Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:19 AM:The letter from Bob Sheard hits only one side of the equation with his "Enough of this constant escalation of state costs".
The other side is -
A) inflation,
B) increasing demand for more services (more $$$$$) from both legal citizens and illegal aliens.
How do you propose to stop inflation and stop the increase in demand for money from the state?
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:28 AM:The letter from Bill Lane is correct as far as it goes.
Lets look at another scenario, shall we?
A 65 year old man plus a 63 year old woman does NOT equal a new life.
His insistence and implication that marriage is strictly for procreation is wrong.
The number of births out of wedlock dispels the myth that he attempts to foist off on us.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:09 AM:The letter from Barbara Saad is wonderful.
Building owners seem to be charging what the market will bear even when the market won't bear it.
Some building owners don't understand a simple concept -
the value of something is the price someone is willing to pay, nothing more, and if people are not willing or able to pay the price you want, your price is too high.
"Nudder woids", they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:17 AM:I disagree with one of the premises in the letter by Terry Kennedy.
Specifically declaring that "peacekeeping of the world" is a problem that America faces.
Unless, of course, Terry Kennedy means that we should not be the peacekeepers or the police of the world, that we have our own "house" to clean up FIRST, before trying to clean the houses of other nations, THAT is something with which I would agree.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:09 AM:>>The problem with Proposition 2 as written is that it will do little to improve the treatment of farm animals unless there is a ban on bringing eggs and food animals into California from states and countries with cruel practices>>> Victor, chickens are raised for food and eggs, no pets. Take your eco-wacko socialism somewhere else. I just joined PETA (people eating tasty animals) and will be headed to the Black Angus tonite

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:15 AM:>>We Americans would benefit more than anything else we could do by providing assistance>>> Mr Saier, what planet do you live on??? Our government and private citizens provide tens of billions of dollars to the poor. You make it sound like we're all ignorant. The source of poverty is education, lack of infrastructure and lack of communications. Foreign nations who want to thug their people around and keep them destitute make sure those 3 aspects are lacking. And when the US suggests those thugs should be removed, you and the rest of the liberals spit on America, while the rest of us tithe our favorite charities

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:18 AM:>>>I much preferred the intelligent, thoughtful approach of Obama.>>> Lady, I guarantee you, that you couldn't name 2 intelligent thoughtful proposals that came out of Husseins mouth. You say he is is kind and thoughtful because thats what CNN told you to think. Please think for yourself.

Apollo wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:18 AM:Re: SDRaoul (yesterday, 8/19 - 7:57 p.m.)
Ho hum, there goes SDRaoul, casting his lot with Ron's earlier posts throughout the day yesterday, trying to convince us he knows more than the Bush administration's own Office of Management and Budget.
And even the Ron and Raoul show can't escape the fact, no matter how they try to gift wrap their stinking brown pile of poop, however they minimize the budget SURPLUSES by LBJ and and FOUR YEARS from Clinton, using the OMB figures in the gov website cited by DDWIZ, if they apply the same standard to Reagan and the two Bushes, the travesty of their years of fiscal irresponsibility goes off the charts. Literally.
And Raoul tries yet again to have Republicans take credit for the Clinton budget successes.
Not so fast, Raoul, you're not even as smooth with the shell games as Ron is.
The difference is that Ron is trying to really convince himself; Raoul, who is more intelligent and can be a pretty fair writer, knows full well exactly what he is doing.
In 1993 the Democrats had the presidency and both houses of Congress. Clinton proposed a deficit reduction package and an economic stimulus proposal. Republicans fought bitterly against both, held together with no dissenting votes and attracted the remaining Southern Democrats who had yet to defect (but would by 1995). They warned that Clinton's proposals would wreck the economy and did not want to be associated with the results (though now they claim responsibility for the good times that resulted). The deficit reduction proposal passed by ONE VOTE - a tie-breaker by Vice President Al Gore.
Amazing that, now that it worked so well, the Republicans and even Raoul want to take credit for what they all opposed so vehemently. Shameless - "sin verguenza" - Raoul.

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:22 AM:No only will Hussein not support drilling to save hundreds of thousands of jobs and to combat this out of control inflation, he will double the tax on oil companies. The liberals are the only people on the planet that dont know what that will do to the price of gas, what it will do for jobs and what it will do for inflation. But fear not, he will just wave his staff, the mississippi will part, and all will be well.

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:29 AM:BP says testing has begin on BTC pipeline through Georgia ahead of full restart. It look like the whole world is drilling for their needs, except the US. Pelosi, Reid and Hussein have drilling tied up in their politics, preferring to send $700 billion overseas to 2-bit oil dons. And then they scream about our deficit, spending, and excessive trade balance.

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:33 AM:The liberals, just last night, marched 3 so-called scientists to the media outlets to say drilling will have no effect on the US gas price problem. No one knows what public school science class they studied, but, its clear they never studied economics. And for proof, just look at China's slant wells off of Cuba and within 50 miles of the keys--fully operational within a year.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:23 AM:The end of life: Then how has homosexuality lasted throughout the history of man? The simple truth is that homosexual individuals are pro created by heterosexual couples. The state and federal constitutions provided for equal protection for every citizen.

Yokozuna wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:31 AM:Well, Alf 4:28. Regarding procreation: My feminist daughter reminds me, tongue in cheek, if there were a large enough sperm bank, men could totally be insignificant for procreation of the species.

Gee Julia wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:34 AM:You are hilarious. So you pray for the Border Patrol agents with one side of your mouth, and with the other side you spew judgement against Christian Ramirez. I will hold my judgement of this alleged case against Christian Ramirez until all the facts are reported completely and honestly. I am not a real religious person but I do remember a few scriptures. One I remember well and live by is in the measure you judge you will be judged. Do you know Christian Ramirez? Really, Julia can you say for sure that Christian Ramirez is not American? Who are you to make that judgement call.

To Cluck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:53 AM:Unlike you, we do think for ourselves and the only thing you can guarantee is that we can't name 2 intelligent thoughtful proposals that come from your mouth.

Chris wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:21 AM:The blog from Bill yesterday on the Geneva Conventions is as usual nonsense. The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Also for the most part the same is true of Afghanistan. We have caused death or misery to millions of innocent people and now Bill wants to justify our atrocities by talking about a handful of Al Qaeda members. No we attacked the government and people in sovereign countries and therefor need to go by the Geneva Conventions. But as usual Bill just blows smoke in order to justify anything we do.

Pluto wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:22 AM:In response to Bill Lane, my wife recently visited Washington, D.C. and took a photo of this quotation inscribed on the Jefferson Monument:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change. With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to still wear the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

It was once believed that procreation was the purpose of marriage, but we have evolved. Now we know that same-gender marriage won't be "the end of life".

Chris to Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:29 AM:When I talk about the military and the American people I am talking about the organization or the vast majority. How often do I have to make that point. But it must be remembered that even the most honorable soldier will commit any atrocity if ordered to do so. But you keep talking about me accusing every person in the military and accuse me of saying you supported the war just because I talk about the "American people". So in a way you do what Bill does by bringing in these red herrings in order to find some way to attack my extremist views. After all you can't just agree with what I say so you have to find some way to cloud the issue.

Apollo wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:37 AM:Re: Bill Lane (letter)
The claim that same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not create "new life" is flawed for several reasons:
a. The idea that creating "new life" is the only valid reason for marriage is an opinion. Others may believe that the primary reason for marriage is intimacy and mutual support. Why does Lane claim the right to force his opinion about a purely personal matter on everyone else?
b. Does Lane intented to prevent those beyond childbearing years to get married? What age limit for marriage does he suggest? Will fertility tests be mandatory?
c. The recent California Supreme Court ruling (Benitez vs. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group [S142892] 8-18-08) makes it clear that, indeed, same sex couples CAN have children. Even biologically.

sdraoul wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:44 AM:Terry Kennedy is at it again. Does he really think that "illegal" aliens are the most important issue int he country?

He should stick to baseball, for his views on serious subjects are highly incredible.

We are faced with a choice between candidates this fall running for President and one states clearly that he can't even declare when he thinks life begins. It is "above his pay grade" he says.

And, of course, there are those who continue to dwell on the Clinton "budget surpluses" as if they are even important in today's economy which is gigantic compared to what it was in his days despite the recession he left behind -- a real recession by definition and 9/11.

The current deficit is 3.3 percent of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) which is more than half what it was in Clinton's day and far less than that of LBJ.

TFB wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:45 AM:On page A-8 of this morning's North County Times, there is a disgusting reprint from the extremist right-wing publication "National Review" by Rich Lowry, who couldn't hold an intellectual candle to the intelligence of his predecessor William F. Buckley Jr, in which he claims Obama is an "abortion extremist."
Exactly what is so "extreme" about taking a thoughtful position that women actually wrestle with the issue of choosing whether to carry their pregnancies to term, or with saying that a real CHOICE means a choice to either abort or carry and keep or carry and give up for adoption, and then promoting policies that make ALL of the options viable? Or what is so extreme about policies that respect women's biological autonomy, while simultaneously reducing the actual number of abortions?
Believe me, women everywhere looked at how Obama wrestled with the complexity of factors in a thoughtful way, and compared it with McCain's simplistic, terse answer. Women may not tell their husbands what they are thinking, but they understand that McCain is just another male-dominating bully who thinks men can tell "their" women what to do and how to live. McCain simply dismisses women outright and claims that "life begins at conception." He believes that a one-celled, newly-fertilized egg/sperm union has more rights regarding a woman's body than the woman herself.
Actually, McCain's claim is an absurd proposition. Life does not begin at fertilization ("conception" is a religious term). Life begins BEFORE fertilization.
The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. They appertain to the human species.
They are human life.
Thus, everyone agrees there is a difference between a human life and a human person.
Some people believe that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join, but that is a belief; an opinion.
Others believe that something more is needed, otherwise, a "human person" is no different qualitatively than any other one-celled creature. Many believe that there must be the onset of at least the beginning of the actual attributes of consciousness and autonomy that make us human. An embryo has none of these actual attributes, merely the potential to maybe develop them if a lot of factors fall into place just perfectly. A baby that has been born has ALL of these actual attributes, however primitive.
More important, it is no longer occupying the most private part of another person's anatomy.
And as long as it is, the person who owns the body is the one whose beliefs win out.

I am afraid this is worse wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:48 AM:than having Billy Carter as your brother. - The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:50 AM:>>>Then how has homosexuality lasted throughout the history of man?>>> That pretty much proves the point that homosexuality is by choice, not genetic,(ie therfor entitled to to all sorts of govt freebees). Gee, now we have another pro-choice movement. Also, if it wasnt by choice, why would the states of NJ, MASS, CA, and NY and the teachers unions be jamming it down our throats?

Obama NOT wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:53 AM:Did you see how Obama did NOT really look at the camera or speak to the people?

Did you hear how he danced around the issues?

Did you see McCain LOOK at the camera and the people?

Did you hear McCain answer succinctly?

Even tho' I don't care for either candidate, I have to give kudos to McCain.

Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:02 AM:Well, "Yokozuna" at 7:31AM,
if you add the ability to clone the sperm it could mean the end of MANkind as we know it.
Also semi tongue in cheek.
Regards, Alf.

Tri city needs our support.. wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:18 AM:So we are back to the scare tactics that say if we do not vote YES ON A then Tri city will shut down...NICE... Make no mistake i WANT Tri City to stay as i think that it is a great hospital. However it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR to make a few pay for it all... If everyone can use it than everyone should have to pay for it....Until that happens... It's a NO on A for me.........

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:21 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:50 AM: It proves nothing as far as choice. It proves that homosexuals are born to heterosexuals couples. Chuck shows that he needs to take that health education class and bring his cucumber with him.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:24 AM:Yokozuna[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:31 AM:
That did it. No more deposits form me. (tongue in cheek)

Ron wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:39 AM:Here's the problem with you scenario, "Rons Shell Game" {Aug 19}
@6:16 PM, and you.. "Apollo" @6:18 AM should really pay close attention to this too, because your basic assumptions about this is all wrong to.

For an individual it is ok to use the scenario of a home as an asset that appreciates in value. The goverment, while it does have real assets, income from Social Security is not one that appreciates. In fact, it obligates the general fund to additional spending down the road. It's a future liability, and one that needs to be accrued for.
That's what the 1986 Social Security tax increase was supposed to do, get us over the Boomer hump. The problem is, they spent the surpluses they should have been holding onto, as investments towards future obligations.
You really need to compare the borrowing of Social Security surpluses to that of an equity line, credit line, or a second mortgage, to be consistant.
Each dollar we borrow from Social Security surpluses, naturally obligates the goverment to a higher payback, the interest accumilated. Therefore, it is not "free" money in the sense of a rising equity in your home. The Government does not accrue interest from Social Security as a dividend, it instead pays interest. The Social Security Administration is the one who actually accrues additonal monies, from the Government as interest on loaned monies.
In fact, you can do the exact same thing the govermment does, by borrowing from your equity, with interest.
The question I have for you is this...
If you start with a $600K indebtedness, and then borrow against the equity, does your total indebtedness go up?
Yes, it does. Now, while the borrowing may help you short term cover short term obligations, the long term obligations rise higher. Those are what the govermment calls your "out-years."
Let's say you still have your $50K for the year as discretionary spending. You break your leg, with no insurance. Your hospital bill is $50K. You can borrow from the equity, and pay today's bill, but that then obligates you to more indebtedness, thus you have added $50K to your $600K, making your total a negative $650K. Do you see what I'm saying?
Social Security monies are not "free" monies. They are loans, they have interest, just like a credit line.
You are, in fact, borrowing against a real and upcoming obligation, a future liability. Think of an escrow account where your taxes and home insurance are
accruals, whereby, they are taken out for that particular future obligation.
Now, what everyone talks about with the "Clinton surpluses" is a budget surplus within a year, with borrowed monies. Clinton pulled from the Government's credit line, the Social Security surpluses. What the Government does not show anywhere in their budget, are the accruing liabilities. They only need to show this years, or short term obligations. I completely admit, that you can borrow from Social Security to make your books look good this year, as long as the Social Security system always runs a surplus, and you can borrow that surplus. But sense we know the borrowing indebts us 10, 20, 30 years down the road, really... how smart is that? That's why I call this an inter-generational ponzi scheme.
Think of your broken leg as SCHIP. And then your beginning to see what I'm talking about.

Ron wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:42 AM:Hey.. ah.. "TFB" @8:45 AM, did you .. like.. fail biology?

"Life begins BEFORE fertilization.
The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. They appertain to the human species.
They are human life."

To Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:43 AM:"The state and federal constitutions provided for equal protection for every citizen."

Does "every citizen" include incestuous relationships -- or does society have a right to set societal norms?

I have no interest in incest, I just want to test your statement, because it is declarative and all-inclusive.

So I repeat -- does society have the right to set societal norms?

Nick wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:43 AM:This is Dr. Ron Paul predicting the crash of Fannie Mae 5 years ago. It just proves that there really is one man who knows what this Country needs:

Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department’s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices........
More to come.
Cheers, Nick.

Alf wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:49 AM:Well, "Chris to Alf" at 8:29AM,
As a random sample of the extremely strident tone that you often use -
"Chris to to chris wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:00 PM -
I hate the conservatives who talk out both sides of their mouth and our military who we glorify when they go and do their ... deeds".
The statement was an "and", so you said, in essence, 'I hate our military who we glorify when they go and do their ... deeds'.
"Their ... deeds" are under generalized orders from the commander-in-chief which are then clarified and separate groups are assigned specific tasks.
If your words were not a wholesale condemnation of our military, I don't know what is.
I do not glorify the necessary evil of war, nor do I condemn those who carry out orders without exceeding them.
Let's get one thing straight, I have seen way too many such "I hate" statements in your posts for me not to slap the label "extreme" on your attitude toward the military in general and in specific.
Your rhetoric borders on hysteria on far too many an occasion and is similar to that of "sdraoul" in its toxicity.
Toning down the inflammatory and caustic words will result in your message being received with a more open mind.
In my humble opinion.
Regards, Alf.

Bill is fighting the Vietnam war wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:52 AM:Bill continues to praise Bush. He says that Bush has prevented terrorist attacks since 911. None in the US, plenty elsewhere. Bill also praises Bush for not listening to the liberals. Liberals were not the only ones Bush didn't listen to. He didn't listen to the evidence that Saddam had no WMDs. He didn't listen to the evidence that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. He didn't listen to the generals who said the invasion force was way too small and that an insurgency would create havoc. He didn't listen to the people of Iraq who have said they wanted us out long, long ago, and then looked at their heroic purple thumbs and wondered why they bothered. He didn't listen to the FBI people who insisted that Bush's treatment of prisoners was against the law. Well, you get the picture. Liberals? Bush didn't listen to ANYONE!

Nick wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:52 AM:The rest of Dr. Ron Paul on the Fannie Mae crash:

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today’s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Some of you folks laugh when I talk of Dr. Ron Paul and The Campaign for Liberty, but you shouldn't be.
He has proven time and again that he has his finger on the problems with America and actually has solutions.

If you were to put Ron Paul, Obama and McCain if front of an audience without any scripts and they actually had to speak on their own, Ron Paul would blow those 2 out of the water because the man actually has solutions. And they are solutions he has come up with years ago, and not just some ideas his staff are throwing out there to try and sin an election.
That is the difference and the reason neither Obama or McCain are fit to lead this Country!
Cheers, Nick.

hardtack wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:57 AM:To paraphrase Kevin Geisler: “The letter from [Kevin Geisler] highlights a significant illusion being perpetuated by [Big Government].” I.e., the demagogic malarkey that Big Government can tax, spend, and regulate the masses into prosperity. The only people who prosper from taxes and regulations are politicians and bureaucrats. Consumers always wind up paying for those – and the vast majority of consumers are the middle-class.

If Mr. Geisler means the home mortgage situation when he says “current banking crisis,” he has unwittingly picked a perfect example of a problem exacerbated, if not caused, by government regulations. He is also off target when he says: “What made our country great was the creation of a large middle class, not the unleashing of big business.”

I hate to disillusion Geisler, but it was precisely the “unleashing” of industry and markets, and the division of labor that followed, that elevated poor immigrants into the vast middle class that America has become.

Marky Marx wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:02 AM:Well Alf, what say you to Chris at 8:29am? Dude…..the man is a genius, far to erudite and enlightened for you and your kind. Power to the peeps!

Nick wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:04 AM:On a happy note, Dr. Ron Pauls wife of 51 years, Carol, has had the breathing tube removed and she is recovering well and expected to leave the ICU in a few days after being there for more than a week and having 3 surgeries.
And yet again, you find this news from any of the media sources. I posted about her condition last week and there was NOT ONE response. Just the usual rhetoric of Liberal Dems bashing Cons and extolling the saintlike virtues of Obama, and Republicans defending GWB and the abortion in Iraq.
So typical.......
Personally, I am extremely happy for Dr. Paul and Carol.
Cheers, Nick.

Ye Ha wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:07 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:22 AM:
I guess GWB should have addressed and solved this problem long ago. But, he spent too much time down on his ranch.

Hey Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:25 AM:What has 8 years of GWB policies done for the price of gas? It was only $1.46 a gallon when he took office. Ah, but with you've come to the illogical conclusion that it's somehow the Democrats fault. I find it hard to believe anyone can take you seriously.

TFB wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:31 AM:So Ronnie boy at 9:42 a.m., please tell me which part of my statement that eggs/sperms are alive and human was wrong:
Are human eggs and sperms dead?
Do they appertain to a different species?
Could you be specific as to which species you think HUMAN eggs and sperm appertain to?
Did YOU fail biology?
You need to read more "peer reviewed" stuff.

to to Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:35 AM:I would say that society certainly DOES have the right to establish standards or norms, in fact no society could help doing so. But in OUR society, under OUR Constitution, the burden is on "society" to show why anyone should be DENIED equal protection under the law. Our Constitutional position is that no one should be denied such. Society, as you call it, must show why in any particular case, it should be denied. So for incest, or for child sex/marriage in general, we do so by consistently maintainiing that children do not have the capacity for free choice. This is our reason for denying them the right to marry, vote, work, and a hundred other things. With homosexuals, what argument shall we use to justify denying them that right? The burden is on "society". (BTW, it's interesting that it may be conservatives that make a mess of child-marriage rights: by clamoring that children should be tried "as adults" for some crimes, the barrier between "child" and "adult" is being eroded...I can imagine someone arguing that if this is so, if a child can be seen as an adult in the eyes of the law, why not marriage? Be careful what you wish for...)

Boat wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:37 AM:Chris to Alf
[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:29 AM:

"But it must be remembered that even the most honorable soldier will commit any atrocity if ordered to do so."

As a veteran I find that I must take exception to this blanket statement. The UCMJ specifically tells military personnel that there are indeed instances when orders are illegal, that they are obligated to disobey such orders & report the incidents to higher authority. Indeed these issues have been at the crux of the courts martial in re: Iraq so far. Do atrocities happen? Unfortunately, yes they do. The best definition I ever read was by Philip Caputo in "A Rumor of War" where he said that when you combine high explosives, automatic weapons & nineteen years olds it can be a recipe for disaster.

Having served in a Navy Special Warfare Unit I can tell you that I would not have obeyed an illegal order. Ever. And I certainly would have reported it. We were briefed more than once by JAG what constituted lawful vs unlawful conduct. And we all knew the consequences of failure to follow the UCMJ.

For clarification purposes let me say that I opposed the Iraq war. I do, however, believe that now that we have our people there that they should have what they need. But we should get them out of there as soon as humanly possible. The sooner the better, as I keep telling people, "How many Iraqis fought in our Civil War?"

In a perfect world we would not need a military. We would be able to settle our differences in a civil manner. But, right now that world does not exist.

Nate wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:37 AM:Well Yokozuna,

Ask you feminist daughter where would we get all that sperm for that bank? And I guess your feminist daughter does not think fathers are important? I am all for women being equal, I have a daughter my self. But i would never raise her to hate men

TFB gets the higher Biology grade wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:41 AM:Of course no one claims that a sperm or egg are living human individuals. But it'd be strange to deny that they are living cells. Look especially at a sperm cell, out there on its own, swimming with direction toward a biochemical target. What the heck else COULD it be but living human cellular matter? Is a fertilized egg more "alive" or more "human" than the egg and sperm it was a moment ago? Based on what? "Potential"?

Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:05 AM:>>It was only $1.46 a gallon when he took office. Ah, but with you've come to the illogical conclusion that it's somehow the Democrats >>> Lets see, both Bush & McCain are for all out drilling, and Nancy Legosi, Harry Reid and your boy, Hussein wont even let it come up for a vote, because their money comes from the eco-wackos. Your friends dont care about this horrid job loss and inflation due to the rise in energy prices, they only care how much money is hitting their back pockets from lobbyists

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:14 AM:To Focal Point[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:43 AM: I suggest that you inquire with the courts.

Eye Opener wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:15 AM:TFB your post was awesome and so well written!

Yokozuna wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:17 AM:Ok, Alf @ 9:49 AM. There is no question that you cannot influence the mindset of someone who has a different vision of himself than others have of him. Is the energy expended really worth it?

Ron wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:26 AM:Oh, I don't know "Apollo" @6:18 AM, it's pretty easy to understand, really. That is, unless, of course, your a mind-numbed robot.

OMB numbers show a surplus within specific years. How they gained the surplus, is what I question.

You see, Social Security does not earn income for the Goverment, as a home would for you. It is borrowed monies, that is later owed. More like a line of credit, or a second mortgage, really.
What I'm saying it, it's not "free" money.
Now, this month I could decide to go out and buy a car, take money out of my home, and pay the car off. But I still owe the money, to the house. It came out of the equity of the home, hence it's not free money.
All Social Security money is borrowed upon an obligation to pay it back, in later years. It's a line of credit.
Pure and simple. Oh, sure, it's treated as income, but it's not really earned income, without further obligations to it, no.. in this case, we owe it, plus interest.
What I focus on is not the short term financials, I focus long term. What does this do over time?
Say.. over some 40 years of borrowing?
It's very much like taking from your kid's college fund to buy health care today. Sure, this month you pay off the kid's broken leg, but now your out his college money. How you gonna put that back, so he can attend college?
In the Government's thinking, and practise of the last 70 years, it has been raise the tax rate. Some 19 times it's been raised, but Congress just keeps on taking the additional surpluses created, more borrowed money, over time, means more interest.
Now,they want another stab at it, a 20th tax rate increase, this time they want ALL the money. They want to tax everything that moves, cause they have acculimated 70 years of borrowing.
If you kept going into your equity line of your home, how long could you do that, before you had to pay off that additional line of credit?

Nick wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:45 AM:What is the deal Mr. Ed? Where is the post on Dr. Ron Paul and the piece on Fannie Mac?
What is with the blatantly, obnoxious censorship and omitting with you people?

To Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:09 PM:There was no 'child" involved in my question. For arguments sake, why not just address your statement and its validity.

"The state and federal constitutions provided for equal protection for every citizen."

IF that is true, then incest between consenting adults is O.K.

IF it is NOT TRUE, and society has the right to set its norms, then society SHOULD be able to deny marriage, a purely societal invention and institution, to whomever it pleases.

Karl wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:27 PM:Your post yesterday about Dr. Nick was completely in character for the man I built a clinic for a few years back Alf. I cannot fathom the emotional trauma that Mrs. Alf went through. I have had near fatal accidents on construction projects where I was the person in charge and had these incidents went the other way I would have been completely devastated.

Cheers and Peace to Mrs. Alf, she has got to be a winner to put up with Alf all these years.

TriCity should support itself wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:32 PM:We all want a good hospital. Why do the supporters keep confusing the issue on purpose.
TriCity is a profitable hospital. It manages and shares its profits without taxpayer input just fine. Now they can take responsibility of building a TajMahal without the taxpayers money, too. After all, the bigger they are, the more the profit. Taxpayers will never see a red cent of it anyway. Leave us along.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:34 PM:o to Focal Point[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:35 AM: My posts did mention society.
I mentioned the constitutions of the state and federal governments. You asked me about societal norms and then answered the question yourself. That is fine. But, it is ludicrous to allude to my statement about society when there was none.

Stealing the election again wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:38 PM:Now the tax scam barons at Tri City Hospital have joined the Fahrenheit 451 club and are CONFISCATING publications that editorialize against Prop A, the 1/2 billion dollar 40 year tax scam they are attempting to perpetrate against North County tax payers!

Here is the highlight of the headlines:

Tri-City Hospital Bans The Paper
Confiscates Delivered Papers

Following last week’s cover story in The Paper that strongly opposed Measure A, an apparent serious First Amendment violaton occurred when Tri-City Hospital personnel took what The Paper’s editor and publisher, Lyle E. Davis, alleges was an illegal action by confiscating all copies of The Paper that had been delivered to the hospital waiting rooms.

Yokozuna to Nate wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:39 PM:Is "tongue in cheek" a phrase which is over your head? Settle down!! I hope you raise your daughter to have more sense of humor than you.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:40 PM:You know this to Focal Point and then to to Focal Point etc is rather confusing.
I suggest that you use your own handle or identifier on this blog instead of to or to to.

Randy wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:42 PM:China was awarded the Olympics based, in part, on its commitment to democracy. China designated 3 areas for protests, denied all applications, and jailed some applicants. With democracy like this, who needs Communism?

former con wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:49 PM:Homosexuality is obviously genetic. No one would choose to be treated as gays are treated if they had a conscious choice not to be gay.

Those of you, cons, who think it is a choice must be at least bi. I cannot imagine being with another male, if you can; then perhaps you should examine your own personal sexual orientation. Most males are programmed as I am. Some are not. So what? Who does it hurt? If you fantasize about other men, I do not care. If you do not, I do not care. Why do you?

Some people are born left handed. Our Muslim friends find using the left hand for food and writing at least gross and maybe blasphemous if the writing is Koranic scripture. Is being left handed a choice? Should left handed people be allowed to marry?

Prop A wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:56 PM:One question... Is Tri City putting up any money of their own into this remodel/renovation/upgrade.. That would be helpful to know... Or like everyone else do they intend to stick us locals with the entire 40 year bill ???... While they continue to make a profit...

Rodeo wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:57 PM:I have a problem with the statement from Chris @8:29:

"After all you can't just agree with what I say so you have to find some way to cloud the issue."

Alf, nor anyone has to just agree with you. Personally, I have issues with your comments as several of them have been very pointed at the military as a whole. With me being in the military it comes across as a personal attack.

If you have served in the military, it would appear that your time in was not pleasant and more than likely prematurely ended without an honorable dishcarge. Just based on your rhetoric and gross disrespect for the military.

If you have not served in the military, please quit being an armchair quarterback. Just because you read a book or two by a select group of authors with a similar negative view on the military doesn't make what you say as the all truth. Expand your mind some son, read some of the books about the good things that the military has accomplished throughout the ages, to include the present wars. It just might surprise you.

Semper Fi
1993 - Present

Hey Chuck wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:58 PM:$1.46 a gallon when Bush took office speaks for itself. Bush has had 8 years of his policies, which has only lined the pockets of his buddies the Bin Ladin family and the other oil billionaires. If you really believe more drilling is going to benefit anyone but Exxon, Haliburton, and the Saudi Binladin Group, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Reality: Drilling will not save us any money at the pump. Time to sell your SUV, and get real.

egg nuts wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:10 PM:The prop 2 supporters need to setup an audit and enforcement commission in every egg/chicken farm outside of Ca. Or how would we know the imported eggs will live up to their standards?

Set it up before the election, please. Oh, don't leave out Mexico.

nate wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:11 PM:to yokozuna

I apologize for the sensitivity. you can never tell who is just joking. i do have a sense of humor. ! laugh at chuck's post all the time

Reardon wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:12 PM:Happy to use a handle, Focal Point:

Once again

"The state and federal constitutions provided for equal protection for every citizen."

IF that is true without exception, then incestuous adults have the right to marry since they deserve "equal protection."

IF that is not true, then society has the right to exclude anyone they choose from marrying, including homosexuals.

Which is the case? They are mutually exclusive.

(Reardon will not post again today as Reardon. I would have loved to have posted as Reardon before, but the reasons are obvious.)

former con wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:13 PM:Life does NOT begin at conception.

Rather life began far before conception. In fact first life began on earth close to 3.8 billion years ago. Multicellular life began about 640 million years ago. Every life on earth comes from previous that previous life going back in an unbroken chain of life back at least 3.8 billion years ago to the first living cell on earth. The living cells of a child come from the living cells of that child's parents. The living cells of those parents came from their parents, et cetera, back to the beginning of life billions of years ago.

If you think life begins at conception because a new distinct, genetic life with a new distinct soul has begun, then which genetically identical twin has a soul and which genetically identical twin does not. They both came from the exact same egg. Does one fertilized egg get more than one soul? How about identical triplets and quadruplets?

The great biologist Stephen Jay Gould asked the following: What about a two headed baby? Which head has the soul? What about a baby with two sets of legs? Does one set of legs have a soul and the other not? How do you decide?

Do you brush your teeth? Every cell knocked off your gums and washed down the drain has the potential of being a brand new unique human being. Any cell of the body can with the addition of three triggers be induced to become the equivalent of an embryonic egg cell. These genetic equivalent egg cells (IPC's) should function exactly as a fertilized egg if implanted into a uterus. Should tooth brushing be prohibited? After all tooth brushing kills potential human beings. Should sports that can result in bloody injuries be prohibited? The leucocytes in the blood that is lost have the exactly the same genetic potential as gum and cheek cells. Three triggers and those leucocytes become fertilized egg equivalents.

When does your argument about life beginning at conception become absurd?

No more yes on A wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:19 PM:while hospital is very important to me, I value my freedom of speech even more. I went to the Paper website (need to scroll down pass the hooker news) and read the entire article.

I supported TriCity the first time, wondered about the 2nd time but can no longer support this organization. TriCity needs to get the message that the voters have already spoken twice.

I really hate this idea of Mail only election. It intentionally takes away many voters of right to vote.

Most of the supporters are decent folks who just want a good hospital, but this is not the way to get it. Please let's all speak up, vote NO. It simply cannot be tolerated.

To former con wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:01 PM:Brilliant posts! Thank you!

Reardon Not Reardon wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:02 PM:Who cares?

Richard wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:16 PM:It's kind of like fighting terror. torture and killing of actual murderous terrorists, great. but killing innocent, forget it, I oppose that. Abortion has parallels. If a sex offender rapes a kid, I suspect her and the parents would want an abortion if it could be done safely and quickly, before the risk is that your'e actually killing a human who has a soul. But yes, aborting a living human in the womb for purely selfish reasons, I oppose that.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 20, 2008 2:18 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:12 PM:
My answer to your question is to refer to the courts.

Oh Please wrote on