American has more living space than the average individual (non-poor) living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe.”(Unquote)

Source, Heritage Foundation (August, 2007)

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:00 AM:To Obamacan: I ahve no comment on Obama, simply a question.

Could you translate Obama's position on "Merit pay" for teachers?

To Mea Culpa wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:00 AM:"He is making a statement based upon his observatin. You are making your statement based upon assumption."

Oh, yes, Tommy personally observed at least four families each living in the housing in Long Beach so his observation is valid. Right. Anyone else who doesn't agree with his "observation" is only "assuming". My family lives in Long Beach and I am up there every weekend. I guarantee you that my personal observation is that Tommy Chanick is full of it.

She Said to Green Energy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:01 AM:I was moving the car out of the garage a few minutes ago. Rush Limbaugh was on. A caller was explaining that a town in Missouri which claimed to be 100% on solar was a myth. He said something like it can't work because there is no wind 24/7/365 so they are probably using other sources for back up. The following almost made me fall out of the car: Rush then said "That's right and when the wind isn't blowing they have to use electricity to power the turbines". The caller had to correct Rush and tell him that wind drives the turbines not the other way around. LOL I thought I was going to die. true story, skeptics

To SDRAOUL and Tommy Boy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:03 AM:Concerning Mari Hayden and Steve Warrick letters etc. At least these people have the guts to put out their names in papers. Why does the NCT insist on having a blog along with letters to the editor? At least the UT has class. The NCTs is starting to remind me of the Enquirer. Oh and the cute image verification really makes us feel safe.

He Said wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:14 AM:Those who believe American big business is at the root of all bad economic times and enslaving the poor workers will soon have some examples about foreign big business. There's a fire sale going on folks due to the low dollar value. How about our largest brewer going Belgian. How about Sprint/Nextel close to being South Korean? Maybe we won't have any American based big business.

Mea Culpa wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:15 AM:To Mea Culpa[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:00 AM: Yeah maybe he did. He was there. Tom will know. You were not there. You do not know. It is not that you disagree with his observation. It is that you were not there and have not made an observation. So, you are assuming. Get it!

Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:17 AM:To Todays Reardon Alt
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:49 AM:
You go Mr. Reardon! I don’t care what you call yourself; you’re an eagle flying amongst sparrows, they can’t touch you and it drives them crazy.

Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:22 AM:Interesting to say the least, it was brilliant, simply brilliant. What an earth moving observation. Give yourself an ataboy, but by all means avoid the topic.

looks like Iceland wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:28 AM:I see Tommy Chanick is making more astute observations about how America looks more and more like Mexico. I guess he thinks it should look like Scandinavia. Of course he can see through those apartment walls and count how many families live there. In fact I bet he can spot an illegal immigrant without even noticing what color their skin is. All these Minuteguy types can tell just by looking whether someone is here legally or not. hahahahahah

TFB wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:29 AM:Yes indeedy, Gotta Wonder at 9:17 a.m.
We feminists definitely believe that a woman has the same right as a man to CHOOSE sexual intimacy without choosing to accept an unwanted pregnancy.
Your double-standard mentality shows how fragile your little male ego is.
You talk about the "language of murder."
Excuuuuuuse me, but if something is occupying the most private part of your body and you don't want it there, you have the right to remove it. I guarantee, if something were occupying the most private part of your anatomy for 9 minutes much less 9 months, and you didn't want it there, you'd pull out your 2nd amendment rights, blast it away, and call it "self-defense."
And you didn't answer my question.
How can you "murder" something that doesn't have measurable EEG brain waves, so meets the standard of not being alive?
Yeah, I know, keep 'em barefoot and pregnant.
Your goal is a return to male domination over females and, as always, you want to use women's sexuality and anatomy as the weapon of subjugation, because when it comes to brains, you really can't compete on an equal footing.
A man of quality (of which there are many) is not threatened by a woman of equality.

Ron buddy... wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:29 AM:Social Security check arrive in today's mail, or something? We miss you!

Mark wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:40 AM:Fact Checker, you keep saying that your "facts"are based on Census info, but the Census does not collect info on the vast majority of the statements you have made. You received most of your info from Heratige, so do you know the methodology of their survey? Who was surveyed and when was it conducted? It sounds as though some of your facts are slanted. Here are the facts, according to The last US census:

-The poor make up 12.7% of the population.
-Out of that 28.3% were single women.
-35% of the poor population is made up of children under the age of 18.
-10.5% white, 33.2% Black, 28.9% Hispanic, 9,8% Asian. Poverty has risen each of the last for years, after decreasing for the previous 12 years.

The reason why American poor live in larger dwellings, is because Americans build apartments, and homes larger than most other countries, not because American poor have more to spend. American poor have air conditioners, so what? Do they use them? Many homes come with them, but that doesn't mean they are used. Poor have two cars, again so what? They may be the same cars they have driven fro years and have no payments. They may have been handed down, etc...we don't know. Many of your "facts" are baseless assumptions, not facts. There are some "poor" who abuse the system, but to try and group all poor together, or to put poverty in a "brighter light" is a bit sad.

If you really would like unbiased facts here are some sources for bloggers willing to do their own research.

The Institute for Research on Poverty

The Southern Poverty Law Center
Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky.

The National Poverty Center

The Joint Center for Poverty Research at Northwestern University.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:42 AM:Obama's Interpreter at 9:48 a.m. does not seem to grasp the concept of this "web comments" page, so I'll help him out.
This is an amateur blog where people read the newspaper (online or print edition) and have a chance to express their reactions to articles, letters or others' blogs.
Pretty simple, huh? You're not having any trouble following this?
So, here's how it works: someone makes a comment about Obama, and I respond.
Still following me?
But then, people who find themselves embarrassingly unable to address the substance of someone else's blog have to try to save face by using gimmicks such as ridicule and trying to belittle others' participation instead of discussing substantive issues in an adult manner, for those who can.
And for those who can't, I understand there are some excellent children's and pre-teen websites.

I am sick of the lies wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:51 AM:I guess Tommy Chasick was wearing his brown colored glasses on his recent trip to Long Beach. So sad for Tommy Chasick that every where he goes he looks for those dern illegals. How ridiculous is it to come to the conclusion that just because someone has brown skin they must be illegal. Also to think we know how many people live in a house based on the number of cars parked outside is another ridiculous assumption. That is all Tommy Chasick's letter is about assumptions. As always, same old diatribe, blah, blah, blahhhhhhh!!!

Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:51 AM:Interesting Observation
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:48 AM:
"Interesting" to say the least, it was brilliant, simply brilliant. What an earth moving observation. Give yourself an ataboy, but by all means avoid the topic.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:51 AM:TFB: Excuse me. You should not have permitted it to be placed there. If you have such high value for the most private part of your body, guard it. Can't help it if you don't guard it. The medical profession can define the existence of life due to brain wave activity but it does not and can not define it in terms of law (which can be changed) or morality. In short, man, woman, society do not have to accept the definition of life as defined by the medical profession. Next, you'll be telling me there is no God.

esteban wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:57 AM:NCT has made it clear to me that they will not let me rebut any lies or drivel printed by Chris. Why? I challenge the ed to tell me what part of my comment was out of policy.

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:00 AM:Yesterday, my good friend Wizzer
{Jul 15} @2:52 PM said I "dismissed" LBJ's budget because at the time he had a 70% top marginal rate. No, what I said was: Who couldn't?
You see.. the thig my good friend always misses is that currently under Bush's 35% top marginal rate, the top 1% alone pay 39% of all the income taxes in this country. If GWB had a 70%, what do you think the net income to the Government would be? A bunch.
That's why LBJ could run a war, run NASA, his "Great Society", and whatever else he could dream up.
The point being, times have changed, Buddy. Get with the program here. In the 1960's we began to see a shift from on-shore to off-shore. Prior, everyone and their brother's wanted to buy "American", and that's not simply the case anymore. When you got the whole game going for ya, a never ending stream of tax dollars because nobody is competing with you directly, then Yes.. you could tax to the hilt, everyone still made some money, and although some grumbled, it was the cost of doing business.
Not any more.
By the time Reagan hit the scene, tax cuts were the only way to get the economy moving again. With other nations subsidizing their own industries, we needed to catch a break, and Reagan helped give it to us, with the help of a Democrat Congress & a Republican Senate, no less.
To those who say we need to return to the days when government taxed like that, is just plain old crazy.

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:04 AM:Liberals like my buddy Wizzer are romanced by the idea that "the good ole days" under a Republican Eisenhower with a tax rate of 90% on the top 1%, represents the good times.

What they fail to see, and appreciate is that the ball has moved from that time, through global markets.
But, they still long for those days, and they had deluded themselves into thinking that if we only returned to them, everything would be great, fine, and peachy.
These are the folks living in the past. They long for a day that shall never be again.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:06 AM:Here's a solid reason why Obama and McCain are tied or McCain is within the margin of error on LEGITIMATE three day tracking polls (Gallup and Rasmussen) the only polls that are on point:

"These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don’t see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush." Rasmussen Reports…

Obamawhiners will cry that their man is for change and hope, but the American voter isn't stupid.

Given current conditions even I -- a trained political scientist, historian and journalist -- can state that this should be a huge Democratic year.

But, it isn't. In the final analysis two elements will beat Obama -- 1. His total lack of experience…THE WASHINGTON POST POLL TODAY HAS 72% TO 48% STATE THAT McCAIN WILL BE A BETTER COMMANDER -IN-CHIEF.

2. White voters lie to pollsters when asked if they are for a black candidate.

This is the Bradley Effect -- Black Tom Bradley had a large lead in the polls against George Deumejian but lost on Election Day because white voters lie to pollsters when a black candidate is involved.

Also, as McCaqin said yesterday, Obama embarrasses flip-floppers all over the world.

It is one thing to vote against tax cuts in 2002-3 and change ones mind when record revenues to the federal government are produced by those very tax cuts. That’s a wise change of mind.

It is one thing to oppose oil drilling off the coast in 2000 and be affected by gas at $4.50 a gallon and $140-a- barrel oil. That’s a wise change of mind.

It is another thing to blatantly vote for bill-killing labor union sponsored amendments to a compromise immigration bill (McCain-Kennedy) then to look Latinos in the eye, like Obama did, and say he is for comprehensive immigration reform.

Chris to Fact checker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:07 AM:If you want to know where I got my information look it up. I told you where I got a lot of it but of course you would just just dismiss it because it came from some left wing communist propaganda. I am not going to waste my time with you because you are too lazy to look something up. I see that you have a problem with your so-called crdebility and have been called on it. Going on about me not referencing everything I say is just another way you conservatives try to draw attention away from the issue. So stuff it.

Just Gotta Know wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:08 AM:esteban[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:57 AM:
OK OK. I'll ask. What did he tell you?

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:11 AM:Fact Checker at 10:00 a.m. asks OBAMACAN to "translate" Obama's position on 'Merit Pay' for teachers.
OBAMACAN happily points out that Obama has an excellent website in which he clearly articulates his positions on many issues. Many of his speeches can also be found online on YouTube and other sources. For adults of average intelligence and literacy, Obama speaks very clearly and is easy to understand. While OBAMACAN is happy to participate in online discussions about issues and values, OBAMACAN does not feel any need to "translate" or "interpret" for adults of average intelligence and literacy.
If there are any bloggers here with special needs, OBAMACAN does believe in promoting literacy education, and if you can cite a specific quote from the Obama website or any speeches that you had trouble understanding, I have been able to explain to my little daughter many things Obama says, so maybe I might be able to help you, too.
No promises other than that I'll try my best.

Cyclist wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:12 AM:I see we have another "I own the road" self important Carlsbad resident (& likely BMW driver) that thinks he owns the entire roadway he is currently travelling on and that all other legal vehicles in his path are subject to his wrath. Tell me Donald, what would you do if a cow was crossing the road, or a slow moving farm implement were using the road and you ran into it, would that be considered "no fault of your own", or is it just bicycles? And why would running into a bicyclist legally using the road automatically qualify as "no fault in your own" in your tiny little world?

hardtack wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:18 AM:Social Security WAS meant to be an “investment” – it was NOT meant to be a welfare program. Nevertheless, it would be futile to argue with Marsha Sanford. She is obviously convinced that progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth are both economically sound and morally just. I’m only writing this to encourage others on ths blog who share the view that progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth are both economically unsound and morally unjust. You are not alone, and neither is Marsha.

How two groups arrive at such opposite intellectual poles is a matter of speculation – parental upbringing, church, schooling, books, demagoguery, life experience, self interest – who knows? Perhaps it’s something more basic. An acclaimed political philosopher once said: There are two kinds of people in the world – those who want to control other peoples’ lives, and those who have absolutely no intention to do so.

TFB wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:19 AM:Gotta Wonder at 10:51 a.m. objects to the self defense response by, of course, blaming the woman, saying, "You should not have permitted it to be placed there." I see, it is always the woman's responsibility, right?
The conservatives who preach responsibility for women are strangely silent when it comes to holding themselves to the same standard.
As for "permitting it to be placed there" I presume you, therefore, automatically concede that in all instances of rape, incest, or underage pregnancy lacking validity of consent, that you permit abortion in all such cases? If not, why did you say what you did?
And if a woman consents to sex, but not pregnancy, the same applies to use of birth control which fails.
Please understand, consent to sexual intimacy is NOT consent to pregnancy, even though you know that it is a possible outcome, any more than riding in a car is consent to a crash, even though you know that is a possible outcome. And if the car crash occurs, I presume that since the person "consented" to that known risk, that therefore you would deny them any medical remedy?
And guess what? The woman is a fully sentient human person, not your personal sex object.
Even if she did want to get pregnant and just changed her mind, SO WHAT?
It is HER BODY, HER CHOICE.
She is a fully sentient human person; the first and second trimester zygote/embryo/fetus is a collection of living cells, like a sperm or egg, but has NONE of the actual qualities of human personhood that qualitatively distinguish human persons from other life forms (including pre-person human life forms).
In contrast, a baby that has been born has ALL of the actual attributes of a human person, though in primitive form, and, more important, IS NO LONGER OCCUPYING THE MOST PRIVATE PART OF A WOMAN'S PERSONAL ANATOMY.

esteban you need to face this fact wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:20 AM:YOU are out of policy!!!! If your comments aren't being posted by the NCTimes might I suggest you try to be civil and respectful and then maybe just maybe your comments will be posted. You have to play nice!!!

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:21 AM:But lastly, I'm sensing a little whining here from my good friend.
You know, when Reagan took command, he faced a Democrat Congress with way more Democrats holding seats, than Nancy Pelosi is right now. He did, however have a Republican controlled Senate for the first 6 years of his presidency, which didn't hurt.
But we get the same old whining about how they were out manuevered in politics, as to reasons why they failed.

I mean, the question I would ask if The Democrats did offer competing budget proposals to Reagan's, which called for LESS SPENDING than Reagan's, why didn't the press it? Why not shut down Congress over an outrageous budget?

And two..
Let's take Wizzer at his word, they wrangled out 16 billion in cuts.
The Reagan Era debt is $3 trillion, folks. You take the 16 billion times it by the 8 years, and you get: $128 billion. It's a drop in the bucket.
So you see.. the real story here is, they might have wanted a somewhat smaller budget, but not by that much. And Wizzer knows this.
And then to whine & complain about 3 Senators who were good at their game, come on.
If you look at what the Democrats actually proposed in the Reagan years, we would still be trillions in debt. And that is just a fact.
I will say this about Reagan though, in going into debt, he invested in our Nation's future. A military that was second to none, which I consider infrastructure to this country.
Or we could go back to the Clinton & Carter years, when military infrastructure was allowed to decay on the vine.
And you know what is interesting to watch. Base Closure hearings. I sit there and watch as all the Democrat Congress people, and Senators come out in droves and talk about why they can't close this base, or that base in their district or state.
So for all of you who think big military budgets are only the fault of Republicans, and the "War Machine", I just help you to understand who wants this big machine too.
In fact, Raytheon who makes Tomahawk missiles is based in Massachusetts.
I wonder who is representing that great State? Hmmmmm...

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:34 AM:our goal is a return to male domination over females and, as always, you want to use women's sexuality and anatomy as the weapon of subjugation, because when it comes to brains, you really can't compete on an equal footing." Now,TFB. I never said the above. But, you did. I think it would be a wonderful philosophy and policy.

Noticed wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:37 AM:Interesting Observation: Of course, we noticed. When Obama is President, I am sure that he will have them roped, hog tied, branded and sent to the packing house.

Alf wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:38 AM:Well, "TFB" at 9:24AM, although I may disagree with some of your posts, your 9:24 post is right on target! The primary problem with your post is that you insist on presenting facts. When facts that do not support their position are presented, they tend to confuse, confound and anger those who try to insinuate their religious beliefs into laws. Regards, Alf.

But Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:01 PM:In your post at 10:51 you place 100 percent of the responsibility on the woman for fomething that involves 2 people. Just like your immature kind to want the pleasure with no responsibility.

Apollo wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:01 PM:Re: Ron (11:00 a.m.)
Poor Ron doesn't get the concept here.
Under Ike, JFK and LBJ we had prosperity because workers and consumers were empowered - "bubble up."
Under the Republicans who followed, moving jobs overseas (what Ron euphemistically calls "shift from on-shore to off-shore"), eviscerating unions, removing consumer and worker protections, the broad base of consumers to create demand was assaulted.
Ron notes that the current tax cuts for the rich make it impossible to replicate the prosperity of the years of Ike, JFK and LBJ, but misses the obvious solution: return to what worked!
Support the Obama proposal of cutting taxes for the broadest segment of the base, 95% of most people, and raise taxes on those who take the most from the system but don't want to pay for it.
Ron credits Reagan's tax cuts as "the only way to get the economy going again."
Baloney. Reagan created a temporary "feel-good" economy based on borrowing and debt.
You max out your credit cards, you feel pretty good while you're spending. But then the bills come due, and other than the reprieve of Clinton fiscal responsibility, Republicans like Ron just want to keep digging and digging. Like Ron said recently, "STOP DIGGING."

Ms M wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:04 PM:McCain advisor's new message on Iraq: Obama's just like Bush....Now this is what I call pathetic. Is this all the McBush campain can come up with? Geez - I really, really do feel sorry for the cons - but this is truly BEYOND pathetic.

OOPS wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:08 PM:KABUL: U.S. troops abandoned the remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants recently killed nine of their comrades, officials said Wednesday, while NATO launched artillery and helicopter strikes on insurgents in neighboring Pakistan.

The retreat is an indication of the growing strength of the insurgency led by the Taliban and the struggle facing foreign and Afghan security forces along the long, mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:14 PM:We are not getting enough revenues to pay for programs in place before Bush went into Iraq, let alone enough to pay for this war. Voodoo economics, supply-side economics, the Laffer Curve, Trickle-down economics didn't work (in the mediun or long run) for Reagan and "borrow and spend" is not working for Bush. In your infinite wisdom, just how do you propose increase revenues sufficient to pay for this war? If not tax increases, then what????

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:27 PM:Cyclist[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:12 AM:
Well, of course, you are right 100% about the safe use of roads by cyclists. Gotta Wonder why you fellas ride 5 abreast through downtown Encintias on the weekend?

To Cyclist wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:28 PM:I am for sharing the road to a reasonable level, but part of the tax paid by motorists pays for the road surfaces. As one who enjoys fishing I am glad that rods, reels, and other fishing items have a built in tax that goes to Fish and Wildlife. Do bikes, tires, and spandex have any kind of tax that pays for trails and road surfaces?

Obamas Interpreter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:40 PM:OBAMACAN
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:11 AM:"I have been able to explain to my little daughter many things Obama says, so maybe I might be able to help you, too.
No promises other than that I'll try my best". And,"someone makes a comment about Obama, and I respond.
Still following me?"
Well OBAMACAN, Your boss Obama is an elitist, therefore I am not surprised with your "Nose held high tipping your brain down low", attitude and answer. Don't get caught out in the rain like that!

Get ready for a new theme wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:43 PM:Didja catch it? The new right wing talking head theme is "Obama talks down to people: ordinary Americans can't understand what the egghead is even saying". Several posts today use this theme, asking OBAMACAN to "interpret" or "translate" the candidate's position on this or that. Incredible, isn't it? Americans have become so brain-dead that rather than actually go to a website and read what a Presidential candidate's position is on something, they listen to Rush or whomever, hear that the candidate is too snooty or smart, and just assume this is all they need to know about him. "Oh, Obama is SO HARD to understand! He's such an ELITIST! Why, there's no point reading his website or hearing his speeches because, golly, who could UNDERSTAND that snob anyway?" Yes, folks, these voters are bragging about being stupid, like it's a virtue. And, it goes without saying, the candidate for these people, who are so proud of their inability to understand English, is John McCain. Great. COL (cry out loud)

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:51 PM:But Gotta Wonder
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:0 Boys just wanna have fun. " I am a proud MCP. Don't you forget it!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:55 PM:TFB
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:19 AM: Don't waste your homily on me. Every woman is a sex object. Men certainly were not interested in your constant harping or brains.

Translating Obama wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:59 PM:Apparently McCain and Bush understand what Obama is saying very well because they are changing their position on Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan to follow Obama's lead. What a great president Obama will make!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:01 PM:Please understand, consent to sexual intimacy is NOT consent to pregnancy, even though you know that it is a possible outcome, any more than riding in a car is consent to a crash, even though you know that is a possible outcome. This is pretty lame analogy at best.
After all, if there is a car crash, neither of the drivers were intimate. Two people having sex without responsible protection are responsible for the result.
Consent to sex is consent to impregnation because that is the object of sex. Now, if you have the attitude that sex is just for fun-ok. Just have your tubes tied.

esteban wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:02 PM:My comment was completely civil. Unlike chris' maniacal rants. I believe chris works at NCT.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:05 PM:But Gotta Wonder
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:01 PM: Is that the best you can do. MCP have never been responsible. You can preach responsibility all that you want and until the cows come home. In the end, at the end of the night, it will be the WOMAN who will be held responsible. My level of maturity is inconsequential.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:09 PM:I think the fact that TFB uses the term "it" says it all. Regards, C-1.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:12 PM:I agree with Donald Crane, there are road, a lot of roads, where bicyclists are an added road hazard. Not to mention that they all seem to be jerks. And yes vehicle drivers do own the road because we pay for it. Stay off of 76! Regards, C-1.

Did I catch it wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:15 PM:Only from you at 12:43PM, Wow people, Now if you say anything directed at OBAMACAN, then OBAMACANS little toy warriors are right there telling us that it was directed at OBAMA and not at OBAMACAN. Talk about sick and twisted. Obama could probably win this thing if all the OBAMACANS would pipe down and stay out of his 15 minutes.

To Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:24 PM:Which god would you like me to tell you doesn't exist? Please be more specific and then I will be able to assure you that your choice of made up deity isn't anywhere except in your religion's collective delusion.

Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:32 PM:Well Alf, we are familiar with your opinon on abortion; mine didn't pass review, it might have surprised you. But would you ever go as far as to liken an abortion procedure with a brain, heart, or cataract surgery? I call that crazy, but then again I'm not an enlightened libral.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:42 PM:To Gotta Wonder[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:24 PM: The Lord God Jehovah. You telling me that the Creator of the Universe does not exist will give HIM and me a jolly laugh. Does not exit? Kinda wonder why all the dying and wounded were crying out, "my God." during Hue in 1968.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:46 PM:To Gotta Wonder[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:24 PM: But, there you and your ilk go assuming again. Just maybe, I was a Di est believing in divine Providence as our founding fathers wrapped up in the American flag singing, Yankee noddle. But the bottom line is that established religion or traditional religion never interested me.

Bill One wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:52 PM:I am a cyclist. And I completely agree that their are roads a cyclist should stay off of. Their are plenty of roads I would love to cycle, but they are just too narow and too many cars. And there are plenty of good roads available. At the end of the day it is I who would be hurt if I get hit. I don't understand why some people seem to have no common sense.

R U A Obamakanight wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:58 PM:You know your a Obamakanight if, You pull into a handicap parking spot, because you are tired from golfing all day.

R U A Obamakanight wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:59 PM:You know your an Obamakanight, If the airline made you buy several seats on the flight because your girth was equal to your unwarrented arrogance.

R U A Obamakanight wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:01 PM:You know your a Obamakanight if, Everytime the phone rings, you jump up thinking it's Obama himself needing your advice. Like shooting ducks in a barrel, If I had the time I could do this all day! But I don't. Lucky you.

Chris wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:01 PM:It makes me feel good that esteban is so obsessed with me. It means I am doing something right.

Chris to Hardtack wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:11 PM:I collect social security and the fact is that if it wasn't for that then very few of us could ever retire unless we had somebody else to take care of us. Look at the stock market. Look at the interest rates. You need to get over all this conservative lie about taking care of yourself until your time to go. There are too many variables in life and we see that the private sector is run by a bunch of crimminals. I have other income than social security but without it I would have to keep working. Yes it is too bad that we also have crimminals in office just like those in the stock market who are doing their best to empoverish us all. Without those social security would pay for itself and there would be no problem. I don't know how old you are but unless you are rich you will be glad that social security is there to help you.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:31 PM:Obamas Interpeter at 12:40 p.m. at least has a sense of humor!
"Obama is an elitist." Ha ha!
Let's see, born to a single mother and a student immigrant who didn't stick around, being uprooted and moved all around.
Compared to Bush who is born to wealthy Connecticut oil elitists, a father who was congressman and president, and grandpa Senator.
And his clone, McCain, was the son and grandson of Admirals, married a wealthy elitist beer heiress.
This is what the right wing extremists do - find your opponent's strength, such as Obama's rise above his humble origins, and try to turn it around.
But trying to make Obama more elitist than McBush is almost as ridiculous as making draft-dodger Bush look like more of a military hero than much-decorated John Kerry. Oops!

Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:34 PM:I've heard chris make this remark on many occassions;"I collect social security and the fact is that if it wasn't for that then very few of us could ever retire unless we had somebody else to take care of us."It speaks volume about his life and why he's so miserable and jealous.

to Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:51 PM:Asteroid[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:36 AM:

The person who responded to your blog is not crazy. And indeed, may not be a liberal. The accurate words used by the responder is their choice.

Do you want to control everything everyone does because you think you are brilliant? It is a not nice to call someone crazy. Your negative behavior lacks responsibility, intellect, etc. Shows you as an irresponsible xyz person.

You are not a star. Come back to earth knowing you are an ordinary person with rights to complain.

You need to thank our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, etc., our laws, as well as organizations such as the Institute of Justice, the Southern Poverty Law Center, etc. that help insure that we all receive the same justice.

You are not special.

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:52 PM:Sorry friend, "Ron buddy" @10:29 AM. >>>Social Security check arrive in today's mail, or something? We miss you!>>>

Nope, got busy. Besides, at the rate were going in this country, retirement age of Social Security will have to be moved back, yet again.. just to keep it afloat for the youngsters, the 70 and below crowd.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:53 PM:The posts from "Ron" (11:00, 11:04 and 11:21am) misses the key point, that he had misrepresented the history and claimed that Democrats blocked the Reagan budgets. I cited the source, with book and chapter title, from Reagan's own budget director, showing the opposite occurred.
And you further lie about my positions (since you know my views since I have expressed them TO YOU before), that while I do not support the 90% top marginal rate applied to a tiny fraction of a very few people's income, my point is that highly graduated, progressive rates do not cause the economic harm you keep warning about.
On the contrary, more moderate versions of liberal policies are, historically, what have led to the best of all economic times.

Chris to oops wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:01 PM:I notice the part in the story about the base being attacked that the ordinary Afghanistanis seem to be supporting the insurgents more and more. That is the real story. Not as many finks. Just maybe our military is wearing out it's welcome. Maybe the Afghans are tired of having their friends and family members killing in these bombing raids. Oh, of course we are told that the people killed were Talaban, But the Afghanistans know better. Now of course our military wouldn't lie. Would they?

to TFB wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:02 PM:TFB[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:24 AM:I see that Asteroid at 8:51 a.m. has to resort to name-calling ("crazies") instead of actually addressing the point that he purports to be replying to.

Thank TFB for a mature, medically accurate approach.

I myself believe in choice; abortion is a private matter.

TFB you are a breath of fresh air. Many of the bloggers are unable to gather facts and prefer to call others nasty names.

To Civil esteban wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:08 PM:I doubt if your comments were civil. Every comment you post I wonder how it gets pass the monitors of this blog. You are always rude, insensitive, sarcastic, cynical, and disrespectful. That being said although I dispise censorship I think it wise judgement not to post all your tirades.

Chris to Asteroid wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:12 PM:The only thing I am miserable about is the killing and destruction that we are doing to a poor third world country and you are cheering about it. I try to make a point about the rality of life and instead of discussing the subject you just try to denegrate me. So who is it that is miserable and jealous?

Apollo wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:17 PM:Re: Gotta Wonder (1:01 p.m.)
What an incredible attempt to impose one's own beliefs and values on everyone else! This is astounding!
This is the truth about conservatives. They talk all about "freedom" but they mean only for corporations - if it is an individual making personal choices about their private lives, they want the government sticking its nose into your bedrooms, relationships and most private choices.
GW says: "Consent to sex is consent to impregnation because that is the object of sex. Now, if you have the attitude that sex is just for fun-ok. Just have your tubes tied."
Impregnation may be the object of sex for those who want babies at that time. But other people have other motives, reasons and purposes for having sex at a given time. Fun? Intimacy? Closeness? What the heck gives YOU the right to dictate what the "purpose" or "object" of other's private behavior should be, or especially assuming that it should be women who have to be responsible and have their "tubes tied" instead of men getting ours "snipped"?
Who made you god of the universe to decide for anyone else what their "purpose" for sex is?
I agree with TFB. Consent to sex is that and nothing more, just as consent to being a passenger is that and nothing more, and if other consequences result, take whatever medical remedies are right for you.

Color of skin wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:17 PM:Illegals and Dark Skins. This may be the wrong time of year to accuse those with dark skins as being illegal.

Most everybody has dark skin from the strong summer sun.

Actually, with our sunny weather year round, it is best to assume there is no way to tell legal from illegal by skin color.

And, indeed there are many legals and citizens born here with colored skins that are from other minorities.

Remember, USA is a melting pot. Our diverse population helps makes us strong.

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:25 PM:It's just simply amazing, just amazing.. You give people good credible information, and it goes in one ear and out the other.
My buddy "Apollo" @12:01 PM is asking me about "Bubble-up" economics.
Did you read what I wrote the otherday, Apollo? About giving an employee a raise of .50 cents an hour? That would rival what Obama is offering, except that I won't have to steal it from my neighbor to do it. That, my friend is real bubble up, and I can only do that if the Government stays out of my pocket.
In the Liberal version of "Bubble-up", this is how they do it.
They take it out of my pocket to bring me down a notch {part of the "gett'n even, I was talking about the otherday}, and redistribute it, not to my employees, but to those other's they consider "less fortunate." This is exactly what Obama is preaching now, he'll take from one group, and give it to another.
From the employee point of view, it ain't helping them "bubble-up", now is it? In fact, because most of them make "too much", they won't qualify for any of the goodies he's giving away.

And then my good friend, goes back to the history, again! They just love this part of our nation's history, Yeah.. the good old days, when taxes were skyhigh, everyone bought "made in America", and the government welfare state looked like it would never end.
That is until... we had competition. From the Japanese, who out sell our cars, from the Chinese who can produce stuff for a price I can't even buy material for, from Korea who's technology centers rival our own Silicon Valley.
Yep, but they.. these lib's want, pray, hope for the good old days.
My friend, those days are long, long.. gone.

Off shoring was only a matter of time, when other nations bought or stole our technologies, and used them to improve their own lot in life. Always the protectionists you guy's. The only way to be the best in anything in business is to provide a good quality product and/or service, for a reasonable price that a consumer is willing to pay.

Anyone remember back when they used to run those ads "Made in America?" You know.. Union made, union strong.. all that baloney. Problem was, the line workers at GM, down to the textile workers in the Carolina's, wanted too much to do those tasks. Price of labor alone was enough to force those jobs overseas. Although, the Japanese have many auto plants here now, none unionized that I know of.

Now, what I don't get is this.
You guy's are running around shouting:
Hope & Change!
Hope & Change!

But that's not really what you want.
Is it? No, what you really want is to return to the past.
And yet you call yourself a "Progressive?"

As Bill Clinton once said, and I will paraphrase him: "This is not your Daddy's world." Good words.
The hope & change you seek is at the end of your arm. America is counting on people to rise up, against the odds of success, and succeed. And when you do this, you'll naturally bring your neighbor alone with you. That's the America I know & love, and that's the "invisible hand" as spoken of by Adam Smith.

Stop the real war wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:40 PM:You all that are waiting for McCain to be elected and continue the war puzzles me. Most of you are also against abortion.

Abortion is a matter of personal choice.

Watching over 4,000 killed in this repeat of Viet Nam (being in a place we do not belong in) is horrific.

The "Bush" war is horrific. Stop it.

A woman having an abortion is personal.

There you go wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:44 PM:Color of skin, confusing those poor folks who can tell legal from illegal at first glance and see illegals all around them, even in their sleep. Being deranged is one of the many bears that they cross.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:46 PM:Apollo[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:17 PM:
Those of your having sex just for fun rather than procreation need to be responsible and use birth control. What closeness. I agree with Bill Maher of HBO, "Guys just want to get off." Quit whining about being pg if you did not practice responsible birth control. Gotta Wonder.

Abortion before ROE wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:47 PM:http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/06/15/perspective/z07bb4f70f41bc2ab8825746100053aa5.txt

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:47 PM:I want you to listen to this, because this now apparently represents what an American has become. This rant by "But Ron" @12:14 PM.

QUOTE: "We are not getting enough revenues to pay for programs in place before Bush went into Iraq, let alone enough to pay for this war." END Quote

Translation: "What about me?"

It always comes back to me, and what do I get out of the deal, with the lib's.

But also notice what he says before the war, QUOTE: ""We are not getting enough revenues to pay for programs in place before Bush went into Iraq,.." END Quote

Do I know these lib's or what?
My programs are in jeopardy!!!!
Two things...
1) We have more than enough money for this government, in a $12 trillion economy, the Fed's have a $3 trillion budget. Not enough, you say? Sayz you.
2) We keep adding to the roles, the consumers of government.
Why do you think I did a tougue in cheek yesterday about the 25 year old in his Mother's basement? Because that was a serious Liberal Democrat proposal, that we add onto the real poor, the middle-class folk who make upwards of some $60,000 a year.
You can't very well control a budget, when you keep using the card!
This is also why I say to my liberal friends who have convinced themselves to go look at the budgets. We borrowed almost $400 billion to meet the current budget needs. Only half of that was spent in Iraq, or Afganistan. Where'd the rest go? In entitlement spending!
Wars come & wars go, it is not illogical to fund a war on debt/credit, heck FDR did. The point really is, welfare payments by borrowing. Buying your daily needs, your food, your housing, healthcare.. on borrowing.
Borrowing will get you by for awhile, but eventually you max out the card, which is why the dollar is dropping like a stone. We are not good for it.
Even if the government took everything we owned, everything we made, and everything we might make in the next few years, if would not be enough to cover what we have allowed our Government to paper-over, so we could "get something" from the government.
Your living beyond your means folks, way beyond. And we have been for decades. I think it's time for a little intervention here, with Americans who think somebody, or this government owes them something.
I guess that will never happen, since we also have spend-o-holics in Washington. I guess we will have to wait until we write soo many bad checks, the world will no longer cash em for us? Yep, I think it's going to take that.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:51 PM:Apollo[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:17 PM:
What makes you think that I am a conservative? The fact of the matter is that Lenin is my idol. Kinda like being a Communist.

Alf wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:57 PM:Well, "Asteroid" at 1:32PM, would I? Not exactly. Having a wife who is a pediatrician does allow me to take a more clinical view. As a matter of fact, Monday morning we were discussing the legal double-edged sword question of, if aborting a 12 week fetus is not murder yet killing a mother with a 12 week fetus can be (or is) declared a double homocide, the law is still confused more than 30 years after Roe v Wade. UNLESS, one differentiates between the PERSONAL decision of the woman regarding that which is in her body and the decision of an arbitrary person (the murderer). Thought provoking points to ponder, ja? Regards, Alf.

Please Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:01 PM:say that you aren't placing 100 percent of the responsibility on 50 percent of the couple who couple. Right, Chuck?

Obamas Interpeter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:02 PM:Obamacan At 2:31PM, That was baby Obama then. and this is adult Obama now! Do you understand the difference? there are several million $$$ of them. Just like a horse in a race,(sorry horse) the blinders are working well for you Obamacan. When was the last time you had a thought other then Obama go through your head? Man,(no referance to gender) you must Eat, Drink, And Sleep Obama.(no referance to sex) But I guess that's what they pay you for. Oh, That's right, you are a single parent, with 2-3 minimum wage jobs, raising 4-6 kids and drive a chevy vega with expired tags. Well that did not add anything new, but I Know you love to dish, so chow down.(no referance to chow dogs) Good Day!

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:06 PM:Mark: You are talking past my post -- you simply did not address any specifics.

Let me tell you how I see this, and you can disagree: Fact Checker and Mark have zero reliability on this Blog. Heritage Foundation and Southern Poverty Law Center have a higher reliability quotient.

You say that the Census does not collect such statistics, but Heritage says that they do. You are an unknown quantity, anonymous (at best) and we know nothing of your reliability, but Heritage Foundation has been around as a public entity since 1973 in Washington D.C.

You gave me statistics about which I do not question, but neither you nor the sources you published had one word to counter or to say about the statistics I published.

Let me give you an example: My source says “43% of the “poor” own a home, own a refrigerator, own a microwave,”

You reply with: “The poor make up 12.7% of the population.” May well be true, probably is, but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

My source says: “80% have air conditioning, as opposed to 1970 when only 36% of the entire NATION had A/C.”

You reply with: “Out of that (12.7%) 28.3% were single women.” O.K. – but what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Now if you want to tell me that the Southern Poverty Law Center has examined the Heritage Foundation numbers, and found the following errors “X”, “Y” and “Z” – terrific!

Then we have a difference in opinion between two known entities, where reliability is in the eye of the beholder, instead of two idiot bloggers who know little except to quote sources.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:10 PM:The post from "Ron" (3:25pm) not only continues trying to rewrite history, he misses the whole point!
He says that we liberals want to go back to "the part of our nation's history when taxes were sky high!"
He misses the point completely!
TAXES WERE NOT SKY HIGH FOR MOST PEOPLE! There were 13 tax brackets then! The lower brackets, which apply to the portions of income at those levels for all taxpayers -- rich or poor -- were LOWER than with today's fewer tax brackets calibrated differently!
This is what Obama wants to return to! Lower taxes for most people, but the few ELITES who got all the free rides under Bush will have to start paying the freight for the system off of which they have gained so much.

ABC Abortion Birth Control wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:20 PM:Hey, Gotta Wonder at 3:46 p.m.
I have a co-worker who doesn't like to use birth control. She prefers to go "natural" and, if she gets pregnant, gets a quick, easy first-trimester jobby. Fast, simple, painless. Personally, I compare that approach to using root canals in place of regular dental hygiene, but that's my choice. If she wants to use abortion as birth control, the "ABC" method, what's it to you?
I like what "Apollo" said - who made YOU god of the universe to be dictating what women can do with their own bodies?
Frankly, abortion shows more responsibility than going through with an unwanted pregnancy.

Bill wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:22 PM:A woman having an abortion is personal?

Then she can pay for it then. I agree, its personal so let her PERSONALLY pay for it and leave the father out of the equation when it comes to demanding payment for the kid should she decide to have it.

If aborting a child is exclusively personal, then so is deciding to have one. So she should pay for EVERYTHING on her own since its none of the fathers business.

Oh wait a minute you say?

Its not so personal after all is it?

If it was so personal, she should have taken PERSONAL responsibility to avoid it from happening in the first place.

Either that, or take PERSONAL responsibility for the kid when she decides to have it.

Men get all the responsibility and women get all the rights.

Abortion is a weak justification for irresponsible behavior.

Its time women added responsibility to those rights.

After all, its personal you know?

What a crock.

Which Jehovah wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:34 PM:Is that the Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Rastafarian version? Perhaps you need to work on your vocabulary. Believing something strongly doesn't mean you know anything. The billions of Hindus and Buddhists in the world may have a few questions for you as well. Do all your gods hang out together? Are they all the same thing with different names? Is religion just a method of controlling the masses? Explaining things we can't understand? Collecting taxes? Avoiding taxes? Justification for killing people with different color skin? A reason for people of similar morality & ethics to tell other people why they are inferior? Do you realize more people have been slaughtered for not believing in your god than for any other reason? Nice work by the Catholics (largest Christian denomination in the world) recently. Should I turn the other cheek when a priest rapes my kid? I could go on but I think that's enough for now. Stop trying to push your outdated ideas on others.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:40 PM:Gore approves recreational sex because it creates little carbon footprint, and He approves birth control because it stops the creation of little carbon footprints!

Birth control is the responsibility of the female, because men are generally rotten to the core, and will create a huge carbon footprint as they jet to another country to avoid paying a parental tax, also called "child support."

Everything can be explained in terms of carbon footprints -- except, apparently, Obama's position on merit pay for teachers.

Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:41 PM:Now "Wiz" @2:53 PM, don't say I lied about something I didn't.
I said, pretty clearly, that what the Democrats should have done, in my opinion, when faced with huge budgets they opposed, was to shut down the process until the got a better deal. Obviously, those budgets, between a Democrat Congress & a Republican held Seante had to go to compromise. Surely, they could have cut a better low cost budget, if they had wanted too. It's pretty obvious, that they just didn't.

And on top of that, are we to believe that for the next 8 years, they again were suckered into a budget they never really wanted? That's a pretty hard sell. That's almost as bad as the line we are given today from Democrats opposed to the War in Iraq, about Bush suckering them.

And then on top of all that, when Reagan put out his budget, then House Speak Tip O'Neil would hire an ambulance to bring Reagan's budget over to the Congress, just so he could make a show of it, and prounce it DOA {Dead on Arrival}. And your trying to tell me, us? That they had no control?

Remember, after the budget goes to compromise, they have to vote on it again in both the House & the Seante, to agree on the compromise.
Alas, they had a second stab at it, for 8 years.

Now.. your really gonna try an sell that lemon?

And I would say, it is not lying to say you desire higher taxes on the upper incomes. Since you have said that you think unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned income, that makes you a pretty high taxer.
In fact, that makes YOU a higher taxer than was FDR, Eisnehower, Truman, or LBJ. That puts you way ahead of them, and into the radical taxation class.

Remember folks, these are the same people trying to sell you that raising the tax on Social Security another time, the 20th time, first 19 times all done by Democrats, that one more time will actually fix the system for the next 75 years. And they told you that after the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, the 8th, the 9th, the 10th... you gett'n the picture here?
It's never enough.

The Afghan War wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:11 PM:It's a matter of public record that our NATO allies in Afghanistan have become less committed to that fight because they are so unhappy with Bush's decision to switch the US focus to Iraq. In those that are democracies, the people overwhelmingly oppose the alliance with Bush, which hurts our cause in Afghanistan. The Taliban, you might recall, were a brutal and fairly unpopular regime in Afghanistan. By opposing them, one might think the US would have a good chance of winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans (and Pakistanis) in that fight. How can Bush be blowing this important front in the real war on terror? He knew that a war in Afghanistan was going to be very difficult, having seen the Soviets try it. So he pulls out and leaves it to a few thousand NATO forces while he focuses instead on an army-less, weaponless contained Saddam. How, if you were an ally of the US that had sent troops to Afghanistan, would you feel about your ally, Bush? McCain wants to stay the course.

Say What wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:24 PM:Stop the real war
[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:40 PM:
Iraq is nothing like Nam. 42 kia. Nam had ove 57,000 kia. Every night during the Vietname War, it was brought into your living room. Actions in place, wounded needing an assist, dead bodies and body bags with dead bodies. Our living rooms have been
nil of war violence.
Abortions are personal/ yeah all 42 million of them.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:44 PM:Please Gotta Wonder[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:01 PM Well, yeah. There is historical precedent.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:54 PM:Obamas Interpreter at 4:02 p.m. continues the humorous effort to make Obama sound like the elitist because he and his wife both worked hard, through personal achievement, to overcome poverty and become self-made millionnaires.
No inheritance from Daddy, just their own personal achievement.
In contrast, McCain and Cindy are living very well thank you (want to compare the number of millions of $$$ as you put it) between Cindy's beer inheritance and the Obama's, who barely finished paying off their student loans?
The pathetic desperation of the conservatives has become a JOKE!

But Bill wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:11 PM:if you were a female I might buy your line of bull although I would still think that you are crazy. You aren't and that's all she wrote.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:15 PM:The post from "Ron" (4:41pm) trying to rescuscitate that old thing about Democrats telling Reagan his budget would be "dead on arrival" shows that "Ron" still can't tell the difference between Tip O'Neill's Irish bravado in advance, having the numbers, and the fact that the actual results, which I thoroughly documented from REAGAN'S budget director (and which even "Ron" can't rebut), showed that Tip O'Neill couldn't deliver, even with his majority, like he thought he could.
Again, my account was from the actual voting record PLUS the description in chapter 8 of the book by REAGAN's budget director, David Stockman.
Or is "Ron" just making up his own historical revisionism? Again.

But Ron wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:16 PM:Again, you got it wrong with your "translation". "What about me?", my round, red rosy behind. What about who will pay for this war, is more like it.

jvc wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:24 PM:Reardon.... have you changed your blog
pseudonym?

Al Gore wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:25 PM:Actually, Greener (not) at 4:40 p.m. is mistaken as usual.
Al Gore, as a Baptist, does not approve of recreational sex or abortions. However, that is for himself only. Since these do not affect anyone else (having virtually no carbon footprint) he respects the right of others with different beliefs to make different choices.
As usual, Greener (not) makes a guess, gets it wrong, the story of his life (at least as self-described in this anonymous blog).

Abortion before ROE wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:58 PM:Read the NCTimes Perspective "Abortion before Roe" (June 2008) website below.

It is very important to allow women to have choices. It is their bodies, their health needs.

Many of you are against abortion, but feel the war is righteous [4,000+ killed/dead]. Their families and friends are suffering. In addition the maimed have families, friends that are also suffering.

Believe that you are not thinking rationally.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/06/15/perspective/z07bb4f70f41bc2ab8825746100053aa5.txt

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:03 PM:Both the real Al Gore, and his namesake on this blog, have no sense of humor.

To jvc: Only the Shadow Knows!

Greenergy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:20 PM:An AMAZING article on page 38 of this week's Newsweek magazine (cover date of 7-21-08) about the current feasibility of solar houses and electric cars, and where we'll be within the next few years.
For the "can't do" negativists, this is must reading before you make that next post based on 20th century outdated models and embarrass yourselves (further).

Ms M wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:24 PM:Obamas Interpreter
- Chuck, is that you?

Is it just me or is anyone else having trouble with this page?

to Cyclist wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:41 PM:Many times I have seen cyclists single and in groups ride through red lights and stop signs usually on Carlsbad blvd.
I watched a rider blow through a red light at Tamarack almost hit a motorist going through on the green and then cuss out the motorist. If you want the rights given by the vehicle code you must also obey the rules in it, cyclist can't have it both ways!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:54 PM:Which Jehovah[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:34 PM: Wow. You took theology 1a and philosophy 1a at that woman's college?
I am impressed. I do not care who or why you worship anybody or anything. I don't care about any of the gods that you mentioned or the religions or priests or rabbis or minister etc. I did not force my opinion or belief system on you. That is your bag. Not mine. Pick one or all of them. You are still going to hell. Gotta Wonder.

Mark wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:19 PM:Fact Checker, I appreciate your civility. I thought I had address your concerns, but let me review. The facts I provided were not meant to counter your facts. Upon reviewing their site,I noticed that Heritage claims that they use the Census AND other "resources" for their facts. Upon furthur investigation, I noticed that their "other" sources were other members of the Heritage organization. This is what we in the research fields refer to as biased, albeit unreliable , information. It's akin to the opinions we see in politics, where each side says what needs to be said to support their opinion, not necessarily fact. The statistics I gave you are the researchable facts from the Census Bureau. The sites mentioned were just a few of the others that can be used to research and the are all unbiased sources that attack no specific political ideology, but allows us to research and point fingers at those who desrve it according to the facts. Heritage has been around since 1973, but that really means nothing toward supporting their credibility. MoveOn.org has been around for quite a while and I encourage people to research and back up all info found on that site, because they obviously have their own objectives politically. I encourage people to look deep into their research and cover all bases.

Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:33 PM:Greenenergy: Is there a program that will permit the poor to solarize their homes – at a cost of at LEAST $40,000 – and trade in their old clunker for a new electric car – probably another $25,000? Is there an offset for the cost of gas in the meanwhile?

The poor are mostly the ones losing their current homes to short-sale and foreclosure, so there is no equity to borrow the money for solar even for those who retain their homes. If the poor rent, the landlord must solarize, and collect the cost in rents, further damaging the poor.

Further proof that liberals hate the poor.

Assuming that Mark is correct that 12% of the folks are poor, and if we assume that Heritage is correct and 43% of those own their on home -- we have a population of 300 million. (But the post office says we have, on average, 2.7 people per household.)

Lets see: 4% of 300,000,000 (assuming 3 people per household) is 12 million households – each of which will need $65,000 investment on solar THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE AND HAVE NO HOPE OF GETTING!

Now ONLY 43% own their own home, but all of the rest of them must pay the same cost through their rents.

Of course much of the U.S. live in solar inefficient areas of the country – I have absolutely no clue how we solarize them, or how we “discriminate” between those geographic areas that can use solar, and those that cannot. I guess everyone living north of some line must move south!

I just love to contemplate the numbers. I can personally afford it all today, but I think I am more concerned about the poor than liberals are.

OOPS wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:41 PM:The Afghan War[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:11 PM: It is true that the Afghans hate the Taliban. It is more true that they hate non Islamic foreigners. The British learned it in the 1800s. The Russians learned it in the 1900s. We will learn it this century. No one is going to imprint a western democracy in Afghanistan. They are more loyal to their clans and tribes.

Funnygirl wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:49 PM:Reardon / A.Rose / Greener (not) (who thinks he's funny) at 7:03 p.m. whining about people not having a sense of humor - now THAT is funny!

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:00 PM:Mark – you are right on!

In political circles, no one ever addresses a political point, they just reply with some other point. MOST of the charges slung by either side of ANY issue are usually absolutely correct, or at least has some validity, but the offended campaign answers with “You also…” or “Talk about flip-flops, you flip flopped on the (fill in the blank issue.)

IF any of the points made by Heritage were wrong, you would think that one of the many liberal think tanks would have made a point-by-point refutation in an immediate White Paper. Every candidate, and every think tank talks PAST each other, because MOST of their charges – on both sides – are RIGHT!

Each side spends its energy finding dirt on the other side, and emphasizing ITS points, because it knows that unless an issue is FLAT WRONG, responding to it simply extends the life of the original charge.

Look at the national race – the left charges that McCain is OLD! They are absolutely right! The right says Obama is inexperienced, and they are absolutely right! Obama is flip-flopping like a fish – and McCain is flip-flopping like a fish.

No candidate and no think tank CAN address the attacks on their person or philosophy – because the attacks have sufficient correctness to be unchallengeable.

In the end we are all left with 51%-49% selections of factual data. Each side has their factual points, and the ones they feature are correct.

Bill wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:29 PM:How is what I wrote bull?

Can you at least say that?

Men have no say in it when they abort.

When they keep the kid, its his responsibility to pay for it.

Either give the man a say, or stay out of his pocket.

He didnt do the dirty deed alone you know? Give them both a say or make her pay.

Thats consistent and not bull.

The only bull here is the double standard you apply.

What does being a woman have to do with it?

Thats weak saying that because Im not a woman that I have no right to comment on hypocrisy.

Youre a sexist arent you?

Obamas Interpreter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:44 PM:Ms M At 7:24, No, this is not Chuck, But thank you for asking, I'll take that as a complement! No, I'm just an average Joe who is having a little fun with the self appointed communications director of the Obama campaign. Don't tell OBAMACAN, but between you and me, I don't even buy into half of what I tell her, I don't like her arrogance, it's unattractive, No, it's down right ugly. and I just like to yank her chain every now and then. I say her, I could be wrong, I've been fooled before. Is this a great country or what! See ya down the road. Good day. PS. Yes this page is bad, Skips.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:13 PM:Greener (not) at 8:33 p.m. asks if there is any program that will permit the poor to solarize their homes, and not finding any, concludes that liberals hate the poor.
This is so typical of Reardon / A.Rose / Greener (not), who consistently makes observations that are sometimes even factual, and concludes non sequiturs that have no logical conclusion from the premise, which likely explains his (self-described) chain of career changes.
Premise: no programs exist for the poor.
Facts that Reardon / A.Rose / Greener (not) ignores: Republican president and sufficient legislative power to block liberal reforms.
Flawed non-sequitur conclusion: Liberals hate the poor.

Reality alternative: I am a liberal and I enthusiastically support massive subsidies, sliding-scale to favor the poor, to provide incentives for solarizing houses and converting cars to full electric or plug-in hybrid.
Question: Will Reardon / A.Rose / Greener (not) join with me in supporting such incentives, or will he admit he is the one who HATES THE POOR but, like all conservatives, tries to play liberals' strengths against them, in a most humorless manner?

Maxwell wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:08 AM:Ah, yes. The old make the page skip so that you can't copy text to respond to another's post trick. Sorry about that, Chief.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:49 AM:Which Jehovah[-] wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:34 PM: Two blogs were sumbitted in reply to your opinion about gods or God. They were not posted. Probably because I was just too nice.

Cyclist wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:24 AM:In certain terms I agree that motorists taxes pay for the roads and not cyclists, unless they have a car also, which is likely. I agree that there are some roads I would never ride on, but legally have the right to because if I was denied access a 1 mile ride would become a 20 mile indirect trip. I also agree that some cyclist think they do not have to obey traffic laws and should be ticketed, but I also see the same behaviour from motorists, which is why I also don't ride on certain roads, (also it maybe the cyclists in their cars?) My point is that the law allows bicycles legal access to the roads and have to be given the same respect as other vehicles. So, if while cycling in the countryside I am run over by a BMW driving maniac from Carlsbad, it should not be assumed that it was "no fault of their own" as Mr. Cranes letter states. The fact is that his attitude toward cyclists is as bad or worse than red light running cyclists, he thinks it is their fault for being in his way and would likely not take resposnbility for injuring someone.

observer wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:49 AM:To Eric Parrish

How is it that you call it an illegal occupation since 1967. The fact is, the Arabs attacked Israel, and the Israelis defended themselves heroically and soundly defeated their agressors. As a result, areas like Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights were won as a result of that battle. This is historically known as the "spoils of war". Had the Arabs chosen not to attack Israel, and instead taken the peaceful path YOU describe, they would not be crying today. Obviously the Arabs still have not learned their lesson and continue to bomb civilians and so it is only a matter of time till the Israelis beat back the agressors again just as they have several other times

To Tommy wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:13 AM:These multiple families that are living in these apartments are paying rent and paying taxes. While these homeless Americans are just out on the streets begging for a dime and not contributing to society. Have you noticed who stands on our freeway off-ramps with there "poor little me" signs.

To Bob Sheard wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:33 AM:Give it a rest man. The community overwhelmingly supports the airport. Find some other local election issue to manufacture.