Conservative wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:15 AM:Re: "Domination diminishes our humanity" by L. Bertrand Halsema. Impressive beyond belief! Mr. Halsema's articulation of the debilitating and dehumanizing - not to mention devastating - effects of domination, is, well, ineffable. He brings to the fore what is arguably one of the most cogent arguments of the liberal philosophy to date.

Conservative wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:51 AM:Re: "Media in the corner for Republicans" by Major Morris. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Morris. Why doesn't this newspaper inform its readers of Senator Obama's many laudable accomplishments? After all, how many countries can lay claim to having a community organizer as a candidate for president? The fact that he has never held an executive position in government, or that he had barely served one year in the U.S. Senate before launching his presidential campaign has no bearing on his qualifications. What matter most are the intangible qualities, such as his judgment and political philosophy. His long association with such Chicago luminaries as the righteous reverend Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers are of little consequence. Likewise his political philosophy should not be considered cause for alarm: its efficacy has been tried and proven in such secular progressive nations as Russia, East Germany, China, North Korea and Cuba. For more information on this subject, interested readers may go to their public library and check out "The Communist Manifesto." The difference between Senator Obama and other secular progressives is this: he offers us Marxism with a smile. Try it. You'll like it.

Conservative wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:01 AM:Re: "Conservatives made us who we are" by Tony San Miguel. Until now, I had contemplated sitting out this election because there are no conservative candidates running for office, but, after reading Mr. San Miguel's racist diatribe about conservative Republicans, I have decided to vote for Senator McCain. Thank you, dear friend, for lighting the way.

Ron wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:50 AM:Seems to be some confusion today by Tony San Miguel, as to what an actual conservative believes.
Obviously, he has confused the difference between Republicans & Conservatives. Let me, as I always do, help you out with that thought Tony:

1) Republicans and Democrats wanted the new drug benefit under MediCare, Conservatives fought the expansion of entitlements "tooth & nail."

2) Republicans have almost universally expanded the size & role of Government same as Democrats, while Conservatives opt to downsize government, i.e. eliminating unnecessary spending such as HUD, Dept of Ed, Welfare to any, subsidies for Big Ag, etc.

3) Conservatives believe in the Founders document, the Constitution of limited powers specifically defined within the body of the Consitution.
Republicans and Democrats "find loop-holes" within the Constitution to advance party power and structures inside Washington D.C.

I hope you find those helpful. I do have more, much more. But, this will give you just a taste.

Ron wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:16 AM:Also Tony San Miguel might be interested in a scoring of Obama's plan versus the John McCain plan's to give you the flavor of what I was speaking to eariler. Neither man will balance a budget, in fact, they both will expand the size of goverment, amount of taxation, and spending. This is why Conservatives, like myself, are not happy with John McCain, he's a big government Republican who often uses Liberal Speak to garner him praise from the liberal elites.
According to the Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt. Now, they also say McCain's plan would add $5 trillion, so pick your debt, I guess.
While Obama bashes Bush for "reckless" economic policies, He has adopted a component of Bush's fiscal policy: A bookkeeping method {smoke & mirrors} that guarantees that the $9.5 trillion national debt will get much bigger.
He's using Bush's baseline as a yardstick by which to measure fiscal responsibility? Obama is frustrating Democrat deficit hawks who say government should live within its means,
who have made "pay-as-you-go" budgeting a central tenet.
Privately, Democrats say following Obama's lead, they will have to abandon their pay-as-you-go pledge if they want to keep the Bush tax cuts that benefit the middle class in place. The $1,000 child tax credit, the marriage penalty, and a new 10 percent tax bracket for the lowest incomes. Expanding his newer pledges will further frustrate them. Because beginning in 2011, those tax provisions will stop, and unless paid for will increase the deficit by at least $100 billion. Democrats acknowledge that even rolling back all Bush tax cut's on the upper incomes, will not be enough to cover all of Obama's tax pledges to the middle & lower income classes.
"Leaving some of the tax cuts in place would cost us a small fortune," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of a group of conservative House Democrats known as the Blue Dogs who have been adamant about following pay-as-you-go rules. "I don't know that any Blue Dog has a good way to pay for that."
And ta boot, you have Democrat House Ways & Means Chairman Charlie Rangleout there waving around a lower corporate tax rate.

Chuck wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:22 AM:>>>how evil, dumb and unpatriotic that black guy, Barack Obama>>> Yea, thats about it. It seems the only issue the liberals have is the race card when it comes to Hussein. When anyone criticizes the saviour, as the women swoon and faint, they are immediately beat down with the race card, because hussein can not make any cogent arguement right now, as they are desperate to hide his Marxist platform. So please, go inflate your car tires so we can become energy independent.

Ron wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:57 AM:Oh, I disagree, Marcy Young!
While the "Do-nothing Democrats" do nothing... your gas prices will rise.
There are two kinds of actions: you can Decide to "do something", or you can decide to "do nothing". Democrats have chosen to "do nothing."

And of course, This doesn't make any sense. When we have more than enough oil, coal, oil shale and the means to get it cleanly and safely for the next 100 years. As T. Boone says: It is THE bridge to the alternatives. Anyone who says otherwise, is just adding to the misrepresenting the facts.

Oh, and speaking of facts...
I heard one of the Obama economic advisors say their energy plan will include 1 million electric cars by 2015.
Think about this so-called "pledge"...
If the turnover rate of the national fleet is 1/2 in 9 years, that would be 120 cars/trucks. In four years of the Obama Administation, the turnover would be some 53 million of the 240 million cars/trcuks nationally.
And you really think he's promising you something special by saying a million of the 53 million would be electric?
He's not offering you anything the free market, pushed, of course, by this do-nothing Democrat Congress, will do with ever rising gasoline prices.
This is a clown show, folks.
This is the same guy who said the Bush/Cheney Energy plan is a failure, who voted for the Cheney Plan, accepted at least $200,000 in Big Oil money, and has caved to drilling.
Now, he says he voted for the Cheney Plan because it increased incentives for alternatives. And it has increased the incentives for alternatives. Have you seen the charts on alterntive usage? Near dead flat during the Clinton years, and Peaking in the Bush years. It's the difference between actually doing something, and just talking about it, as Clinton did.
Failure, my eye.
The failure, if we've had any, is artificially reducing the amount of oil, gas, coal, shale, and other energy fuels because of Democrats care more about maintaining a constant flow of campaign funds from the enviromentalist lobbyists, instead of hard working, blue-collar folk, just trying to make end's meet. Again, what's good for Democrats, is not good for the American people. Just like good news in Iraq, would not be good news for Democrats.
See how this all plays out?

Judge Jury and Executioner wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:07 AM:James Howe, you seem to be saying, "since I don't drive on the I-5 (or fill in the blank), I should expect any of my tax dollars that are spent on the I-5 should be refunded." It may sound cruel, but perhaps you need to live in a lower cost of living area than southern California.

Reno Renaldo Sr., if, as you say when arguing against Prop. A,"If it passes, some may leave their homes over the taxes," one can only wonder, can those who would leave really afford to live in this area anyway. If a Prop. A tax is the tipping point, financially, for these people, they have bigger economic concerns to deal with.

Eric Williamson says that, somehow, a non-vote in the Prop. A election will be counted as a "yes". This perception is just too silly to address. How do you count votes that don't exist. Here's the deal, non-votes probably do indicate the potential voters have not bought off on the "Chicken Little" arguments of the No on A crowd. But don't blame that on supporters of A. If you can't present a compelling argument that moves voters, well, I would contend that's your problem.

Tony San Miguel, if only conservatives are responsible for the 2 time election of, say, GW Bush, you may not be thinking clearly. Conservatives or Liberals do not elect Presidents. Middle of the roaders do. So, if political parties would quit pandering to "the base" of the party, and pay attention to the needs and desires of "the base" of everyday Americans, election outcomes might be quite different.

Major Morris, if, as you say, you "continue to depend on newsprint for information beyond my sphere of personal observation," and base your ballot box decisions on what any media outlet (CNN, NCT, FOX News, et. al), perhaps a favor would be done to the rest of us if you just don't vote!

Marcy Young, all the court can ask, is "Huh?" You claim, "...Sen. McCain wants to do by drilling for oil and building nuclear plan[t]s but he needs a Republican Congress to do it." Where is the evidence that during the time when the GOP did have a majority, even at times with a GOP president, did they make any effort at drilling. It makes the court wonder if conservative constituents, such as yourself, only react when your pocketbook is impacted.

Richard Matthews, nice try, but you offered no solutions other than, perhaps, a sublimbinal request for us all to lock arms and sing Kumbiah!

Dolores Wiener, the court concludes that one can be an American and not be unwaveringly Pro-Israel, and one can be an Israeli and not be in lockstep with America. If America is such a strong supporter of human rights, and battles amongst its own people over the treatment of non-military enemies, Israel should not be so shocked by Americans who expect Israel to treat their Palistinian advesaries better, regardless of the threat they impose. Because, to Americans, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

L. Bertrand Halsema, if you're a high school student submitting a letter to the editor for an grade in English or Social Studies, nice job. If you are just someone with an issue to discuss, well, you've only left the court wondering, "What the heck are you talking about!"

Court is now in recess, and will be called to order if the Judge, Jury, and Executioner feels the need to entertain litigation based on the comments of other readers posted here.

Pasty wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:40 AM:CHUCK: Yep. I am a liberal. I am playing the "race" card by voting for Sen Obama.
There will be millions of "white"people voting for him.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:30 AM:Well "Conservative", please don't waste your vote on McIdiot just to prove a point. If it is change you are looking for, might I suggest you check this out.

The Campaign for Liberty!

Cheers, Nick.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:37 AM:The published letters from Marcy Young and L. Bertrand Halsema make efforts to discuss political ideology, but both miss far wide of the mark.
Young represents the typical Republican "Swift Boat" strategy of taking the one characteristic where you are weakest against your opposition and trying to use that against them, such as when a draft-dodging AWOL preppy from the Eastern Connecticut establishment tried to run as a Texas cowboy belittling the legitimate military credentials of a much-decorated war hero or an elitist son and grandson of admirals marries a billionaire heiress and tries to paint his rags-to-riches hardscrabble opponent as an "elitist" while campaigning on economic policies crafted entirely by Phil "nation-of-whiners" Gramm, the architect of both the failed lending deregulatory and oil speculation deregulatory policies. In the present case, Young complains about the "do-nothing" Democrats, who are unable to break through the obstruction by Republicans who control the Presidency, Supreme Court, and enough votes in the Senate to block legislation and prevent veto overrides. So typical!
Halsema means well and seems to make a more sincere effort at political analysis, but is far off the mark. His statement that, "Our Constitution's double emphasis on providing for our general welfare is socialism," would only have merit if you believe that the economic theory of socialism (government ownership of productive resources), which has been a proven failure everywhere it has been tried, promotes the general welfare. It does not. The General Welfare statements in the Preamble and Article I do not promote a specific mechanism for doing so, only that they endorse the role of the Federal government in promoting the "general welfare." His condemnation of economic domination by those who do not produce but merely game the resources and productivity of those who do, comes closer to the mark, but is better managed through regulation of private-sector market economies, not publicly-owned socialistic operations.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

HUSSEIN wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:07 AM:On this date 56 years ago, August 11, 1952, the late King HUSSEIN of Jordan, who would be a close ally and great friend to the United States, working closely with every president from Eisenhower to Dubya, ascended to the throne of Jordan. (By the way, of all those presidents he worked with, he observed that Bill Clinton was the smartest on middle east policy.)
Yes, our friend and ally HUSSEIN of Jordan, blessed harbinger of good fortune, grace, peace and beneficence, honored the rich legacy of his proud name.

Ms M wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:31 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:22 AM:>>> It seems the only issue the liberals have is the race card when it comes to Hussein. When anyone criticizes the saviour, as the women swoon and faint, they are immediately beat down with the race card...now Chuck, that's not true - have we (the libs) been accusing you of being racist?

Chuck wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:50 AM:>> I am playing the "race" card by voting for Sen Obama.
There will be millions of "white"people voting for him.>>> I know that. All the people who want it all for free will vote for Obama, and you'll dance with glee when he lays a huge tax increase on the oil companies, and the employers. And then, 6 months later, you'll wonder why you are paying $5.50 or $6 for gas. Then you'll wonder why you didnt get a raise and finally you'll wonder why you lost your job, as your employer writes massive new checks to Hussein. In fact, I encourage you all to vote for Hussein, but that denies you the right to bitch and moan about the price of gas, and why you were in the unemployment line for 3 hours or complain that you're is screaming with a broken leg, as you wait for Nancy Pelosi to the give the OK for him to be treated

Chuck wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:51 AM:>>>now Chuck, that's not true - have we (the libs) been accusing you of being racist?>>> probably not more than 30 times or so

hardtack wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:00 PM:L. Bertrand Halsema is quite a wordsmith. He/she makes a lot of open-ended statements designed, I am sure, to attract certain biases like Bass to a lure.

For example, his/her question: “Isn't democracy politically extending personal power?” The answer depends upon the person (i.e., individual). If the individual is a member of the minority, then the answer is “No.” The majority may even diminish individual power.

Yes, Halsema, the words “general welfare” do appear twice in the Constitution. But taken in the context of the entire document, including the first ten Amendments, no reasonable person can conclude that the framers intended our government to be socialistic.

Halsema says: “Money is the virtual, symbolic means of distributing wealth, determining who gets wealth, what, when, where and why,” A certain bias may find that definition attractive. I don’t. Others of us may prefer this definition:
"Money, first and foremost, is a medium of communication, conveying the information we call 'price'. Government control of either money, supply or prices is a form of censorship. Moreover, the inflation of currency, as our government tends to do on a regular basis, is a form of lying, as well as stealing." (Author’s name purposely withheld so as not to bias anyone.)

Finally, to imply as Halsema does, that accumulated personal riches “[diminishes] welfare for each and all,” is what I would call “dys-economic” bias.

Ms M wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:08 PM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:50 AM:...Then you'll wonder why you didnt get a raise and finally you'll wonder why you lost your job...Chuck, are you not aware that all of the things you PREDICT when Barak Hussien Obama BECOMES president next year, are happening NOW and have been over the past 7 plus yrs. And IF you voted for Bush not once, but twice your opinion on who is capable of running our country isn't really worth too much? Or anything else.

Constitution Watcher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:21 PM:Hardtack: Some subjects need to be addressed many times, because not everyone heard the first time -- or more.

The term "General Welfare" was designed by the Authors to set the tone of the document to be widely responsive to the population, and therefore not responsive to what we now call 'special interests.'

Welfare, as we know it, was unknown as a means of support for the poor, and what little support there was, was private charitable work -- not governmental. In fact, Indentured Servitude was a common means of welfare, and I have on my wall an Indentured Servitude contract executed by the town on behalf of a poor Black girl to my wife's family in 1812, in Marshfield, Mass.

("And the said Samuel Baker, Jr. on his Part, doth hereby promise and agree to cause the said Servant to be instructed in Housekeeping, spinning, and according to her Capability and also in reading and writing if she be capable to learn; and well and truly find and provide for the said Servant in sickness or Health, good and sufficient Meat, Drink, Clothing, Lodging and other necessities fit and convenient for such a Servant, during the Term aforesaid; and at the Expiration thereof shall give unto the said Servant, two decent suits of wearing Apparel proper for her life.")

James Madison, the primary author of the US Constitution lived long enough to pen: ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." he wrote that concerning, as my memory recalls, a mere $15,000 that Congress was considering to pay to some community of unfortunates.

While Madison could not find that article that provided for one party to support another, every Congress since has found it. In spades!

snerd wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:55 PM:Not content with destroying everything else they have been in charge of, the Bush Administration is moving to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. Something they have been trying to do since they were elected, as this would benefit their business base. Extraction industries have been trying to get around or eliminate this important act since it was put into force years ago. This only puts an underline on how important it is to elect a Democratic Administration that can begin to run the government efficiently and hopefully undo the horrible damage that Bush and his cronies have inflicted upon this great nation.

snerd wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:57 PM:Yikes I just realized I was whistling in the wind. There's no one left on this blog but Ron and his various other names and Chuck a guy whose humor operates at the level of poop jokes. Sorry I even tried.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:13 PM:Just to prove my point that both Obama and McIdiot are lying, stinking politicians, I give you this:

Sadly, both candidates have an extensive history of being dependable pals of campaign contributors. Back in 2000, when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, an entrepreneur named Robert Blackwell Jr. hired him to be his lawyer, paying him a monthly retainer of $8,000 — big money for a part-time legislator with an annual salary of just $58,000. A few months later, Obama sent a letter urging state tourism officials to give a grant to one of Blackwell's companies, the amusingly named Killerspin, to fund a table-tennis tournament. Killerspin received $320,000 in public funds; Obama pocketed $112,000 in fees from Blackwell.
So far this year, Blackwell has bundled more than $100,000 for Obama's campaign. Looks like there's going to be a boatload of table-tennis tournaments all across America next year.

McCain also likes to write letters for big contributors. In 1998, four months after BellSouth contributed $16,750 to the senator, he sent a letter to the FCC asking it to give "serious consideration" to the company's request to enter the long-distance market. He later wrote letters on behalf of Paxson Communications, which donated $20,000 and let him use their company jet, as well as Ameritech and SBC Communications, which raised $120,000 for McCain at a time when they were seeking permission to merge.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:17 PM:And if that's not enough, how about this:

McCain's still sticking by his old gang. Former Ameritech chairman Richard Notebaert bundled more than $100,000 for him this year, and two of McCain's key fundraisers, Peter Madigan and Tim McKone, hail from SBC. The point is that politicians are intensely loyal to the people who give them money — and not anywhere near as loyal to the promises they've made to suckers like us. No matter who's in the White House, the direction of the government has remained remarkably stable. Clinton's treasury secretary, Rubin, was a Goldman Sachs man; Henry Paulson, the current secretary under Bush, is also a Goldman Sachs man. It'll probably be a Goldman man again next year. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. In sickness or in health, the faces may change, but the money remains. It's not an accident that both administrations picked for leading economic advisers people from Goldman Sachs.

The really distressing thing about all of this is the signal it sends to Americans. Goldman Sachs posted a record profit of $11 billion last year, much of it from betting against the subprime mortgage market they themselves helped to screw up. That little energy exchange Goldman set up, the ICE, made a profit of $240 million last year, as gas prices skyrocketed. It may suck to be you right now, but all that pain isn't so bad if you are a big oil speculator.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:27 PM:How is any of this possible you ask? I will tell you:

The Federal Election Commission — the body that supposedly enforces campaign-finance laws in this country — has been out of business for more than six months. That's because Congress was dragging its feet over confirmation hearings for new FEC commissioners, leaving the agency without a quorum. The commission just started work again for the first time on July 10th under its new chairman, Donald McGahn, a classic Republican Party yahoo whose chief qualifications include representing Tom DeLay, the corrupt ex-speaker of the House, in matters of campaign finance.
Given the magnitude of what we're dealing with here, the biggest pile of political contributions in the history of free elections, nearly a billion dollars given to presidential candidates in this season alone. Because the FEC has been dead in the water for so long, it's likely that we'll still be in the dark about a large chunk of this record manure pile of campaign contributions when we go to vote in November.
Cheers, Nick.

Chris wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:32 PM:Oh, good. We made more America haters in Ossetia. So let's see. Our allies in Georgia decided with our approval to attack south Ossetia just days after some of our troops were conducting exercises there. Israel and the U.S. have been arming Georgia. Now that our "ALLY" is getting their just deserts,George Bush has the nerve to criticize Russia for attacking a soveriegn nation, going beyond South Ossetia, and attacking civilian targets. Gee didn't we do the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq? The only difference is that Russia was provocted whereas the U.S. just decided to trash a soverign country for no justifiable reason.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:33 PM:And a little more on the loophole around the FEC Contribution Rules:

Thanks in part to the dormant FEC, corporate America has had even easier access to the candidates than usual in its effort to buy off the next government before the crash. In fact, this election has seen some excellent new innovations in the area of campaign-fundraising atrocities. Chief among them is the rise of so-called "Joint Committees."
It used to be that campaigns could raise a maximum of $2,300 from each individual. Now, both candidates — but especially McCain, who far outstrips Obama in this area — routinely hold fundraisers in which individuals can give far more to a joint committee. Technically, the candidate still pockets only $2,300 in contributions. The bulk of the money raised — in McCain's case, a whopping $70,100, or 30 times the previous limit — goes to the state and national arms of the candidate's party, which can then spend the unprecedented haul on behalf of the candidate. This allows CEOs to walk in the door and drop $70,100. It basically allows campaigns to exceed the spending limits.

McCain has raised more than $63 million via these joint committees, thanks to more than 1,000 "megadonors" who have each given at least $25,000 to his campaign effort. Obama, by contrast, has some 471 megadonors — and a close examination of their backgrounds underscores some of the differences in corporate America's attitudes toward the two candidates.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:40 PM:And just so all you blind Obama loonies think I'm just picking on McIdiot, I have news for you. Obama is just as slimey, and bought & paid for as McCain:


Some companies are getting in on the ground floor with Obama by stuffing money in his ears. Overall, Obama is flat-out kicking McCain's butt when it comes to Wall Street contributions, raking in nearly $9 million from securities and investment executives, compared to $6.2 million for McCain. Obama has received more contributions from Goldman Sachs than from any other employer — more than $627,000 at this point in time — not to mention $398,021 from JP Morgan Chase, $353,922 from Lehman Brothers and $291,388 from Morgan Stanley. Even among hedge-fund executives, who have an unequivocal interest in electing McCain, Obama is whipping the Republican, collecting $500,000 more than McCain. All of which begs the question: Why would corporate giants like these throw so much weight behind a man who promises to strip them of billions in tax breaks?

Sadly, the answer to that question increasingly appears to be that Obama is, well, full of bovine excrement. He has made no bones about his plans to raise income by soaking the rich, promising to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000, increase the top tax rate on capital gains to 25 percent and raise the top rate on qualified dividends. He has also pledged to deliver a real stomach punch to hedge-fund managers, raising the tax rate on most of their income from 15 percent to 35 percent.

These populist pledges sound good, but many business moguls appear to be betting that the tax policies, like Obama himself, are only that: something that sounds good.
Cheers, Nick.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:44 PM:The post from "hardtack" (12:00pm) expresses views not too far off those I made earlier, and we certainly agree that the General Welfare references in the Constitution don't justify socialism at all.
Further, I also agree with his (unidentified) quote that inflation is a form of theft from those who make payments to those who collect payments.
But I find it humorous that "hardtack" feels it necessary to "purposely" withhold the author's name "so as not to bias anyone." This is not how citing sources works. Letting readers know who a source is does not introduce bias, it introduces context -- it enables the reader to put the statement in the context of the body of a writer's viewpoint and the surrounding source text.
I do understand "hardtack's" concern, however, since he previously got burned justifying a philosophical claim that equality and liberty are incompatible, and citing as his "source" a treatise promoting a return to monarchy!
My concerns about "hardtack's" sources are not rooted in bias, but rather context.

As for "Constitution Watcher" at 1:21pm, while the phrase "General Welfare" does not have the modern context of cash benefits for poor people in the Founders' intent, it does refer to generally making life better for the general population, in ways not specified nor expressly limited.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Pasty wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:52 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:50 AM:
Yes. Millions of us coming to Chuck's door.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:55 PM:Chris[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:32 PM: You are correct. Bush has been trying to build a NATO ring around Russia in former countries of the Soviet Union and former Warsaw pack nations. Didn't he ever think that the Russian Bear would growl?

Focal Point wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:57 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:50 AM: Unemployment stats increased again this month due to more Americans losing their jobs. Bush is the president not Obama or McCain.

Focl Point wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:00 PM:Marcy Young: Two incorrect assumptions on your part right off the bat. First, McCain just will not be the President. The next Congress of the United States will still be a majority of Democrats. It they can get more than 60 Senate seats, you will not be calling them the do nothing Congress.

How Dare Georgia wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:15 PM:think in terms of being a democracy!

They must have understood that Russia wants to make Europe dance to their tune by controlling both the natural gas and the oil pipelines to Europe.

This, like Bosnia, is primarily -- no exclusively -- a European problem, and like Bosnia Europe is quivering awaiting the US to "do something."

Well it ain't our fight! It ain't our gas, or oil, or summer cool or winter heat. Time to come home and stop being the world policeman.

Yes, there are world injustices -- lots of them. We are selective as to which ones we participate in, but we need to do less.

Alf wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:20 PM:GWB lectures China on human rights!
GWB lectures Russia on attacking a sovereign nation!
Guantanamo Bay!
Iraq!
When GWB sits down, his voice gets muffled.
I think that that's 'nuff said.
Regards, Alf.

bogie wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:27 PM:Ah, the sound of party apologists. My party isn't at fault, my party is short a majority. Republicans/Democrats same noise different day. What happened to Nancy Pelosi's promise of
bi-partisanship?

Peace and The Campaign for Liberty rule

Constitution Watcher wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:38 PM:Now we know what DD thinks the General Welfare clause means to him.

And we know what it meant to James Madison, the Author of the Constitution.

I guess you takes your choice. Sort of like inflating your tires to the manufacturer's recommendations, or to Alf's recommendations.

Because we are an egalitarian society, everyone's opinions are equal. Right?

And who are we to judge who is right on anything.

Right?

Request Permission wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:22 PM:DD and Greenergy:

I have inflated my tires.

Now, can we drill?

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:33 PM:Exactly "How dare Georgia". Let 'em fight it out amongst themselves.
Lets close up all our bases around the world and bring our troops home.
Cheers, Nick.

Just Checking wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:56 PM:APOLLO: Just checking to see if you have emptied your bank accounts and sent all of your money to Child Protective Services in Florida, to assure us that the terrible problem APOLLO said was caused by conservative lack of funding.

All liberals are encouraged to immediately write a check to whatever they believe is being underfunded -- schools, CPS, fire, police, Global Whatever...

Don't complain -- solve the problem! Write a check! Give until it hurts!

Real Conservatives wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:04 PM:wRONg forgot to add what "real" conservatives believe in:
They never take any responsibility for anything.
They hate everything.
They blaspheme by attaching God's name to their agenda.
They live in fear.
They are narcissists who try to convince themselves they are right about everything.
They are determined to destroy this country.
They must be stopped.
And Marcy Young is hilarious! She seems to forget that Bush had a republicant congress and drove this country into the ground with their lies and corruption and greed. And she wants more of that. Go home school your stupid fat fast food eating children. Those are the "real" conservatives.

Apollo wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:05 PM:Hi Reardon at 6:22 and 6:56 p.m.

To inflate is great, then we need to direct our resources to producing CLEAN, RENEWABLE energy! Why on earth would you want to drill in new pristine, environmentally sensitive areas when you haven't even started on the NPR in Alaska, and by the time you got anything from them you could have done at least as well with clean and green.

And Reardon, you know nothing of my personal habits of charitable donations. I do my part, and I suspect most liberals do too.
That is not the issue! Taking care of the neglected children of our society is a PUBLIC policy issue and there is a role for PUBLIC POLICY is solving the problem. I'll do my part, but I'm not going to be an enabler so the rest of the community can look the other way.
You have a lot of nerve to call attention to the haunting story of an abused, neglected child and then tell us it is not an issue for public policy.
Then what is it?

Cindy wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:07 PM:Ron is really smart. He knows a lot of words. Everyone should listen to him. Liberals hate america.

Laura wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:10 PM:If Hussein wins the election the country will fall apart. Everything is really great right now and you can thank real god fearing americans called conservatives for that. The war was a good idea and anyone who says different supports the terrorists. We should all listen to chuck. He knows which end is up and is real smart. Don't be whiners and full of baloney. Jesus is a republican.

Barbara wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:13 PM:We need to listen to Ron. We can't afford to trust an elitist like Obama. We need to vote for real smart leaders like McCain and Bush. They are real down home americans. Not elitist chardonay drinkers like Obama.

John wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:21 PM:Boy, I'll tell you. That Chuck sure be smart. He know what he talkin about. This Hussein guy is real scary. These liberals want us to vote for the guy who ran Iraq and started 9/11? I'm glad I'm a smart conservative like guys like Chuck. It makes me proud to be an american and I love jesus. Liberals are commies who love Hitler and hate church. America needs a 90 year old war hero like Bush again. He did a real good job and McCain will do a real good job to. Thanks Chuck for being the voice for the rest of us smart beer drinking full blooded americans. We need guys like you to show everyone how smart we are. Peace is for wimps. War is better and taxes goes to the scumbags. Everyone who votes for Hussein should leave the country if they hate it so much. Everythingt is good and will only get gooder if McCain wins. thanks Chuck and Ron for telling it like it is!

Just Checking II wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:43 PM:IF the problem is a lack of funds, you can do something about that.

Tonight, while I am checking, I have yet to have Greenergy drive his freeway approved electric car to a mutually agreeable spot, and I will hand him a crisp $100 bill. (Although it is getting less crisp laying around.)

And I have no communication from DD as to whether his Prius has a non-petroleum interior (i.e. natural cloth, and if he is using non-petroleum based, natural rubber tires?

I just want to help the Greens be as Green as they can be and I understand they cannot be perfect, but when they have choices I would expect them to make the Green choice.

Otherwise it is like being lectured to by a Vegan who has a hamburger in her hand. I get this cognitive dissonance disconnect that causes my eyes to roll.

DC Man wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:00 PM:bogie[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 5:27 PM: That ended when the Repubs started filibustering.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:14 PM:John[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:21 PM: You are so correct. I have made a killing int he cucumber market. I can now retire for the third time. Thanks, Chuck.

OBAMACAN wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:15 PM:Here we go again!
John McCain's economic policy was written by Phil "nation of whiners" Gramm, who was the architect of both the deregulation of the subprime lending market AND the oil futures speculators (by the way, although McCain threw Gramm under the bus for his unpopular statements, he has not disavowed the economic policy authored by Gramm).
Then we find that the massive wealth of the BEER company Cindy inherited from Daddy and now "runs," has extensive lobbying connections on capitol hill against common-sense initiatives by MADD to the extent that McCain has had to repeatedly recuse himself from votes to avoid conflicts of interest (how does a president do this?).
Now, we find that McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randall Scheunemann, has been a paid lobbyist for the nation of Georgia, as it is being attacked by Russia. Yeah, that's all we need, a president who can't give the appearance of objectivity when the 3:00 a.m. phone calls comes!
When will it ever end?
Oh, I know how to make this nonsense come to an end!

Just Checking III wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:23 PM:Knew I had forgotten something, but OBAMACAN reminded me.

OBAMACAN, does Obama know that those 3-pointers he is knocking down are being made with a petroleum-based product?

eagle wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:25 PM:It won't end OBAMACAN until someone other than a Republican or a Democrat are voted in.

SOLON wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:30 PM:Chuck: Marxism, racism, anti-patriotism

Only Chuck could mix accusations of anti-patriotism, racism, Marxism, and Christian heresy against Barack HUSSEIN Obama in a one-paragraph harangue (6:22 AM) that is about as thinly veiled in racism as that of the worst demagogues of the 20th Century.

SHAME on Chuck! This is despicable muckracking not worthy of the Republican Party, which you disgrace.

SOLON wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:39 PM:The good King of Jordan:

A good reminder from the writer (9:07 AM), about the pro-Western, beloved friend and ally of the United States, King HUSSEIN of Jordan, who is also beloved by his own people for keeping his nation at peace while striving to provide for the common good of his people. The Jordanians honor the King and his beloved name HUSSEIN, for its translation of good or handsome are so appropriate for this great leader.

Realist wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:47 PM:Real Conservatives[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:04 PM: You forgot to add a few thing to the list...

1.Conservatives believe in family values and the defense of traditional marriage
2.Conservatives want our nation to be protected from terrorists who want to fly planes into buildings
3.Conservatives believe in a strong market economy
4.Conservatives believe in as little government as possible, especially when it comes into taxes
5.Conservatives believe in responsible government spending
6.Conservatives believe in the power of education and not the power of welfare.

Final Note - ASK a conservative what he or she believes before making wild assumptions.
-Realist

par wrote on Aug 11, 2008 8:56 PM:SOLONG, when did you start caring about the Republican party?

Peace

OBAMACAN wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:11 PM:Just Checking to see if the commentor at 8:23 p.m. understands that Obama supports reducing usage of oil, but has never suggested that we will ever discontinue using petroleum products altogther.
Just imagine, if we could overcome the many obstructions put in the way by special interests and develop our full capacities for solar, wind and other clean renewable energy sources, our domestic production of oil would become more than adequate for consumption at a sustainable level, including for use in manufacture as opposed to burning as fossil fuels for energy.
What is really sad is to see how many of these posts, probably at least some of which are by the same writer(s), simply do not understand the energy issue at all. They seem to think the goal is to stop producing and/or using petroleum products altogether, rather than merely cutting back to a sustainable level.
Sad, since some of these writers seem to be otherwise reasonably well-educated.

SOLON wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:11 PM:Is Bush stupid, sick, or a hypocrite?

Bush accuses Russia of launching a preemptive war?
Let’s see now. On Friday the country of Georgia (US ally???) invaded the independent provide of South Ossetia, on Russia’s south border. The Georgians killed 10 United Nations peacekeepers. They blew up public buildings and terrorized the Ossetians.
South Ossetia, declared its independence in 1989 of the former Soviet Union, at the same time Georgia declared its independence of the USSR. Another tiny state, Abkhazia, just west of South Ossetia and also bordering Russia, did the same thing.

Georgia declared the two tiny states belonged to Georgia, but for 18 years did nothing to help the Ossetians in any way, because such a small minority of Georgians resided in Ossetia. There was lawlessness and insecurity. The Russian majority citizens appealed to Russia, who helped the people. They provided energy and security. The Russians issued passports to all the people of Ossetia, so they could travel and enjoy benefits of citizenship.

Was Georgia stupid? Did they think that their preemptive war would go unanswered by Russia, right on their border? Were they so deluded as to think Bush would launch a hot war against Russia over a tiny province, South Ossetia, with a population of about 69,000, much less than that of Vista, CA? Did the Georgians think Bush would rush American troops in to help in the invasion of Ossetia? Well, all Bush could do is shoot himself in his own foot, by letting the 2,000 Georgian troops abandon the Bush War in Iraq, and fly home to Georgia.

Hot air from Bush is all he can really provide in this idiotic war. Bush is making a fool of himself, and so are McBomb, and even Obama. Best just to keep our mouth shut. We have nothing to offer. It’s not our conflict, and we have no moral standing when it come to an illegal war of aggression. And why should Russia accept a “cease fire” with a return to status quo, as Bush demands? Russia will not stop until the dangers from the invaders has been totally crushed.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:25 PM:The post from "Realist" (8:47pm) shows he is the one who needs a reality check. His definition of what "Conservatives believe" certainly does not show much contact with reality.
1. Defending "traditional marriage" historically means one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe, in an arranged marriage. The man maintains "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock (credit to 3D).
2. Conservatives cut and run from the real terrorists who fly planes into buildings, diverting the "war on terror" away from the real attackers, toward a country rich in oil but which represents no threat whatsoever to us.
3. Conservatives undermine market economies by preventing the regulatory oversight that makes vibrant market economies possible in the same way that rules of sports make them possible, and rules of the road make it possible to go where you want.
4. Conservatives believe in cutting government out of the public policy issues where it belongs, and micromanaging the private lives of individuals.
5. Conservatives incur massive deficits and debts and create sweetheart deals for cronies who profiteer of wars for oil.
6. Conservatives undermine public education, conduct a war against science, and support welfare for corporate cronies.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:39 PM:Sorry "Obamacan", maybe you need to go back and read my earlier posts. Your sorry excuse for a Presidential Candidate wallows in the trough just like the rest of them. Apparently yo missed the part about Obama getting over 9 Million from Securities and Investment Executives. He's a slimey lying politician just like McCain who you seem to loathe.
Your the typical hypocrite Democrat. The exact same things you whine and complain about McCain and Republicans, your very own Obama and Democrats are guilty of.
That is why I love to rip on Obama and Dems, both are a joke!

SOLON wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:43 PM:SOLON cares for Republican Party?

Blogger asked the wrong question (8:56 PM) The right question is When did SOLON stop caring for the Republican Party?

He quit caring for that Party when Ronald Regan came to the Neshoba County Fair in my deep South home state and made a blatant racist appeal to the Dixiecrats. SOLON quit caring when Reagan proved his scorn for labor and the hard working people of America. SOLON stopped caring for the Republican Party when they became corporate Socialists, by helping their banker and broker friends manipulate the economic system so that they reaped the profits while the middle class bore the risks.

There was a time, however, when SOLON was a Republican. When I was 18, I registered as a Republican, a small and despised minority in my home state. I did this because my father (born in 1904) was a true conservative Republican. There was not an ounce of racism in his blood, or that of my mother. I admired my father, who is still turning in his grave. That Republican Party is now moribund and rotting, fresh out of noble ideas, and is sinking into a slough of despond, greed and deceit.

SOLON cared for the Republican Party when it was conservation, before it became radical, belligerent and bellicose. SOLON cared for the Republican Party when it offered hope in the Deep South as a counter force against the Dixiecrat racists. Solon cared for the Republican Party when it had great leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, and morally responsible leaders like Dwight David Eisenhower.

Nick wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:44 PM:"SOLON", who really cares what the name "Hussein" means?
Obama is not a great leader and will not be a great President. The man hasn't even finished a full term in The Senate.
I could name my pet pig "Begonia" and she would still smell like crap.
See the similarity?
Cheers, Nick.

sdraoul wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:59 PM:Chris doesn't even know what "color" South Ossetians are, what religion they are or whether or not they are run of the mill Russian plants.

Par wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:47 PM:Geez SOLONG, I was asking the question in the context of your post at 8:30 pm "SHAME on Chuck! This is despicable muckracking not worthy of the Republican Party, ..."

Care to try again?

Floyd wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:51 PM:It looks to me that DD Wiz has amply demonstrated the "straw man" style of argumentation in his description of conservatives. And an excellent example it is, too.

Bill Too wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:00 AM:(Not to be confused with Bill One – or just plain “Bill”)

Our biggest problem with the political situation in this country is with the political parties themselves. Candidates are chosen by the parties based on how “party” compliant they are – not necessarily how well they would fill the office. We are not given a choice of “Good” and “Better” – it seems that all we get is “Bad” and “Worse.” The people have absolutely no input at all as to who the candidate should be.

We need to eliminate the party requirement for candidates – let them run on their own merits The people voted overwhelmingly a few years ago to eliminate the voter requirement for party registration - the State Supreme Court then reversed the ruling saying that it violated the “Civil Rights” of the parties – What about the Civil rights of the voters?

A book by Jim Hightower a few years ago said it all too well “If the Gods had wanted us to vote they would have given us candidates.” It seems that anyone who really has the best ideas about how to solve the problems we have does not stand a prayer of being elected.

We also need to reduce the politicking time to about three months. If people can’t decide on who they want to vote for in that time they will probably make the wrong choice anyway. Why bore the rest of us for a year?

Add a choice of “None of the above” at the end of each list of candidates, and if that gets the most votes then we do not put ANYONE in the office for that term. This should apply to all offices from local dogcatcher to President of the US. We would soon discover that we do not need nearly as many politicians as we have now.

I also like the system they use in Mexico – one six year term. Their thinking is that if the politician cannot steal enough money in one term they do not deserve more time to steal any more. Maybe then they would spend their time on the problems of their office.

Why not have the banks count our votes using their ATM machines? It is certainly the most secure and accurate system that we have available at this time. I have never had an error on any of the many transactions I have conducted using them. The programming for them could be done by the same companies that enable the regular bank transactions. Just make election day a bank holiday. And don’t release ANY results until after the elections are over in Hawaii.

It also appears that some of our more prolific blogs seem to be written by the same person using multiple names. Oh the joys of being anonymous. From the writings it appears as though they are part of our current administration’s propaganda department. Anything in opposition with the current politically approved opinion is denigrated and the writer is accused of being a traitor to the Country. One blogger even claims to run a company that does business with the Government – and still has time to write endless blogs. I guess I did everything wrong when I ran my own company years ago – I often worked 14 to 16 hour days. Not much time for writing blogs there. I think the e-mail block should be MANDATORY so that the editors can keep track of multiple names.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Aug 12, 2008 6:22 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:59 PM:
So what/ Chris is right.

Hey Chuck wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:11 AM:Chuck: gas was only $1.46 when your man Bush took office. Yet you claim that when Obama gets elected, somehow prices will be worse than if Bush's policies are allowed to continue by electing McCain? You voted for an oil baron, not just once but twice! And now you have the gall to complain about the price of gas! Ridiculous.