Bill wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:56 AM:My complaint isnt with any of these letters.

I want to set some hypocritical liberals straight on their perverted definition of the rule of law. I was accused of putting my ideology in front of the rule of law by defending the Marines that are refusing to testify.

There are some major flaws in the liberal argument though.

The rule of law does not only bind these two Marines. The rule of law also binds the government. I am appalled that someone who claims to support the rule of law could ignore such prosecutorial misconduct, not to mention the denial of due process. I am livid at the Bush administration for this and am stunned that those who fought so hard to roll back the Patriot Act, would be so silent here.

This is an illegal venue.

The venue for this cause of action is a tribunal or a court martial. Instead, to appease the left, the federal courts are being used and Joe six pack will stand in judgment and not military people. The Marines have granted limited immunity for UCMJ charges but the government hasnt given them immunity for the federal charges. The prosecutor could easily make them talk under conditions where they are not afforded a right against self incrimination, and then file charges on them later using their testimony against them as an admission of involvement.

That my friends, is a denial of due process and undermines their right against self incrimination.

People need to understand that the Marines are subject to both civilian and military law.

That means they can be tried by both.

There is also the issue of fact preclusion where they wont be able to deny facts determined in an official hearing. The federal case will prejudice their justice in their court martials too because their will be facts they will be barred by law from denying. I am amazed that those on the left, who have accused the Bush administration of abusing power on just about everything under the sun would stay silent on this. The answer is clear, they dont give a rats rear end about a Marines due process rights. I have no problem with them being prosecuted. However, I want the venue to be legal and the jury to be of their peers and not Joe 6 pack.

The Voir Dire process in the federal court system isnt set up to handle this.

A tribunal or court martial would ensure a fair trial and all mitigating factors will be considered in a battlefield context.

This is not criminal law.

Not one word from the left on this blatant abuse of power either. This is an unprecedented use of our federal courts and since criminal courts apply a stare decisis standard, this is really bad precedent and is a dangerous road to go down.

The rule of law applies to the government too.

At least its supposed to.

Nothing but the hypocritical liberals showing their disdain for our military once again.

Alf wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:52 AM:While the letter from Stephen Sandberg seems to point out a glaring inequity, he touched on a possible justification right in his own letter.
He said "I live closer to the coast and will pay more for my electricity because I use less?"
The coast has lower highs in the summer and higher lows in the winter than inland, east of I-15, meaning that there will naturally be a greater need for electricity year round.
This is one of the first times that I have seen a rate structure that takes more than simple usage into account, that considers the "WHY" instead of only the "THAT" and prices accordingly.
Housing is usually less expensive further from the coast, I wonder why. No I don't.
As "DD Wiz", who lives inland, has pointed out, with his photovoltaic panels he can run his air conditioner in the summer and not pay SDGE for electricity because he does not use their electricity.
I am waiting to see if the solar is as useful in the winter, I hope so.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:03 AM:In his letter, Joseph Kraatz points out the folly of his suggestion before he makes it.
He says "President Bush has us mired in the Mideast".
Then he says "The U.S. should immediately issue an ultimatum to Russia for their immediate withdrawal from Georgia or we will resort to military force to accomplish the task for them."
Excuse me, but -
if we are mired in Iraq, a country who had and has a military that is much smaller than ours,
if we are also in Afghanistan,
if much of our volunteer military have done multiple tours,
with what "military force" are we going to engage a country with a military much closer to our size??
Regards, Alf

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:13 AM:>>>>Why is John McCain given a pass on gaffes that would torpedo any Democratic candidate?>>>> What planet do you live on. The left wing drools and continually spews at every McCain gaffe. What we dont hear in the left wing media and the Murdock media are Husseins Muslim background, the Marxist leanings and details on his dealings and relationships with Ayres and Resco. You cant get a straight answer out of him or his campaign on his plan for a one-time 15% grab of all pensions, 401-k's and IRA's

Alf wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:17 AM:In his letter, Frank Lancelotti shows that he still does not comprehend or refuses to believe that the U.S. is not a theocracy.
Rather than the church and the state be cozy bed-partners, the Constitution maintains a separation between the two.
When the proposed state Constitutional Amendment to revert to inequality under the law fails, I'm sure that Frank Lancelotti will not accept that either, even though passage would eventually be overthrown by the U.S. Supreme Court anyway.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:24 AM:The letter from Chuck Hagan amazes me.
He says "There simply is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically, as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman."
How can he be correct if, on this very day in two states, couples of the same gender ARE, IN FACT, being and getting LEGALLY MARRIED?
I think that Chuck Hagan is out of touch with the current reality.
Regards, Alf.

Local wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:49 AM:The DBA has succeeded in killing Cruisin' Grand. I can only watch while they kill off the rest of the downtown. Can't DR find something to ruin in Poway? Just a thought...

RoAsted wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:41 AM:About that "Crusin' Grand" event. First thing; who wants to hang out in such a dive town as Escondido, the very armpit of North County? Second: what sort of uneducated numbskull gets any kicks from looking at obsolete cars? They go up the street. They go down the street. They go up the street. They go down the street. Such mental stimulation can't be healthy....

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:21 AM:Now see, this is what bothers me about lib's...
On the one hand, out of one side of their mouths they say: "While President Bush has us mired in the Mideast, Russia is taking advantage of our weakness." In other words, it is OUR job as the Lone SuperPower to oppose totalitarianism.

Yet, on the other hand, out of the otherside of their mouths they will say:
Our friends, the Euro's completely have our backs', and we should work with our friend's.

Now which is it fella's?
Either the Euro's can stand and fight for themselves, or they need us to be their Daddy.

Now, according to Joseph Kraatz: "The U.S. should immediately issue an ultimatum to Russia for their immediate withdrawal from Georgia or we will resort to military force to accomplish the task for them."

Why can't the Euro's do this? Since they have our back's?
Oh, that's right... they couldn't even clean up the mess in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They waited until we acted, then they followed.

I have been watching the Democrat National convention {against my better judgement}, and as of yet, I have not heard one word about the Russian invasion of Georgia. But what I do hear is about the old War in Iraq.
Why are they still talking about Iraq, with this on the table?

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:25 AM:Ya see, Stephen Sandberg. Now you are catching onto the Obama Energy Plan. Use less. Pay more. Ride the bus.

As you will recall, the Messianic Senator said: He doesn't regret the increase in energy prices. His only regret is that they have risen so quickly.

I just read in a San Diego Union-Tribune story about the most recent approval by the California Public Utilities Commission on July 31 for a rate increase of approximately 7 percent for SDG&E customers in San Diego County. The problem is the distribution of this rate increase. What really bothers me here is the amount of rate increase will depend on where you live.

As quoted in another source, "Under the changes for 2008, a typical residential customer who lives east of Interstate 15 and uses 500 kilowatt hours of electricity a month will see their electric bill increase by about $1.59. A typical coastal homeowner who uses 500 kilowatt hours a month will see their bill jump by about $4.75, nearly three times as much. The utility charges a higher base rate to recover its slightly higher costs among coastal customers, who generally use less electricity to cool their homes."

So let me get this right. I live closer to the coast and will pay more for my electricity because I use less? That's like making a person who buys a hybrid car pay more for fuel because he uses less. I can't believe the board accepted this. ... I'm sorry, this is wrong.

MrsHusseinFlipFlops wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:35 AM:I see that Mrs Hussein has flip-flipped and now loves America. She must have been cringing when Dean & Pelosi told her to say it, no matter how much it hurts

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:38 AM:During the campaign, Hussein is sure to be asked why he blew off the wounded soldiers when he was over in Germany. I'll vote for him, if he tells the truth and says: "They wouldnt let me bring the TV cameras in for the photo-op I wanted. I need to pretend I support the troops and that photo-op would have been priceless for my campaign

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:41 AM:>>>by defending the Marines that are refusing to testify.>>> Good for those Marines. So many of them that were prosecuted by Murtha's demands were found to be innocent, yet the false accusers are not in jail (ie Murtha and McGuirk). ...

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:43 AM:Couple of thoughts about Robert Johnston's letter today...
He says: "As for the lady who felt like she was a red hostage in a blue state,... there are other areas of the state where you and your beliefs will fit right in."

Ouch!, kind of like a reservation for red staters? Kind of sounds like the public school system & parents. If you don't like the way it's run, get out.


Then he says: "As for you out there who do not like paying any amount of taxes... you petulantly refuse to pay your fair share, you are showing not courage, but greed-based lunacy!"

Wow, we've just run smack dab into the New Patriotism of the Left. I think the message I'm getting from Robert is, that the more taxes you pay, the more Patriotic you are? Heck, if that's the new definition, then...
The Top 50% of taxpayers must be 96% Patriot's, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers must be only 4% patriots.
Given the fact, that 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50%.

Too petulant?

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:55 AM:Frank Lancelotti reminds me, speaking of misrepresenting the facts on homosexuality.

Now, follow the logic here...

Lesbians Joanne Clark and Guadalupe Benitez sought legal relief from The California Supreme Court, regarding their infertility....
The Court unanimously decided in favor of the couple seeking relief from their
infertility....

Too petulant?

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:01 AM:>>>They go up the street. They go down the street. They go up the street. They go down the street. Such mental stimulation can't be healthy>>> Well, excuse us for living. I guess we;re just not as refined and cultured like you and your type. Now go put your Depends back on and let us know what's in your baseball card collection

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:04 AM:The news is reporting that North Korea defies U.S., stops disabling nuclear reactors.
Gee, what a surprise, the only people on the planet who weren't expecting that are Rice, Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Hussein, Biden and Murtha

She Said wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:05 AM:Well, Mr. Lancelotti: Read the following: Two months after California sanctioned same-sex marriages, Hallmark announced plans to introduce same-sex wedding cards. Making no direct mention of same-sex unions, the cards feature two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with neutral best wishes inside. One says: "Two hearts. One promise." Some are gearing up for the inevitable. Love, She Said

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:11 AM:The news is cackling that not even brain cancer can stop Ted Kennedy.

Not much of a suprise, neither could MaryJo Kopeckne

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:16 AM:Douglas Crews reminds me, speaking of
scrutiny of his policies and the words that come out of his mouth.
Given the Obamaman's problem's with staying on track.. FISA, Campaign Finance, Iraq, Diplomacy with Terrorists, Gay Marriage... it is endless.
And then you have all his "friends"...
Wright, Ayers, Resko, Frank Davis, Carl Davidson.. all extremists, and all.. by chance? I don't think so.

But the choice of Joe Biden is absolutely fascinating to me. Electorally, Biden offers nothing. Delaware is going Obama. No doubt.
Now, we are told that Obama chose Biden to shore up his lack of international/foreign policy experience.
But what kind of expertise does O'Biden actually bring to the table?
He was wrong on the first Gulf War, and he voted for the current Iraq War.
No help there...
I mean, think about it. He opposed the one war where the world was behind it, and on the other hand, he voted for the Iraq war when Obama's main theme is: Iraq was a stupid war.
I'm not getting it.
If you select a guy for his "expertise", and his expertise is all wrong, what does that say about the selector's judgement?

Randy wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:34 AM:How about Michelle's great speech last night?

Focal Point wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:38 AM:Joseph Kraatz: Now here is somebody whose IQ can not be measured. He wants to threaten a nuclear Russia with force of arms. Tell, me Joe just how you going "shock and awe" the Russians without repercussions directly on the American people and US soil? Or maybe, you thought a nice little conventional war with the Russians are in order. Might be kind of difficult with our main forces in Iraq, Afghanistan demanding our attention, and the remainder of our forces undergoing rest, recoup and retraining and whose numbers are limited. I changed my mind. Joe go ahead and parachute right into Georgia to shock and awe the Russians. When you get oriented after landing on the ground, do not lock around. YOU WILL BE ALL ALONE.

Peepers Wide Open wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:46 AM:Eleanor Lant: No one is a racist for wanting English to be the national language. You are entitled to that opinion whether you are or whether you are not a racist. The simple fact is that English is not our national language. It is the predominantly spoken language in the Untied States at the present time. But, Anglophiles need to understand that even English will not be the predominantly spoken language of our country. Sooner or later, most Americans will bilingual (English and Spanish) due to necessity. Demographics also indicate that the day of the WASPS in our country are numbered.

To Eleanor wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:15 AM:Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, BBBLLLLAAAAHHHHH!!!!! I have no words your ignorance has rendered me speechless!!!!

gracchus wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:34 AM:chuck, your constant snipes on this site baffle me. they are negative and add nothing to civil discourse. i really don't know what you are trying to achieve throught them. but your snipe of 4:13 a.m. is especially egregious.

1) you assert that obama has a muslim background. what do you mean by "background"?

2) you often use the word "muslim" as a pejorative epithet. chuck, are you a bigot? do you believe that islam and its followers are undeserving of respect?

3) you claim that obama has marxist leanings. can you specify exactly what those marxist leanings are?

4) you bring up obama's association with rezko and ayres. do you know of any politician in human history who hasn't associated with undesirable characters? it's the nature of the job. do you think that john mccain's association with charles keating is any more edifying. do you think that mccain's sycophancy toward jerry falwell last year, a man whom mccain had called an agent of intolerance earlier, so that he could pander to conservative christian voters?

5) finally, please tell me about obama's plan to grab 15% of pensions, 401ks and iras. where do you get this from?

Patriot wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:37 AM:How about Michelle's speech last night? If it was intended to make me like her family on a personal level, it worked. But that alone cannot win my vote. I remain skeptical that Obama can have government do all he wants it to do without raising taxes on families with incomes under $250K. Isn't his idea to raise the income cap on wages subject to Social Security a tax increase? I don't think a person making a few thousand over the current cap and providing for a family of four in the San Diego area needs another tax increase, but others may disagree.

Apollo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:47 AM:Re: Margaret Thatcher (news item)
News item: Margaret Thatcher diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia.
Several years ago, there was a study of elderly nuns, all from the same large cloister. It examined the long-term histories of those who had lived long as well as some who were recently deceased. It examined and compared the long-term cognitive histories of those who had remained intellectually vibrant with those who died from, or were suffering from, dementia or Alzheimer's. They examined years of writing, going back into the nuns' younger years, and found differences in how they used language and reasoning. The nuns who later were afflicted with Alzheimer's or dementia showed very matter-of-fact, rigid, inflexible, dogmatic styles to their thinking, writing in direct, abrupt styles, while those who remained mentally vibrant to the end of life were more intellectually curious, used more complex and nuanced writing styles and were more willing to question assumptions or apply critical thinking and complexity of analysis to issues.
Thus, with yesterday's announcement that Margaret Thatcher has been diagnosed with such dementia, it is interesting to note some of the notable examples of those who have been so afflicted:
Ronald Reagan
Barry Goldwater
Charlton Heston
and now, Margaret Thatcher
Less well known in general circles is that the Mormon leader, Ezra Taft Benson, more politically outspoken as an extreme right-wing conservative than any other person to hold that position and a member of the Eisenhower cabinet, also died from Alzheimer's.
Where is the list of great liberal icons (as differentiated from the rank-and-file followers) to be so afflicted?
When I see some of the posts here by those who are rigid, dogmatic, doctrinaire conservatives who express things in simplistic sound bites, and who brag of all their money and achievements (which we are unable to verify in this anonymous blog), all I can say is, enjoy it while you can :-)

Three D wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:52 AM:Chuck Hagan's letter continues to peddle the myth that "every civilized culture has always defined marriage as between one man and one woman."
On the contrary, around the world and all throughout most of human history, almost every great civilization, from Ancient China and India, to all of the Muslim world, and especially to those of Bible times, where it is enshrined in the Law of Moses, the standard of traditional marriage has been one man and multiple underaged prepuscent females, in arranged marriages, from his own clan or ethnicity, who become the chattel property over whome he has "dominion" sames as his livestock.
Is that what we really want to return to, or can we admit that marriage has "evolved" as "civilizations" have become more, well, civilized?
Blessings,
3D

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:53 AM:What's so hard to get? Biden, like many rational people, voted to give permission to Bush, if there was no choice other than force to protect our country form an attack from Iraq. This was because Bush presented a re-written intelligence report that left out the Air Force assessment that proved Hussein had nothing, and Biden's vote was related to Colin Powell's speech delineating what appeared to be a case for mass anthrax there. But when the truth came out, that Bush fixed the intelligence to get what he wanted, Biden, and most rational people, knew they had been mised and then denounced the invasion. Where have you been, hiding under a Bush?
Anyone who flip flops to go from a wrong to a right isn't 'bad' and you can'tr "judge" someone based on voting records as easily as you might think. What's insane is those who refuse to change and thus can only be right part of the time, that is when their initial guess was the correct one. If wrong, and they are anti flip floppers, then head for the hills. They'll not only force men to their death to avoid having "our colors run", but they'll also demonoize those who disagree.
I see people carrying high powered rifles with scopes were arrested at the Democratic Convention. Is it possible that lunatics actually belivee these Rovian lies that demonize Obama for "supporting terror", choosing to "lose a war" to win power, so he can fleece all citizens of their money, so he can extend muslimism, so he can destroy America he and his wife have always "hated", so he can continue to raise oil prices, so he can force oppression on you? With gun carrying rights in Texas and Arizona and elsehwere, my main hope now is that there will be no RFK disaster again. Every person carrying a rifle within one mile of any location where Obama is should be arrested and monitored until election time. Anyone carrying a handgun within 100 yards should get the same fate. No torture, I'm not like GWB, just monitoring until the votes have been counted. Fair enough?

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:54 AM:Still puzzled by the O'Biden pick...
I do have my own theories about "the Why?"
As I have said: 35 years in Washington does not automatically apportion you with the intelligence to conduct world affairs. Given O'Biden's record, wrong of the first Gulf War, right on the second? But, apparently the Democrats feel the lead guy must have absolutely no experience, that's a plus, in their opinion. The closest thing Obama has to foreign affairs experience would be organizing the laid-off steelworkers who's job's went overseas. That, and the many pro-european socialists he knows personally.
I think they are following the Bush/Cheney model of lending experience. Cheney was pulled in to give the jr. Bush Gravitas. I think that is the intent of the O'Biden pick.
But it has also become apparent, that what the Obamaman needed was adult supervision. Someone of substance to rein him in, when he started going off the reservation. Like say.. bombing Pakistan, or negociating with terrorists.
On the domestic side, neither Obama or O'Biden have any business ground, at all. Neither have ever run a business, made a profit, signed a paycheck, or provide health insurance.
Obama's greatest achievement is that ran a school newspaper. While O'Biden cut deals with credit card companies to force those people going bankrupt for medical reasons to pay up. Oh, and his son worked for one, until Joe decided he would run for President, then Joe's older son found the younger a job elsewhere, as not to embarass the Dad.
On top of that, you have certain journals citing Obama as the number 1 liberal in the US Senate, while Joe is number 3. Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a Socialist, comes in fourth. So much for being a "moderate."

Sorry Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:55 AM:You can spew "liberal media" all you like: this was, after all, an invention of the Rush/Fox gang to make them and their listeners seem like heroic voices in the wilderness. A major study by George Mason University showed that while Obama got more media coverage than McCain, only 28% of that coverage was positive...20-30 points lower than McCain's positive coverage scores. You will, of course, dismiss this because in your world all Universities are biased dens of liberalism. But you've also acknowledged that you and the Rushes and the Fox team are also biased, so I guess there's no reason to believe you guys either.

Reardon wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:58 AM:APOLLO: Your 8:47 a.m. is probably the most viscous post I have seen in years on this Blog.

to Reader of the Constitution wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:59 AM:Your discussion of James Madison's views of the "public welfare" idea are dishonestly put forth as being equivalent to what "the Founders" intended. Sorry, all I see is the opinions of one James Madison. As I recall, much in the Constitution was debated and the Founders as a group disagreed about many, many things. To pick one (or a few) of them out, because they happen to agree with you, and claim that this is THE voice of the "Founders" is dishonest. Clearly, there is much ambiguity in the Constitution and I can't help but believe that the Founders were aware of, and ok with, this, knowing that a developing nation would need space to interpret parts of it in the context of their worlds at various times. All you've shown us is that ONE Founder interpreted "public welfare" in a particular way. I'm sure if they all felt that way, Madison's quotes would have found a place in the document itself. Sorry.

Low X wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:01 AM:Gracchus - you must have high expectations for the postings here. You can't seriously expect the wise contributor Chuck to back up his baseless slams, can you? No, what you can generally expect from most posters is broad, rambling rants, devoid of facts or solutions. Do what I do, read the humorous dribble and go on with my day. Remember...start with low expectations, that way you can be pleasantly surprised whenever you do read something with thought or creativity.

Richard wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:08 AM:NO ONE wants any United States Marine on trial. Even any that were actually guilty of some crime, because it's simply too sad. You imagine there are "liberal democrats" who hate their own country and you are flat wrong. IF a clear appearance of gross negligence existed, then those like Murtha want it investigated. So what?
Since when is a Federal court suddely a place where no one can possibly get a fair, legal and just trial? If there is a law that states that military courts must be used in all cases for trying military personnel for possible crimes on foreign soil, then why not take that tack, instead of again blaming some imaginary liberal for not speaking out? But remember, we are not in a Congressionally declared war against Iraq. Bush wanted a regime change, because he thought it was necessary for own protection. Congesss in allowing this and paying for it never declared war on Iraq. We are not in a declared war. If this influenced higher-ups to request a civilian court trial, why must 'liberals' denounce it? It's not the fault of some 'liberal'.

Reader of the Constitution wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:08 AM:To To: If you believe that the General Welfare clause means something other than what I quoted the author as saying it meant, it is incumbent upon you to quote a comparable contemporary to that effect.

To simply say that such is so will not cut it. You have access to the same research tools I have. Use them.

Apollo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:09 AM:Re: Reardon (8:58 a.m.)
Wow! Seems like I really hit a nerve there.
Hopefully one not congested by amyloyd plaques.

Nick wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:15 AM:Ummmmmmmm.....is this the same Joe Biden that when asked about his Law School history responded to the question with "I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do’’

Is this the same guy who opens Democratic caucus meetings with "I'll be brief" and then talks the room into a stupor and then forgets what he was even talking about?

Isn't the same guy that during the primary, made many remarks about Obama’s lack of experience and the need for experience in order to be President?

Just asking..........

to Reardon wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:17 AM:Apollo's is minor league compared to Chuck's frequent references to the Clintons murdering Vince Foster, or even today's snipe at the tumored Mr Kennedy for Mary Jo Kopeckne. IMHO (Funny how you never hear the Falwells of our great Christian country talking about all these people's dementia as punishment from the almighty for their violations of the Commandments)

Alf wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:23 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 7:01AM,
my neighbor has a Cobra (replicar, not the original) and in winter I can hear it start up with the windows closed, the TV on and my tinnitus (which is getting louder by the year) from 200 feet away. It's music to my ears!
The same kind of deep, rumbling music comes from a real Hemi, the 426 Hemi or a 440 Six-pack or a 454, until the roar when you hit the gas.
What with the price of gas, those cars are seeing lots more time parked in the garage.
Drat!
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:33 AM:The news is reporting that bombs have rocked al-Qaida stronghold in Iraq, killing at least 30. When Chris sees this, he'll be taking handfuls of Prozac

Vista Granny wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:51 AM:To Reardon: Perhaps Apollo's posting about M. Thatcher and various Republicans wasn't very nice, but I don't think it was vicious. I found the study of the nuns very interesting. And, I believe there was such a study. Why not? Medical types are trying to figure Alzheimers out. Personally, I believe a lot of them are simply victims of all the prescription drugs they take. For instance, I have a neighbor who takes 17 prescription pill each and every day -- doctor's orders. And it has been established that Beta blockers cause memory loss -- think how many people are on those. Longer life, but at what cost?

Peace to the peaceful and love to the loving and all that stuff.

To Reardon wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:55 AM:Facts are facts, Media Watcher, although I know you don't like to deal with that. And if you think Apollo's post is the most viscious you have seen on this blog in a long time then you clearly have been skipping over Chuck's posts.

Further, I will say what Apollo's post implied but didn't say: John McCain will be the next to be diagnosed with Dementia or Alzheimer's. The indications are already apparent.

Hoo hoo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:58 AM:"Chuck
[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:01 AM:
>>>They go up the street. They go down the street. They go up the street. They go down the street. Such mental stimulation can't be healthy>>> Well, excuse us for living. I guess we;re just not as refined and cultured like you and your type."

Oh, so now Chuck has let slip he is a Cruisin Grander. Should we come up with a nasty lie about the Cruisin Granders that we can repeat day after day after day after day just to get Chuck's goat?

Nah, it doesn't work on us, so why would it work on him? But it was fun to think about.

To Nick wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:01 AM:Yup! That's the guy! Isn't it great? Love Joe Biden, he will wipe the floor with McCain and the neocons.

What A TEAM wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:06 AM:Michelle Obama is as intelligent, gracious and family-minded as I thought she was. Barack Obama is inspiring and invested in bettering his country. Joe Biden is a feisty attack dog who scares the heck out of the Rethugs. Who they gonna put up against him? Romney? Lieberman? Some guy with a funny name and dark skin? You gotta be kidding. As Nick says, LOL

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:14 AM:The post from "Reader of the Constitution" (9:08am) demands that those taking a broader view of the General Welfare clause cite a source. As I noted in my post added this morning to yesterday's page, the Federalists did take a much broader view.
"Reader" wants a source? How about more than just citing a name.
Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 10:302-4, Dec 5 1791.

And as I said in my earlier post, ""Reader of the Constitution" (8/25 - 9:19pm) correctly notes that Madison, who was one voice in the shaping of the Constitution, took a narrow, restrictive view of the General Welfare clause. He was one voice. The Federalist view wanted a more active, engaged national government, while the Democrats wanted a smaller, more decentralized national government. Madison was a key principal in the latter. The Constitution, as we all know (or at least should), represented a series of key compromises, and the General Welfare clause was left intentionally vague so that both sides could claim an interpretation that matched their views.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

bogie wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:28 AM:Apollo @ 8:47 AM:

Your crticism of the left has sunk to a sick level

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:35 AM:>>>Who they gonna put up against him? Romney? Lieberman? Some guy with a funny name and dark skin? You gotta be kidding.>>>
With gas at $4/gal and this hideous inflation continues because the liberals ignore 80% of Americans who have asked for drilling, it won't matter who the Republicans run NoBama and O'Biden have no chance. Anyone with a brain will go into the voting booth and say "Obama? or my job?". Hussein will make Dukakis look like Ronald Reagan

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:40 AM:>>>Apollo @ 8:47 AM: Your crticism of the left has sunk to a sick level>>> Its typical of liberals to celebrate Alzheimers and dimentia of Conservatives, while they cover up their own bed-wetting problem

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:40 AM:The post from "Reader of the Constitution" (9:08m) really merits further than the citing of the source as I did in my response at 10:14am.
Therefore, I would also like to include an actual quote from the source I cited from Alexander Hamilton's writing (copied and pasted without edit): "The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils...."
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:40 AM:I'm hearing a great deal of news about these PUMA's. Their acronym stands for Party United My ...
You get the drift.
They say they will fill the role that the superdelegates have abrogated. It is our job to say “no”. We do not want to lose in 2008. But let us acknowledge what this really is. “Unity” is a weapon that the party is going to use against us. It is the emotional blackmail of the teenager. “If you don’t let me have my way, it will be all YOUR fault if something bad happens!” “If you don’t get in line, it will be YOUR fault if we lose.”
Now is not the time to put a love object in office, a weakling who will be entirely dependent on his power elite enablers. Or worse, he may be a dissembler who has barely disguised his contempt for the voters.
OUCH!!! does not sound like a love fest to me.
All Hillary supporters, all claiming she got robbed.
And you have the Kennedy romantists, trying to reclaim the party away from the Arkansas politics of the Clintons.
Personally, if Hillary can give the performance of her life, and still hold back the puke, I think she deserves an Oscar.
Just one man's opinion.

to Apollo wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:43 AM:So you think that Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Charlton Heston and Margaret Thatcher are great conservative icons?

Interesting.

gracchus wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:44 AM:ron, in your communique of 6:25 a.m. you refer to a "Messianic senator." i presume you refer to obama.

when, ron, has obama ever used this adjective to describe himself? when have any of his supporters used attributed it to him?

from my readings only those who dislike obama have referred to him as "the messiah."

ron, you have professed your christianity. i ask you to look once again at exodus 20:7. then tell me, please, whther your referrals to obama as the messiah are justifiable and fulfill the tenets of your faith.

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:47 AM:There is a news report out today that "Neanderthals were not 'stupid,' according to new research".
Those researchers obviously didn't watch the DNC convention last night. Keep the change, because thats all you'll get in your paycheck with Hussein

Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:48 AM:Put together, if you will, the following statements, logically.

"Wizzer" @10:14 AM:
"...the Democrats wanted a smaller, more decentralized national government."

The Democrats wanted a smaller, more decetralized national government.
The Democrats...


Now, today, this year..
The Democrats are trying to elect two of THE most left, big government socialists to office.
Certain journals citing Obama as the number 1 liberal in the US Senate, while Joe is number 3. Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a Socialist, comes in fourth.

The Democrats....
The SAME Democrats?

Another Mans Opinion wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:55 AM:Well Ron, if I can hold back the puke when I read your posts I imagine Hillary will do just fine. But thanks for your concern.

thanks DD wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:08 AM:Your post successfully shows how reader of the Constitution is, as I asserted earlier, quite a cherry picker. This is not surprising. If the Founders had agreed on one specific narrowly defined view of that clause or any other, it would've been written that way. Thanks for putting that puppy to bed. I hope Reader has the integrity to move on. Great job.

Oh Please wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:10 AM:MrsHusseinFlipFlops[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:35 AM: I really get sick of these juvenile attacks and observations by the Conservative rightist ilk on this blog and throughout the country. Don't worry about the Obamas loving this country. I worry about your misrepresentations about your love and patriotism for this country. It is all a lie. All you people care about is accumulation of wealth, exploitation of the nation's resources for your benefit and wealth and causing wars to have access to other nation's resources to increase your wealth. But, I will say you have not flip flopped. You are consistent in your greed.

Focal Point wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:15 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:33 AM: That is quite a story. Would like to read it. Please cite your source? I can not locate it anywhere.

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:18 AM:I wonder if the Alzheimers people scream as loud as the AIDS racketeers, and the gay agenda does, if Bush will cough up $46 billion for them???

LIBS wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:18 AM:Chuck: Me and my four liberals should get paid more with all the influence and power that you attribute to us.

Ms M wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:19 AM:Reardon
[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:58 AM:APOLLO: Your 8:47 a.m. is probably the most viscous post I have seen in years on this Blog....Are you saying that you skip/don't read he posts from Ron and Chuck? Geez!

to Reader of the Constitution wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:20 AM:DD has done my research for me, but let me make something clear. The point is that finding one Founder's opinion of something is not the same as finding what that clause "really means". DD gives you Hamilton. So now you two might argue about which, Madison or Hamilton, expressed what the Constitution "really means". My point (supported by Hamilton, as it turns out) is that when the Founders decided not to specify something, not specifying it was what they really meant to do. Your entire project, of digging through individuals' papers until you find something that agrees with your opinion, is false and dishonest from the start. Comprende?

Focal Point wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:23 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:40 AM:
Let my paraphrase Will Rogers. I think that Rogers said that he did not belong to a political party. He was a Democrat. The Republican convention is going to be real boring. It will be ordered with discipline and party lines and announcing the party platform. They' ll have to wake me up when that one is over. But, the Democrats are entertaining. Pass that hot dog and cold beer. Its better than baseball.

Ms M wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:25 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:40 AM:>>>Apollo @ 8:47 AM: ....while they cover up their own bed-wetting problem...Chuck, please let us know which lib or libs have a "bed-wetting" problem! That's okay - I know you won't come up with anything.

DEFENDER wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:42 AM:Looks like some of the public school grads (Alf) are unable to comprehend that the legality of a commonly understood definition (MARRIAGE), that has weathered the test of time, is not undone by some loopy, leftist, “court” overnight.

Please clarify wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:44 AM:"Reardon[-] wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:58 AM:APOLLO: Your 8:47 a.m. is probably the most viscous post I have seen in years on this Blog."

to Apollo: I found your 8:47am post interesting.

to Reardon: What was wrong with the post? Many bright and extremely bright people have Alzheimer's or dementia. Some early on, and some much later.

Yes and no Ron wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:47 AM:I find both conventions too staged and boring to bother with, but let me say that although the Repubs might well display order and discipline, the world knows that they most certainly do not all rally behind John McCain. When you look past the advertising and the posturing, the fact is that on all matters of policy and principle, the Democrats really are FAR more united than the Republicans are behind McCain. This is one reason that John has twisted himself into such pathetic pretzel shapes to try to suddenly conform to what "the party" asks of him, giving up (or pretending to give up) so many of the things he stood for over the years. Remember (many of us do) what Rush and Coulter said about his candidacy. Why even our very own Chuck refers to McCain as a "liberal". Is that a united right?

Focal Point wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:47 AM:Eleanor Lant: Interesting points. Should I think about it in English or in Spanish?

Defender is right wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:49 AM:Marriage is NOT undone by expanding it to homosexual couples. Marriage is not affected one iota. And saying that "this law is legit while that law is not" is pretty meaningless. I've been married for decades, and when the institution stopped discriminating against homosexuals, not a single thing about my marriage was affected. Might I suggest: not a single thing about yours was affected either. Get over it.

Winning hearts and minds wrote on Aug 26, 2008 11:59 AM:Here's how Bush and McCain envision winning the war on terrorism. From the NY Times QUOTE KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that some 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in air strikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Thursday night, a statement issued by the United Nations mission in Kabul said, making it almost certainly the deadliest case of civilian casualties caused by any United States military operation in Afghanistan since 2001. ENDQUOTE The Bush/McCain camp, of course, only is upset because so FEW were killed. Bill will post shortly, explaining how this was purely innocent on our part. The children were terrorists. The terrorists were hiding behind the children. Everyone reporting this lied. Tell it to the Afghans & see how convincing you are to the people that matter. How many people just signed up with Al Qaeda? How many suddenly became willing to strap on a bomb or hijack a plane? How many just took a vow to "never surrender"?

gracchus wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:07 PM:i appreciate your counsel, low x, which you offered at 9:01 a.m. but i do not agree that we should ignore the ignorant and vicious remarks which so often appear here.

i have gathered that with the rise of the internet fewer people are reading newspapers, magazines, and books. rather than basing their views on a few hours of study, it seems that they push a button, read a 500 word article from wikopedia on given topic, and then presume to have valid opinion on it.

these instant websources are fine for fact-checking. but they are a supplement to, not a replacement for, serious reading.

there are still many undecided voters. many still do not know what faith obama professes. his opponents use this lack of knowledge of the voters, and a prejudice in the united states against muslims, to discredit him. these individuals must be challenged. if we don't question them and their false claims, some will believe them.

i understand your desire, low x, to ignore individuals who constantly write fallacious statements and, when called on them, respond with invective or silence. but at least a reader can formulate a better opinion about such remarks after such a challenge. for example, one fiscal conservative here calls for cuts in social security and medicare; at the same time he supports spending hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign adventures. he has never reconciled this inconsistency in his views. and his refusal to do so indicates the worth of his opinions.

thus, low x, if you have the time and the energy to challenge off-the-wall commentators here, of all political stripes, i encourage you to do so. it might be akin to putting out a house fire with a bucket of water. but if we form a bucket brigade for the truth, a few people might discern it. and those few might just help determine along which fork int the road we will pass.

Chris to Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:09 PM:Yea, those bombs that rocked an Al-Qaida strong hold is probably like those bombs that we were told killed 30 insurgents but in fact killed 95 civilians, 50 children, 29 women and 26 men in Afghanistan. Our military lies about everything and yet you continue to believe them. Isn't there a saying about fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I guess you havent learned that yet.

Chris wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:12 PM:If Bill, Ron and Chuck would just go on a long vacation, like forever, the blog editors wouldn't have so much work to do and then we could concentrate on the blogs that have something worth saying.

snerd wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:13 PM:to Reader: The Founders were doing something entirely new and even they were confused at times. Hence, the Federalist Papers which were their attempts to further refine and explain their thoughts on the Constitution. DDWiz was perfectly right to use these further explanations.

Chris wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:18 PM:The letter by Joseph Kraatz just shows the American spirit of arogance and how we can just go around the world and turn the rest of the world into a desert. Russia will not be like Iraq or Afghanistan. We only attack countries that are defensless. Anything else and we will come home with our tails between our legs even with all these supermen in the Marine Corps.

Chuck wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:26 PM:The news is now reporting that SAT scores remain at lowest level in nearly a decade. Gee, thats hard to fathom. Everyday I hear radio ads by the CA Teachers union whining that they deserve more money. So, one would think they are actually teaching something? I bet if they put condom fitting to cucumbers, diversity, and your civil rights under SB777 on the SAT test, the scores would skyrocket

Alf wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:33 PM:Well, "DEFENDER" at 11:42AM,
I understand THE LAW just fine.
THE LAW, as it is at this very moment and as it will more than likely remain after November, is that MARRIAGE is defined as between two consenting adults whether male-female, male-male or female-female.
I, for one, recognize THE LAW as it is, not as someone else's RELIGIOUS beliefs or homophobia would desire it to be.
I'm sorry that you choose to live in the past and in a reality that would blatantly violate the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the LAW.
Question -
To which part of the Bible do attribute this notion of "a man and a woman" or "one man and one woman" definition of marriage?
"Marriage" is also something for which one must obtain a license from the state which is regulated by MAN'S LAW, not by any given religion.
The Constitution has set up this country as a democratic republic, NOT a theocracy for very good reasons. It's too bad that you seem not to want to accept the fact that there is no "Church of the United States" like a "Church of England".
There isn't.
Accept reality.
What a concept!
Regards, Alf.

Floyd wrote on Aug