Less is more wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:25 AM:Edward Karlson writes that the Electoral College “gives undue preponderance to the largest populated states, and distorts election results.” Really?
Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and gets 3 electoral votes. California has a population of 36,500,000 and gets 55 votes. 73 times more people and only 18 times more votes.
Wyoming receives .000006 electoral votes per person. California receives .0000015 votes per person. That means California voters are worth only one quarter of Wyoming voters in presidential elections. Montana has twice the population of Wyoming and only gets the same 3 votes.
The disparities that Mr. Karlson refers to are real but he has it exactly backwards. It’s the small states that are over represented in the Electoral College and distorts results.
And remember, the Electoral College was set up because the Founders didn’t trust the people to elect their own President. We couldn’t even elect our own Senators until 1913.

Nature Lover wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:30 AM:Hey! Guess what? I just read a news item about a small company in China that makes wind turbines.
They have recently listed their stock on the NASDAC. Besides building one new coal burning power plant weekly and a number of Nuclear Power Plants in the works, China is also building wind farms. In one location China just approved building a 2,100 MW capacity wind farm, and there will soon be more wind farm locations. This company manufactures wind turbines in 750 KW and 2500 KW sizes. But they are building a new plant out there in Inner Mongolia that will be about the size of three Costco stores which will nearly double their capacity to make wind turbines. They plan to have the annual capacity to make about 1500 to 2000 wind turbines per year by the end of 2009. Why can’t we do that? We can, if we change our laws so that transmission lines can be built and the so-called environmentalists can’t block everything. Whether man-made CO2 has anything to do with global warming or not, it makes since to use wind power where the wind is available. Way to go, China!

Nature Lover wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:58 AM:Here are some facts of interest to those who like and those who dislike oil. Some of us appreciate the wonderful gift Mother Nature has given us. Beautiful black gold and natural gas come out of the ground to heat out homes, power electrical generators, make asphalt materials for roofs and roads, and provide the economy with leverage to provide health care and education for our youth (although we would like more of both.) A lesser-known fact is that to develop a new oil field on land often takes $200 million. The first $100 million may be spent for geologic exploration and analysis, mapping, drilling a few test wells, etc. After that they sometimes and find there is not economically recoverable oil But if at that point it appears promising they may spend another $100 million to drill more wells, and install the pipelines, etc. Some small independents get small leases nearby other small scale operations where there can do some added studies and drill a shallow test well for under a million or so and hope for the best.

Nature Lover wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:12 AM:Here is some good news for those of us who appreciate the wonderful gift of black gold and natural gas that Mother Nature has given us. The Liberty Oil Field in the Beaufort Sea off the northern Coast of Alaska has been analyzed and the news is the BP oil company has given the go ahead to spend $1.5 BILLION to develop the field. They estimate there are 100 million barrels of recoverable reserves in the Liberty oil field. They expect to start producing in early 2011. That is under three years from now. And don’t make those dumb remarks about that is not enough to meet the US demand for only several days. That is an invalid comparison. Our daily oil comes from hundreds of oil fields with thousands of wells scattered around the world.

Nature Lover wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:41 AM:There are some things Congress should do before they take a four-week break in August. Email your congressperson and the state Senators. While it may not change the minds of Boxer and Feinstein it may help to let them know that a lot us want them to do things to help the whole state and nations economy and not just represent environmentalists. Here are a few suggestions:
Ask them to:
1. Lift barratries to oil shale exploration and production. Last year they have authorized some exploration, but still will not allow production if any small community nearby opposes it.
2. NATURAL GAS: Our country has vast amounts of natural gas. Authorize more exploration and production. This can reduce out dependence on imported oil. For example the northern states still heat a large percent of homes and commercial buildings with oil heat and a lot of that should be replaced with natural gas. Also Natural gas can be compressed and used to power existing automobiles.
3. NUCLEAR: Congress needs to enable the construction of Nuclear power generating plants. Make it a national policy, especially if they do carry through with trying to cut CO2 emissions. France and Japan have been doing it for decades. England and Italy see it as a necessity if they are to reduce CO2.
4. Make it a policy to have more refining capacity. There should be a safety factor of maybe 20%. That is normal usage should require only 80% of existing capacity, so when accidents happen or refineries slow shut down for maintenance and seasonal changes there should be is no shortage of supply and resulting increase in price. A relatively small reasonable continuing increase to cover th ecapital cost of the reserve capacity would be appropriate.

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:46 AM:General Clark is both a hero and an idiot.

That is possible you know?

Clark proves that point daily.

McCain has enough other experience where he doesnt need to rely on a John Kerry type campaign.

McCain also supported Bush on the war that we won in Iraq.

Why shouldnt McCain preside over a win in Afghanistan?

That would be approapriate since hes never flip flopped like Obama is now. For all we know, Obama may change his mind yet again.

The only question now is will McCain be accused of stealing the election too?

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:59 AM:"Trying to determine who the real Barack Obama is and what he truly believes parallels trying to pick fly specks out of the pepper."
I like that, Robert Kirby.
who is the REAL Barack Obama?

Is he the Obama who once talked very fondly of his granny, until she became an indicator of his own "whiteness", and she was tossed under the bus?

Is he the Obama who first stood by the wrong Rev. Wright, before Wright became such a political liability, he threw the man under the bus?

Is he the same Obama who called an unrepentant American terrorist Billy Ayers "his friend", only to chuck him overboard when their friendship came to light?

Seems like with this guy, if your friend or family you'll get tossed when you become an inconvenience.

A LOT Greener Than Gore wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:29 AM:Watching TV last night, some group had done an investigation of Al Gore’s recent speech saying we only have 10 years to get our act together – a speech to which he had urged in his invitations to his believer to come to on bicycles and public transportation.

During the speech, out back, the caravan of Lincoln Town cars and BIG SUVs awaited Tipper and Al to return (not a hybrid in the lot!) – and the Gore Town Car idled with the A/C on so that Tipper and Al would be comfortable when they got in!

When approached the driver of the Town Car in which the Gores rode, the driver rolled down his window to speak to the reporter, but rolled it back up in the middle of the question about keeping the A/C on.

The private jet that the Gore’s left on was HUGE (my guess is a 737), not something like a small Lear – and just above the door as Gore waved to the crowd was what appeard to be the symbol of the VP of the United States.

Am I Greener Than Gore? You bet your sweet bippy!

Before Greenenergy gets on his “net effect” kick – “net effect" is like a preacher nailing prostitutes, but hoping that he saves more than he nails so that the “net effect” will be positive!

Hypocrisy any way you look at it!

LOGIC wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:29 AM:Oh Bill,,, Mccain has never flip-flopped??? Really,, he was against torture but is now for it, he was against the new GI Bill and is now for it as long as it doesnt provide to much of an incentive to further ones' education (keep the troops ignorant and of course they will reenlist). He once said he would never repeal Roe v. Wade,,, now he says,, "but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade..." Bill can we at least be honest and admit that both Obama and McCain are jockeying to get as many votes as possible and will say anything to get elected? And for all those bashing General Clark. He praised McCain's service and only said that being a POW does not necessarily make you suited for Commander Chief. Lastly,, I am one veteran that is voting for Obama. War is not the answer

Viva La Raza wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:31 AM:David Cline is wrong about the National Council of La Raza. Their #1 goal is not the reconquest of the southwest as Cline says. In fact, it's not even on the list. Check their web site. And the reason Mayor Sanders welcomed their convention to the city is because big conventions are good for business AND Latinos are an integral part of our local economy.

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:54 AM:"Nature Lover" @5:30 AM, hits the nail on the head.

>>>Why can’t we do that? We can, if we change our laws so that transmission lines can be built and the so-called environmentalists can’t block everything.>>>

The only logical conclusion is to assume they oppose any new source of energy, even if produced cleanly.
As my buddy Reardon would say: "It's MY brand, or no brand at all."

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:11 AM:You know, after the fall of the Soviet Union, when the bread stores were closing, and things got really tough because of the transition from communism to democracy. Some inside the former Soviet Union called, in fact, they cried to bring back the former communist structure, because they had no clue how to do it. How to succeed, how to live in a different world. They want to return to "the good old days."

This is where America finds itself, at the crossroads. Not in the communist sense, but a different world, none the less.

We have a candidate, Barack Obama calling for Hope & Change. Well, what is the "change" he is recommending?
A return to the "good old days."

Within the liberal mind, what are the "good old days?" When taxes were skyhigh, highly regulated, and government ran virtually every business by proxy.

This is the ideal world of Joseph Kraatz. One thing Capitalism will assure you is Change. One thing State run anything will assure you, is NO Change.

Hope can only come from individual human beings allowed to live independently with god-given liberties to pursue their own happiness.

What Barack Obama offers is a "one-size-fits-all Happiness. Just like the former Soviet's.

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:24 AM:Less is more is right.. "Less is more"
@5:25 AM.
For all those who think we need to change our system, think about this.
Less is more, look at the Senate.
Regardless of population, each State has two representatives. This is intentional unequal representation, to balance against a House who's representation is based upon population.
If you want to get into the game of popular votes should elect, you had better start thinking about doing away with the Senate.

And on top of that, currently we have a chairman of the Senate banking committee from one of the smallest states we have. Making policy for the entire nation, even though he receives personal sweetheart deals from loan exec's, on speed dial to the exec's personal cell phone, no less.

I'd call that unequal representation.

Anns Admirer wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:44 AM:I'll bet that if Ann Coulter were President we would get some more oil wells drilled quickly, she is good!

Paul wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:53 AM:Some anti-religious people on this web site complain about Christians exercising there constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Well if these anti-religion persons lived in Iran they would have it worse.
The Iranian hardliners do not go for freedom of choice in religion. They are currently trying to make their law mandatory to execute any Muslim that converted to Christianity for apostasy. Obviously rejecting Allah and their Prophet would be apostasy . It is already allowed in their law but is not mandatory. They also want to make execution mandatory for anyone who promotes such a conversion, even over the Internet. They recently arrested 15 men accused of converting to Christianity. I know this sound unbelievable, but you can verify this yourself on the Internet. Just look up Arash Bandari, 44, and Mahmood Martin, 52 Members of the Iranian Parliament voted to take up debate soon on making . They were going to execute a man in 1994 for converting, but there was a world outcry so they eventually released him. However he and four other Christian Pastors were found brutally murdered. For all reasons Iraq formally executed 317 persons in 2007, up from 177 in 2006.

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:59 AM:Speaking of adoration and awe, Phil Epstein.
That is going to very quickly go away when people, voters start getting a load of "who" is surrounding Obama. You know.. his advisors.
They are all, ALL former Clintonites.
Since the Obamaman knows virtually nothing about running a huge Federal Government, or foreign policy...
We will get a return of the Clinton policies.
And not the after 1994 budgets, the 1993 budget, where taxes were retroacvtive. And where Al-Queda was allowed to hide & sneak attack endlessly. Where Bin Laden was offered not once, but twice to Clinton, and he refused. Where the opportunity to kill Bin Laden showed itself 3 times, and we wouldn't pull the trigger.
Yep, bring back those happy days.

Oh Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:59 AM:Still defending McCain from attacks on his war record that no one made. Yes, McCain supported the war in Iraq, with great enthusiasm. In the beginning, he insisted that more troops were not needed, just like Rummy said. Then he changed his mind. Like Rummy, McCain insisted we would be greeted as liberators and the war would be over with in a very short time. Oops. Finally, a few years later, with al Sadr calling a cease fire, Baghdad neighborhoods almost completely segregated, and going on 90000 Iraqis paid to not shoot at us, McCain gets his surge, which contributes to the decline in violence (a decline that evaporated briefly when Sadr decided to fight). "We won!" "The surge won!" And what did Bush and McCain want with the "victory"? Not to proudly leave Iraq to its sovereignity and democracy. Not to "stand down when the Iraqis stand up". Not to leave when asked to leave. Nope: permanent bases immune from Iraqi law, and a no-bid oil contract for Bush's pals. But, amazingly, and to the great disappointment and rage of Bush and McCain, the Iraqis had the nerve to insist we leave. What do you know? Bush says "We're going to pull out. Victorious!" McCaine now follows Obama's lead asking, finally, for a serious fight in Afghanistan, claiming that he can "win" that one like he "won" in Iraq. You're right, Bill. Someone CAN be a hero and an idiot. LOL

to Anns admirer wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:00 AM:That's true, and the earth wouldn't be the only thing that would get drilled under President Coulter. LOL

To Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:08 AM:Your delusional comments are entertaining, in much the same way that monkeys flinging poo are entertaining.

Unfortunately for you, the similarities don't stop there.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:08 AM:For those who wonder about Obama and what he has - well he has been right on about the war. That is a HUGE start. He was against it before it started and it seems like Bush and McCain are FOLLOWING his lead on Afganistan and now "cutting and running" (Bush's/cons words)from Iraq. You cons just won't see that he and his administration will right the wrong that has been going on - you know maybe you do see it and it scares the heck out of you. You cons are going to loose - and before it is all over you will loose - BIG TIME! Americans are really tired of the direction our country has taken and they are ready for CHANGE - BIG TIME! - and it's coming from Barak Hussien Obama and the libs.

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:10 AM:I didnt say McCain never flip flopped on anything.

I said he hasnt flipped on the war against terror.

Everything else is trivial if we get nuked.

His opinion on abortion is irrelevant since he has no power to overturn it.

Tell me?

If war isnbt the answer...then what is when your adversary wants to kill you?

Lets hear what the answer is then.

What should the US have done instead in WW2 to extinguish Hitler?

I always love it when people say that war isnt the answer but never tell us what the answer is. Thats why democrats cant capitalize on a weak president because they dont offer any alternative solutions.

All they do is whine about what is being done.

Lets hear your plan to protect America.

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:15 AM:The purpose of the Electoral College was to grant small states EQUAL REPRESENTATION.

Otherwise, they wouldnt have any at all as no president would need their votes to win.The framers never claimed that we elect our leadersa through the PEOPLE, they set it up so we elect them through the states.

Without the EC, California and NY would be the dictators in a system that would promote tyranny of the majority.

The framers were smart enough to avoid that debacle and set up a system that guaranttes these small states representation.

We elect leaders through the states and not the people.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:18 AM:Robert Kirby wrote "Trying to determine who the real Barack Obama is and what he truly believes parallels trying to pick fly specks out of the pepper. He has all the answers but no solutions".

Well Robert - according to Webster (you know the dictionary folks) answer and solution are the same - see the excerpt from good ole' Wesbster:

1 a: something spoken or written in reply to a question b: a correct response
2: a reply to a legal charge or suit : plea; also : defense
3: something done in response or reaction
4: a solution of a problem
5: one that imitates, matches, or corresponds to another

So now you can stop trying to determine what he is about and just except what/who he is since he DOES HAVE ALL the answers/solution.

JACK F. wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:37 AM:LOGIC[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:29 AM: Ditto my friend. Ditto.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:38 AM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:59 AM: Ron if we could just bring back the Clinton days. The days when the budget was balanced and we were respected around the world. The days when we were a prosperous and healthy country, when our dollar was worth something. Yes bring back those days. Only a person in denial would want us to stay the course of this andministration. And just which president said "Bin Laden, I don't know where he is and I'm not really concerned about him"?.

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:39 AM:The fires are due to not clearing the fuel inside the forests, and other outlying areas, Robert Martinez.
Enviromentalists have demanded a "Leave it Alone" policy, not understanding that the continual building up of fuel mass on the forest floors is a tinder box waiting to happen.

This is what I mean about REAL nature, versus what enviro's think it is.

Chris wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:42 AM:Just more balony from Alexandra Cloney. Cloney says that the Arabs foolishly didn't make Provisiona for the minority Jewish and Christian populations. What is she talking about. The real Jews and Christians lived for centuries in peace with the Arabs and they all got along fine until the Zionist came. The Arabs didn't go along with the partition plan so what provisions were they to make. Cloney talks about Churchill. Isn't this the same Churchill that said that the Palestinians were savages and eat dung. Yea, the British were really concerned about the Arab population. Cloney makes a big deal about the Grand Mufi and Hitler. Well the Mufi along with the rest of the Arabs watched their land being taken over by the Zionist and it was the British that were forcing the Zionist on the Arabs. Who do you think the Arabs were going to try to get to help them? The U.S. These conservative Israeli supporters sure can blow a lot of smoke.

Oh Please wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:43 AM:Bill; Clark proved to be idiot daily. Please present any evidence to support your statement? Winning a war that shoul have never been started. which has cost us over 4,200 dead countryman and billions of dollars is a very good credentials to fight and to win the war that should have been fought.

LOGIC wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:43 AM:Oh my Bill. My plan to protect America??? Take troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan to stop AL QAEDA!!!!!! Maintain a smaller force in the Iraq region that can respond when necessary to terrorist threats/uprisings. Institute a draft that is equal so silver-spooned sons like Bush actually have to serve. Talk with our enemies like apparently the Bush administration is finally doing after it has been the Democrats position for 2 years at least. Secure our borders by adding 100,000 new Border patrol agents... etc.. I love the hawks that always want a war but will never serve. Of course I use force if someone is threatening my life,, but thats not Iraq. Bill,, go sign up and stand to post!!!

JACK F. wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:44 AM:to Anns admirer[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:00 AM: Was Ann for the surge too?

Follow the Leader wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:50 AM:The President should be commended for moving beyond partisan politics and adopting Senator 0bama's approach in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, and rejecting all the nonsense coming out of McCain.

In Iraq, he has agreed to a "Time Horizon" - also known as 0bama's plan for withdrawal.

In Afghanistan, he has agreed to sending more troops as recommended by 0bama.

On Iran, he has now allowed direct talks, as recommended by 0bama.

It is for the first time that the President is putting country before politics and following 0bama's lead. Whether he has the guts and honesty to admit it or not is less important.

Chris to Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:53 AM:My plan to protect America is to not make enemies. That means minding are own business. But you concervativs can't stand that because you love any chance there is to make war.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:53 AM:Bill
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:10 AM:..I always love it when people say that war isnt the answer but never tell us what the answer is....Bill where the heck have you been. This war is NOT the answer. Have you not heard the discusions about this war and how it should have NEVER started. The problem is Bill, you don't go to war unless you have a good reason to. Bush invaded a country that should not have been invaded and that is the problem. We went into the war with NO game plan. NO exit strategy. NO nothing. Remember, we were going to be embraced as liberators and it would be a cake walk, out in days. Do you remember that Cheney, years ago, said that it would not be a good idea to invade Iraq. And the reasons he gave then proved to be true today. This war has turned out to be the biggest mistake a president could make. When you mess up BIG TIME the fix will take generations.

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:07 AM:So your plan is war?

Didnt you say war wasnt the answer?

I'm assuming now that we are in Afghanistan, you are now a war supporter right?

Afghanistan didn't attack us either so your plan is hypocritical.


But talk with Al Qaeda?

About what?

Diplomacy is the art of compromise which leads me to ask you what you would be willing to concede in negotiations?

What are you willing to give up in exchange?

But now the spin is that Bush is now adopted Obamas plan?

The difference was Obama wanted to leave BEFORE we won and Bush waited until we actually chased AQ out of Iraq.

Obamas plan was to for us to cut and run but thats not what Bush did.

AQ cut and ran and not the USA.

Just a few slight differences that Libs are oblivious to.

Obamas flag ship issue is gone and now hes reduced to agreeing with Bush.

Bushs plan was to exit once we won.

That wasnt Obamas plan though.

Nice try though!

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:13 AM:Good to know.. that all week, and several weekend days, I'm slaving away to ensure "To Ron" @10:08 AM's check arrives on time.

Jack_D wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:24 AM:As is Less is More points out (5:25), Edward Karlson's letter was completely wrong. The electoral college helps the small states at the expense of states like California.

I don't understand Robert Kirby's letter- two sentences long and incoherent.

Oh Yeah wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:28 AM:"Afghanistan Didn't Attack Us Either."
That is correct. We should have not invaded Afghanistan either. We should have executed surgical strikes against Al Queda. Now, we will have to fight a war in Afghanistan for years to come. It took ten years for the Russians to get out. Wonder how long it will take us?

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:29 AM:Ah, my deluded friend "Ms M" @10:38 AM.
You keep believing that taxation brings prosperity. Or balanced budgets.
Isn't it amazing, those who say "We had it sooo good under Clinton", are also those who lament his fiscal policies which sent ton's of jobs overseas?
I think it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, yes.. I think I read that someplace.

As to "being respected", let me put it to you this way. If a man continued to hit you in the face, over, and over, and over again, would you earn "respect" from continuing to not respond? THAT is the Clinton foreign policy.

I've explained, at nauseum how the budget was "balanced", and how our debt went up each and every year Clinton held office. So, you keep thinking that, in fact, it is because of people like you, so easily fooled, we still have Enron-like budgets produced by this Government.

As to Bin Laden, personally. If your dismantling his operational structure, you'll eventually get to the top guy. This is why GWB said: "Bin Laden, I don't know where he is and I'm not really concerned about him?"
Kind of like going after the mob, if you get lower people to "flip", you'll get some goods on the big guy.
But.. had Clinton done his job, and taken the guy out when he had the chance, 5 times... We would not be having this conversation, now would we?
And, we might even have the Twin Towers still standing, and 3,000 Americans still alive.
But, I guess.. we'll never know now. Will we?

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:30 AM:Bill
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:07 AM:...we won and Bush waited until we actually chased AQ out of Iraq....is this the spin now. Bill, you can never win a war that first of all never was. Who were we fighting? It isn't a war it's an occupation. To win would be something positive. Just what has been gained with this occupation. Just what have we WON?

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:38 AM:Bill
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:07 AM:....Afghanistan didn't attack us either so your plan is hypocritical...um Bill, Afghanistan is were the folks are who were responsible for 9/11 are. We started in Afghanistan but left to fight that other war in Iraq - remember? Bill, there are times when we have to go to war as with Afganistan and there are times when we shouldn't and that's called Iraq. I don't know why it's so hard to understand you just don't go around invading and destroying countries. The consequences are astronomical as we are now seeing.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:42 AM:Bill
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:07 AM:..The difference was Obama wanted to leave BEFORE we won and Bush waited until we actually chased AQ out of Iraq.
Bill I hate to tell you this, but Bush is leaving 'cause the Iraqi's told him it's time to go! That's a big difference. Your boy had no intention whatsoever of leaving Iraq - he's being shown the door. So tell me what was this all for?

Dont Think So wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:15 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:29 AM:
Dismantling their structure. Per our own American intelligence, Al Queda is back in strength. You'll eventually get the top guy? Don't think so. But, the subject may not really be of any worth.
I think Ben Ladin is deceased. He had severe kidney problems requiring medical and probable hospital attention. Don't think he made it. Second guessing about Clinton and Twin Towers. Taking Ben Ladin out would not have stopped 9/11. Al Queda is not one man.

liberaljim wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:18 PM:I hope everyone saw the remark McCain recently made about Social Security. According to him it's disgusting that a young worker has to contribute to the benefits of retired workers. Let's look at who supported McCain ALL HIS LIFE. Working people contributed to the taxes that paid McCains father's huge admiral's salary. Therefore the taxpayer provided food, shelter, clothing and medical insurance for McCain when he was growing up. The working taxpayer paid for McCain's free education at the Naval Academy, not that he appreciated it having graduated 5th from the bottom of his class of nearly 600. The working man was taxed for the time McCain spent in the military, his time in the Senate and is paying taxes to provide him with his $58,000 military disability benefits. The working man's taxes have also provided him with health coverage and a very sweet pension plan. Millions of working taxpaying Americans can't afford their own health insurance, and millions more are under-insured. Many retired people who lost their retirement plans in previous market crashes survive on a average of 10,000 a year social security. Doesn't that make it especially nasty that McCain had to take a swipe at Social Security recipients? Talk about hypocricy. Does McCain deserve a lifetime being supported by the taxpayers? I won't argue that he doesn't. Does the working man who paid for this largess deserve to have at least the same medical benefits and pension plan McCain gets since the working man is paying for it. You're damned right he does.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:24 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:29 AM:Ah, my deluded friend "Ms M" @10:38 AM.
You keep believing that taxation brings prosperity. Or balanced budgets.
Isn't it amazing, those who say "We had it sooo good under Clinton...Ron compared to what we NOW have with the Bush/con policy - life WAS great and were WERE prosperous. Not everything that was enacted under Clinton was perfect - but just everything that has happened under Bush has been an utter failure including this unjust war. Ron I suggest you are the deluded one - a person trying to defend Bush and justify this mess!

Bill needs help wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:40 PM:I don't know it it's worth commenting on Bill's take on foreign policy because it really seems that he is just a parrot, repeating and appearing to believe anything Bush, Cheney, and McCain say, no matter how false or illogical. We went to war with Afghanistan because at the time, the Taliban were the ruling government of that country and had explicitly given protection to the real al qaeda. The enemy were the people who attacked us, so if the Taliban insisted on standing in front of al qaeda, that's what we had to do. But the goal, and the only justified action, was to get al qaeda. Obama spoke strongly for the Afghanistan war against al qaeda and strongly against going into Iraq months before we invaded Iraq. That's not cutting and running (as Bush did in Afghanistan, leading to a record opium crop and rebuilding of both the Taliban and al qaeda), it's telling what turned out to be the spot-on truth about what was going on. Obama was one of the courageous politicians at the time who called it as he saw it, despite this being politically suicide in the mood of the nation then. And he nailed it. Bill has this completely mixed up, as usual. Like it or not, it was Obama who complained that we weren't doing what we needed to do in Afghanistan, and now, after 5 years, Bush and McCain will follow that advice. Like it or not, it was Obama who said we needed to talk to Iran (not al qaeda, Bill) while Bush & McCain insulted him for this, saying "we don't talk to terrorists". This past week, Bush did what Obama had been suggesting all along, sending US diplomats to join the talks between Iran and the EU. Bill, please try to get your facts at least close to correct. You aren't exactly impressing anyone with falsehood-based opinions, especially when they're so obviously incorrect. OK?

Flippin and floppin wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:48 PM:The right is desperately playing up Obama's changes of mind to take the heat off their man. McCain made Kerry look like Mr Rigid. Against tax cuts, now for permanent tax cuts. Against a large force in Iraq, then for a surge. Against off shore drilling, then for off shore drilling. For the support of people like Hagee, then running away from them as fast as possible. He's so fond of the flip flop that I hear that he's thinking about Mitt Romney as a VP choice, the man whom McCain called an embarrassing flipflopper throughout their campaign. I guess he's thinking of an all-flip-flop ticket with the slogan: "What do you want? SO DO WE!" In addition to flipping and flopping, let's not forget that McCain also lies! He claims to be an environmentalist, but never shows up to vote on environmental bills. He claims to be the friend of American women, but is given a near-zero score by the major national women's groups on his voting record, including conservative womens' groups. And in addition to the flipflops and the lies, McCain has also gotten all the big foreign policy issues wrong. He was a cheerleader for Ahmed Chalabi's predictions of Iraq, that a small force was all we needed, that it'd be over in no time, that we'd be greeted as liberators. He was for reducing our commitment to the fight in Afghanistan against those who attacked us, and they got stronger as a result. His stance on immigration, recently flipflopped, seemed to see no connection between a porous border and national security. You want to VOTE for this guy? Even the conservatives have always hated him. Good grief!

IMHO wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:51 PM:Did anyone else notice how boring (DEAD)yesterdays board was? Yes, We know that hardcore libos, and conservos like it that way. After all, Your post will be the one to change minds, educate the masses and impact the world. but, Good Night!!! That's why It's OK for a few Jokers to inject a little "life" into the day, from time to time! No?

to Ron and MsM wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:54 PM:But Ms M, tax cuts DO create prosperity. The CEO's of the corporations have never in history been so prosperous. The ratio of their salaries to those of their employees has never been higher. And tax cuts have also brought increased prosperity to the manufacturers and working poor. In China. In India. In Indonesia. In Vietnam. Those people had destitution, now they work alongside their children in sweat shops. And the tax cuts have brought prosperity to those who can afford to invest in the stocks of the corporations that are setting records in speculation (like Ron and his beloved oil stocks). When Ron says tax cuts lead to prosperity, he means for himself, which is the only valid yardstick.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:54 PM:Greener (not) at 8:29 a.m. still fails to grasp a couple of really basic concepts.
1. No one has ever said Al Gore is a saint or pope or perfect or anything like that, except those trying to mock or ridicule him, kinda like those who refer to Obama as "messiah" but would never actually vote for him. He isn't even a scientist. He is an effective communicator on environmental issues. Whether or not one person is a perfect model or not does not change anything of substance regarding environmental issues, any more than one preacher committing a sin invalidates a whole religion.
2. If a company or business spends a lot of money, you don't call it a loss of they take in more than they spend. If an environmentalist uses a lot of energy based on fossil fuels, he is not less green than someone who uses less up front if the bottom line result of his activities is to reduce such consumption. Sorry this is so hard for you to understand, though I will acknowledge your little example about prostitutes was ironically more appropriate than you might have intended.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:55 PM:BERLIN - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible," according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." ...um folks I think "the fat lady has sung"! And Maliki is saying that Obama's "time horizon" of withdrawal is RIGHT - yes folks Maliki is in support of Obama's reccomendation....and yes I am so very GLEEFUL!

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:01 PM:My dear friend, "Dont Think So" @12:15 PM.
Do you not recognise this is a informational battle, as well as, And on the ground battle?
For as long as the world has known war, propaganda is what is happening now.
In fact, if you ever read OBL's fatwa, it is one of his battle plans, to convince Americans to give up. So, every once in awhile, from where-ever his little rat's nest is.. he or someone sends out some kind of nonsense about winning some battle, taking credit for something else, or just outright lying about it. This is war, and wars sometimes are turned by "bad information." The OBL plan has long been to "out-last" us. Pin-point hits, run & hide, just enough to day by day, month by month, kill enough, cost enough to where people like you say it is not worth it. And he's already won, in your mind. In fact, I think your one of those who really wants us to lose. You probably believe in an imperialist America, that little piece of propaganda placed into the American bloodstream by the Soviets, and the KGB.
See how effective that was? All they had to do was plant it, and watch it grow.

Keep it short wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:11 PM:I know why Robert Kirby's letter is so short; it's almost time for Matlock. Get outside Robert and wash the Buick, I saw some fly specks.

Three D wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:12 PM:I would respectfully ask of Paul (9:53 a.m.) to provide an example of "anti-religious people on this web site" who "complain about Christians exercising there constitutionally protected freedom of religion."
I have never seen any example of anyone on this web site or elsewhere attempting to interfere with Christians observing their own religious beliefs and practices. What I do see is many of us who object to Christians trying to force the use of public resources and facilities to force those of us who do not share their beliefs to be required to participate in them.
And, by the way, using examples of other countries that are even worse does not mean that, since we're not THAT bad that we therefore have no need at all to improve.

Here we go again wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:29 PM:Al Gore is said to be a hypocrite and a speculator by many posters here, whenever possible. I have not much interest in this topic. Al Gore as a person is something I could care less about. But somehow, via a path that surely defies logic, many of these posters draw conclusions about the earth's climate from their opinion of Al Gore. Could there be two things that have less to do with each other? "I hate Al Gore, therefore human-influenced global warming is not happening" is a sentence worthy of a psychotic, as far as its logic goes. Please, folks, spare us. If you want to talk about your opinion of Al Gore, you are perfectly entitled to. If you want to talk about the science for or against climate change, wonderful! But mixing the two is idiotic. Spare us.

liberaljim wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:31 PM:Bush set a "general time horizon" for withdrawal of our troops in Iraq. The horizon is the point where the earth and the sky meet, and if you believe the earth is round it is always beyond reach. Apparently Bush and some neo-con followers think the earth is flat. That's the only way you could reach the horizon. Watch out, though. You might fall off.

To Ron AM wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:36 PM:You are right about the forest fires being fueled by the tinder growth. I live in Prescott, Arizona. We have controlled burns during the winter months. There was a big fire about five years ago up here. Everyone was scared to death, the town would burn. I'm happy to say it didn't happen but the Forest Service got the forest under control. They have thinned the National Forest and have done some logging to prevent having that type of wildfire up here again. We were involved in the Paradise fire in Valley Center a few years ago. When we moved here I felt California was a tinder box waiting to explode. I hope the enviromentalist see the truth and do let California do what Arizona did and clear the forest. It will happen again if they don't. I'm a native Californian who left because California is on the wrong track and all I see is choas for a place I loved and thought I'd always live. It was not to be, This area is so much better I'm sorry I didn't move sooner. I still read the NCT online a habit I guess I'll never give up.

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:43 PM:and yet again.. my dear friend "Ms M"
@12:24 PM.
If you'll recall, the unintended consequences of policies put in place during the Clinton years created Enron, World Com, and other's.
And let's please not forget the debt/deficit exploding healthcare plan of "Hillary-Care" had Clinton not ticked off enough Americans with his & the Democrats retroactive tax plan in 1993. Clinton's health plan was not deficit-neutral, in fact, it's deficit-worsening. Had Bill Clinton retained control of the House, I guarntee you, that same debt/deficit your complaining about now under Bush, we would have already achieved under Clinton. In fact, Bush helped the process along with his drug benefit to Medi-Care.
Clinton and Bush agree on the right level of deficits. Where they disagree on whether you should have tax cuts for or health care. So, let's not fool ourselves here, ok?
Why do you think I keep going back to the budget? If we borrowed $400 billion, $200 billion of which went to Iraq & Afganistan. You then must answer, where'd the rest go? It went to pay on the entitlements of our welfare State. Can you just imagine, if we had passed Hillary-Care, what we would have to borrow now? Because it's obvious to me, even the Democrats back in 1993, knowing they had a healthcare plan waiting in the wings, did not have the gonads to pass enough of a tax increase to cover it. And I guarntee you, they would have borrowed the money, just as Bill Clinton borrowed $63 billion his last year in office. Balanced? I don't think so. Not by a long ways. In fact, if he's dipping into your retirement fund to balance his "this year's budget", what'cha gonna do down the line, when those treasury bills come due? That's right! You raise the Social Security tax a 20th time, this time a huge one, reaching every dollar available in the entire economy.
And after the 1st time didn't do it, the 2nd time, the 3rd time, the 4th time, the 5th time, the 6th time, the 7th time, the 8th time, the 9th time, the 10th time... you following me here?

Ron wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:45 PM:No "liberaljim" @12:18 PM, what is disgusting is that this Government, beginning back in 1935 decided to swindle Americans, tricking them into believing that they would provide a retirment system, and then steal their money. That is what is truly disgusting, this Inter-Generational Ponzi Scheme, which had the chance, the ability, once upon a time to be a real investment into our workers future's, who throughout their entire life's paid this Government 12.4% of their entire working life's wage, to have this Government waste it. Any other private institution who would have done this, those administrators would have been in prison, and rightly so.

What Senator McCain and other's are concerned about is a growing eldery demographic, and a shrinking youth demographic. At the time Social Security was started, we had 23 workers to 1 payee. Currently, we are at a 3 to 1 ratio, soon down to a 2 to 1 ratio.
With the average Social Security check being about $1000 bucks a month, that means each worker now pays $333.34 each month for 1 retiree. Shortly, we will see each worker, our children pay $500 a month. Now, who can afford this?

You comments about McCain's military service to this country is just nonsense. He worked to provide security for this country, he earned every penny.

I personally do not have it in for each & every retiree. I just happen to think many didn't plan so well, which is their fault. And i have no problem with anyone who simply wants to get back the money they paid into the system. It's the system, that drives me nutty. This system, which if had left the surpluses alone, we'd be in a lot better place. But greedy politicians can not keep their money grubbing hands off people's money, and they stole it, and spent it.
And it's the only retirement system I know of that about every 2.3 years of it's existance, it raises it's rates for the same benefit.

I'll tell you what should disturb you more than McCain's retirement package from the military, is the Congressional/Senate retirement package.
It's the only plan I know of, where you can spend 5 years on the job, and receive a $55,000 a year for the rest of your life. Whether you did anything, or not.
Now, you tell me, what American would not kill to get a gig like that?

Gays boycott again wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:22 PM:Today’s papers had articles about a number of gays protesting at the San Diego Manchester Grand Hyatt just because the owner believes marriage should remain between one man and one woman, and he contributed some of his personal money to help put it on the ballot for us all to get a chance to voter on it in November. It is not like he used the hotels money. I find the so-called gay rights activists’ behavior both obnoxious and dangerous. This was done just ahead of the San Diego Gay Pride celebrations. Gay persons are welcome at the hotel they were demonstrating against. And they picket a business he and others have a financial interest in. It is not about equal rights, they want superior rights; they want the right to not allow anyone to criticize them or their lifestyle, in fact they are trying to making it a punishable offense to say we do not approve of their life style. Then they accuse us of bigotry and hate speech. In this article they are interfering with Mr. Manchester’s constitutional right to contribute his own money, and the constitutional right for us to vote on the issue in November. Of course they have a right to advertise and hold signs elsewhere to encourage people to vote no on the issue instead of yes to uphold the traditional meaning of the word marriage.

Caution wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:32 PM:Where the gay movement is more dangerous they keep trying to get laws passed that prohibit anyone from saying or writing anything about any gay issue that sounds negative. That is an extreme cause for concern where we in this country have a value placed on freedoms of speech and the press and religion.
Last year they got SB 777 passed which in turn caused dozens of changes to the states education laws.

This year they have at least four dangerous bills, SB1437, SB1441, AB1056, and AB606. Some have passed the legislature already but none have been signed into law yet. One would ban the state from doing any business with any group that does not provide benefits to workers with domestic partners equal to the benefits offered to married workers. The bill does not provide any conscience clause allowing exemptions for religious organizations which would have to violate their beliefs to conform. Does that mean the state could withhold fire and police protection from them for not compliing with that unconscionable law if it were to pass.
One of them forbids any organization which receives government funding from portraying homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in a negative light.
SB1437 would ban any instructional material or public school activities that “reflect adversely” on homosexuals or other alternative sexual lifestyles. So you can no longer have prom King and Queen? While this may sound nice it should be noted that California’s liberal courts are likely to expand the meaning of those beyond what you can now image. For example studies to determine whether there are seriously increased health risks by the practice of certain homosexual behavior would be forbidden. Studies to determine the incidence of hospitalization resulting from certain homosexual behavior would be prohibited and the cost to society not spoken of. If persons who practice one form of homosexuality were to be found in a scientific study to have a much higher incidence of some disease they would be prohibited from publishing their research results. Or if researchers found that by changing a gene a persons attraction would return to heterosexual attraction the researcher could face prison for saying so. This kind of thought control must not be allowed to happen here, but it is already started in Canada, and Brazil is considering it currently with a five year prison sentence.

Karl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:21 PM:Here's to hopin' everyone including my friend Chris is having a rootin' tootin' Saturday

I cant believe he said that wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:25 PM:McCain claims, "I know how to win a war!"

Oh really? Has McCain ever won a war? NO. He was merely a participant in the only war in history that America has ever lost.

He was not a great leader. He was a LCDR who had little leadership beyond the roll of Division Officer.

His post-capture promotions were meritorious. The Navy promoted everyone held in POW camps when they met the time in service and time in grade requirements for the next promotion...McCain was not on track to make the final grade he finally made.

So, and I say this with all due respect for a man that languished honorable in a POW camp, he knows no more about leading the military, or winning a war, then does anyone else...like, Obama!

So, McCain is doing little more than sounding like Kerry with his silly, "Reporting for Duty," gaff.

Ms M wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:27 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:43 PM:and yet again.. my dear friend "Ms M"
@12:24 PM....Ron, was America a better country at the end of Clinton's term or now? Regardless of how we get there some things good some things bad - once again are we a better country at the end of Clinton's term or now at the end of Bush's? Very simple question - don't need to go into this and that - just take a good open look at how things are now and hopefully give a honest answer.

Hatch in Escondido wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:17 PM:To David Cline in Escondido, right on the money!!

I exchanged a little with Jeff just the other day. La Raza has so much stinking money as to influence Congress, and the Lame Stream Media with the kind of clout wielded by even more powerful entities than oil companies. People need to be made aware of this.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:34 PM:As Hertz says, not exactly!

From CNN.Com:

"But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush."

Well Said wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:39 PM:IMHO
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:51 PM: Good post, Could not agree more.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:52 PM:McCain came out and said that he would have msot of the Iraq troops home by the end of his first term. That beats Obama who tried to get out roops out by March, alst March, when Iraq would have exploded with violence and "civil war."

And, ignorant ones, we won the war in Iraq in three weeks.

Turning the country over to an elected government is taking longer because mistakes were made. John McCain blasted thsoe mistakes before Obam could even find Iraq on a map.

The Iraq war was won in three weeks, just liek the first Iraq war was won in 100 hours.

Religion wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:26 PM:PAUL AND ANTI CHRISTIAN: The only anti Christian statements, other than Chris, have been made when Christians come on the blog preaching in self rightous tones. No one here seeks to deprive Christians of their right of freedom of speech only freedom to preach to those who wish no intrusion. This is not Iran.

Dont Think So wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:35 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:01 PM: Sure like to assume a lot. It really does not matter what you think because what you think is of no real consequence to me, to the community, the nation, or the world. It only matters in your mind and on this blog. I am interested in Al Quede not the Taliban or Afghanistan or Iraq. Al Queda attacked the Twin Tower not the Iraqis or the Afghanistan's or even the radal Islamic Taliban. It was Al Queda. I do not want us to lose wars. I do not want to win wars. I want us to stop initiating wars that need not be fought.

Check Fact Checker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:37 PM:Fact Checker[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:34 PM: That is what you say when Bush puts the gun to your head.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:38 PM:Karl[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:21 PM: you broke 75 today. Didn't you?

GayZ in to my eyes wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:45 PM:Caution
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:32 PM: Gay issues are yesterdays news. There 15 minutes have come and gone.

But Fact Checker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:48 PM:Isn't the point that Bush really has no moral right to "negotiate" with the Iraqi government? Who is Bush to "demand" conditions or a timeline? Isn't Iraq of, by, and for the people of Iraq what Bush's marketing campaign all about? And now he has the nerve to say that HE wants things to be a certain way? Outrageous! It's their country, remember? What we said we were fighting and dying for? Remember? Let me ask you: has their ever been a more amoral, cynical, or incompetent President in our history? Has any President made as much of a mockery of what the USA stands for? McCain says: stay the course. Good grief!

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:25 PM:To But: Bush has two bargaining chips 1) is rebuilding money -- although it is far less than the now flowing oil; and 2) shock troops nearby to provide strong backup to Iraqi troops should that become necessary. Those are the things Iraq wants.

Bush wants a forward base just in case Iran tries to close the Straits of Hormuz -- keeping sea lanes open has been an American world-wide responsibility for 200 years. Iraq can hold greater forces for longer periods than airlift or sealift.

If the forward bases are negotiated, Obama will not give them up. Count on it.

Chris wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:38 PM:Did you see where Brazils foreign minister said that the rich countries deception in trade talks reminded him of tacktics use by the Nazi prpaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels. Now of course I am familiar with what is happening concerning trade because I listen to Democracy Now and now it has finally come out in the open. You have to love Imperialism.

Karl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:39 PM:Three D
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:12 PM:

Are you kidding me? I do not have the time to search for the posts that will answer your challenge "show me anti-religious people on this web site" who "complain about Christians exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.". But for a wager that the loser will embarrass himself in a public square, I am in. Are you?

There are plenty who come very close to the line and cross it ocassionally.

Wouldn't be great if folks like Paul and yourself could sit down across a table from each other and have a meaningful conversation. I think that the both of you would find more common ground than you think.

Peace

Karl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:45 PM:Here we go again
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:29 PM:

Okay, Mr. Gore in my humble opinion is an idiot and I don't know enough about global warming to form an opinion. Does that work for you?

One thing that I do know for a fact is that my "footprint" is a lot smaller than his. I wear a size 9-1/2.

Good Grief wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:58 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:52 PM:
Then explain the main battles that have been fought after three weeks and the fact that over 3800 of the 4200 dead were killed after this three week episode. Do you read what you write before hitting the send button. Good grief.

Good Grief wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:00 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:52 PM:
Just for history's sake. Did the Iraqi army fight at all against the invading Americans. Seems odd that you take so much pride in a victory or an invasion that was not even contested.

Karl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:02 PM:IMHO
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:51 PM,

Fun and frivolity on this board? Get serious you lame brain funaholic. Life is not about fun, it's about the genius's that post on this site and how us sycophants will worship the keyboards that they type on. I can't believe that we haven't had a Nobel Prize winner yet from the list of prolific pontificators that prevaricate to us peons both present and post mortem on this board.

PPPeace

Karl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:06 PM:Chris
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:38 PM:

Darn right Chris, everything that Democracy Now says is spot on. I can't believe that we survived without these genius's before they started their campaign.

Peace and Good Night

At-What-Cost wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:06 PM:PPH Hospital
Two years of property tax money before they even had a place to build. Now they are so far indebt they are laying off personnel by the hundreds and cutting programs that are vital to the community. Is this a community hospital? I thought hospital rooms were for healing. This is a Resort, 320 square feet for multiple visitors? Do we really need to be the first hospital in the nation to have so many technological things? By the time the hospital is finished they will be outdated. What next?

The Other Science wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:09 PM:To: Karl
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:45 PM:
From: The Other Science
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:19 PM: Global warming of the Earths surface by man's auto's and factories, is like saying, "Everyone on the observation deck of the Empire State Building must dawn a breathing mask", Simply because a poorly tuned moped puttered by the front of the building at street level. It's all about cycles people.

Karl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:12 PM:Focal Point
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:38 PM:

Sorry to disappoint FP. I was at Palomar until 3:00am with my most beautiful other half helping my MIL in recovery from surgery. I teed off at 6:45am and could only manage a 77.

Tomorrows another day

Peace

What wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:46 PM:Fact Checker[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:25 PM: We do not need any bases to keep the straits open. That is why we have a Navy. It has not been our responsibility for 200 years.

Three D wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:11 PM:To Karl at 9:39 p.m.
I stand by what I wrote at 1:12 p.m.. I merely asked someone who compalined about "anti-religious people on this web site" who "complain about Christians exercising there constitutionally protected freedom of religion" to provide an example of what they were complaining about. Is that not reasonable?
Because, as I said, I have never seen any example of anyone on this web site or elsewhere attempting to interfere with Christians observing their own religious beliefs and practices. What I do see is many of us who object to Christians trying to force the use of public resources and facilities to force those of us who do not share their beliefs to be required to participate in them. And I think you may be confusing the two.
I will absolutely defend the rights of those who hold beliefs I do not share to worship in any manner that doesn't infringe any other person's equal right to do the same, or not do the same, as they freely choose.
But religion is and should be a private matter. It does not require use of public resources or facilities.
To anyone who disagrees, I would ask (again), why do you have more trust in politicians to safeguard your beliefs than churches, priests and families?

al Maliki misquoted on Time Line wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:20 AM:It's a complete "misunderstanding" al-Maliki was not talking about withdrawl from IRAQ, he was obviously referring to Chekoslovakia!

John wrote on Jul 20, 2008 1:23 AM:Iraq is Bush's war. Afghanistan is Obama's war. Only the terrain will change.

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:52 AM:I don't know about mine "Karl" at 9:45PM, I wear a size 10.5 EEEE, yes, quadruple E. No, I do not go barefoot often. Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:34 AM:Alf, you must be one heck of a swimmer with those paddles. Where does one find EEEE shoes?

Alf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:27 AM:While I'm not a good swimmer, "Karl" at 8:34AM, I go to Movin' Shoes in the Lumberyard. My in-laws remembered when the Lumberyard was a REAL lumberyard because they got building supplies there. Regards, Alf.