Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:59 AM:I see Sen OBiden tried the Hillary trick of the tears. Thats just what we need, someone trying to negotiate with the Russians or the Chinese while weeping and slobbering all over themselves

Shell Answer Man wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:13 AM:To Morris Shechet. No new life begins unless the zygote gets implanted. You answered your own ?. Who gets to decide? You (anyone of us) are either God or you assume to be God. It ain't me, babe. I won't take on this responsibility. I know my limits. I'm not God.

Local to Joe C. wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:20 AM:You, my friend, OBVIOUSLY, have NO CLUE about the role played by tradition in a community. It is the glue that keeps a community together. For those of us who've participated/attended, this is one event that exemplifies the TRUE meaning of COMMUNITY! Everyone is represented and included. EVERYONE!

Shell Answer Man wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:36 AM:Ruth Larson and I agree that Palin is a poor choice. She is not presidential material. I can't support the alternative. I have little choice but to vote for a 'write in.' Yes, my vote counts, in the negative digits. LOL. I will vote my conscience.

Was Sarah Wired wrote on Oct 3, 2008 5:51 AM:Did anyone else notice Sarah Palin talking to herself during the debate? There was one point while Biden was speaking (Sarah was looking down) that she mouths "okay". Is she talking to herself or listening to a wire? I tivoed it so I can go back and pinpoint the actual spot if necessary. Not that I care if she was, the debate was an excellent mirror of who each candidate is and what they are capable of. Biden was masterful.

Apollo wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:00 AM:Re: Ronald Hutchison and Emil Osberg Jr. (letters)
Hutchison and Osberg claim that same-sex marriage violates the laws of god. (No wonder there are so few letters in Faith and Values - they moved some of 'em here!)
We do not have laws based on god in our civil society.
Hutchison and Osberg have every right to believe whatever they believe in.
They do not have the right to legislate those beliefs onto others.
If their belief system mandates that same-sex marriage violates the laws of god, they are welcome to choose for themselves not to marry a person of the same sex.
Other people have different beliefs about the laws of god, or perhaps do not even believe in god.
Some faiths practice polygamous marriage, child marriage and have rituals of human sacrifice.
Such people claim these are based on the laws of the god that THEY believe in.
Should they be able to force Hutchison and Osberg to comply with whtat they believe?
No one is mandating that Hutchison or Osberg comply with their beliefs, but will steadfastly insist that he not mandate his onto them.
Protect all families - Vote NO on 8!
Defend marriage for all - Vote NO on 8!

On the same topic, without the "god" thing, Robert DeRieuz's letter is unable to find any valid arguments against same-sex marriage, so pulls the ol' bait and switch about pedophilia, which has no connection to the issue. As I have pointed out many times, the California Supreme Court decision was based on the repeated Constitutional prohibition against gender discrimination. It has nothing to do with number (polygamy) or with "partners" such as children or animals who lack the capacity for valid consent.
Such lines of argument only demonstrate an inability to address the actual issue.

The whoooshing sound wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:13 AM:That gust of wind coming from the right last evening was the collective sigh of relief from Republicans when Sarah didn't self-destruct in the debate and cause them to have to think about bowing her out. I watched the Dodger-Cub game, myself, just to see something that was not scripted. But from what I've heard so far, in the format that ensured no follow-up questions, Sarah was able to use all her pre-packaged answers, and she said them well, and had no challenges. Most of the polls afterwards said Biden won, of course, because he actually knew a lot and, I guess more importantly, made no "gaffes", since gaffing is more important than knowledge to the American voter. So the GOP will not have to dramatically pull Ms Palin from the slate and the Dems will continue increasing their lead. Unless the Rovians that run the McCain campaign, working with the White House, come up with some faux-event. Maybe it's more accurate to put it this way: if the polling trends continue, what faux-event will the GOP/White House come up with? Will the terror warning go up precipitously? Will we "need" to invade another country? How many deaths, of Americans and others, will the GOP decide is worth an election? Stay tuned!

oh Reardon wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:16 AM:True, perhaps, that all 4 candidates oppose gay marriage. I guess we who are against discrimination have to cope with that. But remember, 3 of the 4 (not Palin, of course) agree that humans contribute to global warming. I think that's more important.

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:30 AM:>>> Seniors deserve peace in their golden years. What they don't need is harassment/damage from juvenile delinquents>>
Well June, nothing can be done about the pukes who live next to you. But take solice in the fact that they attend the public schools, and in 30 years they might be promoted to shift manager at Taco Bell, or bell selling light bulbs at LightbulbsRUs.

TFB wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:38 AM:Excellent letter this morning from Morris Shechet showing the absurdity of those who dogmatically insist on a belief that human personhood commences at the exact moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. People are welcome to hold this belief, but not mandate their beliefs on others as public policy.
For those who hold this belief, some questions to ponder:
a. Why are sperms and eggs not human life if they are alive and human?
b. In the case of identical twins, in the time after fertilization and the onset of cell division, but before the blastocyst actually divides into two entities, how many human persons exist? Were there TWO souls at "conception"? If only one, when was the soul of the second twin created if not at "conception"?
c. If cessation of brain waves is the standard for the end of life, how can you call it human life prior to the onset of EEG brain waves near the end of the 2nd trimester?
d. Which would you save in a fire, a sleeping 3-year-old or a frozen embryo in the freezer? (And no, Ron, the question is not about why it is at your house, it is about prioritizing.)
e. Let's say there are estranged brothers who are a good donor match. One needs the other to donate bone marrow to save his life, but the brother does not want to. They are both adults, undeniably human persons. Does one have the right to force another to use his body to keep him alive if the latter doesn't want to? They are both males. Does this requirement only apply to females?

chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 6:50 AM:Lets hear it for Nancy Piglosi and Barney Fwank. For the second time this week, they made Americans pay for the bailout, again. Your investments, pensions, 401-K's, IRA's and childrens education funds went down $1.1 trillion with the market yesterday

Bill One wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:21 AM:A few days ago I voiced my concern about Gwen Ifill being the moderator relative to her writing a pro Obama book. I watched the debate last night and she was very nuetral. I was wrong on my assuption.

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:22 AM:>>>Not that I care if she was,>>>

Yea right. The liberals are desperate to do anything they can to dirty up Palin. You're praying she was wearing a wire so you can bash her

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:25 AM:>>>Hutchison and Osberg claim that same-sex marriage violates the laws of god.>>> With marriage, God said "Go, forth and multiply". That just ain't gunna happen in a same sex dealie, no matter how much they try, and try and try and try...etc

Sarah Was Masterful wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:25 AM:Sarah was just so gosh darn wonderful. She's an outsider and one of us small town common folks.

Golly gee, she was good!

To Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:32 AM:Gosh darnit! Doggone don't cha know? Trying to act cute usually works for Palin when shes negotiating with Russia(especially since Alaska is right next to Russia hence her extensive foreign policy experience). Forget intelligence, Bush didn't need any to become presidenct...twice.

Ms M wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:43 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:22 AM:...Chuck, the libs don't and did not have to do anything.

Ah Shucks wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:49 AM:Sarah brought tears to my eyes, shure enough.

It'll be just like having the gipper back.

She's so gosh darn humble, just like one of us.

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:10 AM:The news in now reprting that California may need an emergency $7 billion loan and Ahnuld is whining to Bush. Gee, Ahnud. for the last 3 years you have been a filthy CA liberal and have done everything the liberals and the gay racketeers have told you to do, and you told Bush to shove it on the border issues and on drilling. I'm sure he's going to rush right in an hand you $7 to cover your mismanagement. ...

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:13 AM:>>>I watched the debate last night and she was very nuetral. I was wrong on my assuption.>>> No, you werent wrong. She was reminded of her book several times and her obvious conflict of interest, so in the interest of selling the 2000 books she will sell, she backed off

To Bitter Joe wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:14 AM:"I can think of, except the excessive amounts of illegals that are allowed to prosper in our city." What is the real problem here that they are illegals or that they prosper? I guess you just assume because a person is Latino they must be illegal!!! How ridiculous. "Maybe it would be better if the Rincon tribe stepped up and donated that $15,000 to the Escondido American Little League, which lost its sponsorship ... or to the Escondido High School FFA program that is in dire need of new barns and revamping of the farm for the agriculture program for the kids." Why don't begin the fundraising for those vital and important projects. Who do you think you are trying to dictate how and where Rincon should spend their money!!! You are a bitter man, Joe Cristarella. I don't think your hate ends with the parade!

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:15 AM:Was was Biden crying and slobbering all over himself??? Was it because his liberal buddies sucked another $1.1 trillion out of peoples savings and retirement yesterday????

Focal Point wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:15 AM:Was Sarah Wired[-] wrote on Oct 3, 2008 5:51 AM I do not think she was wired. Palin was drilled and coached by Steve Smith 24/7 prior to the debates. Palin did an excellent job in presenting John McCain's ideas and platform. Palin can speak, can debate, endears herself to the audience but obviously lacks any personal depth or understanding of the issues. If McCain/Palin ticket is unsuccessful, Palin will be back some time in the future as a national candidate. By that time, Palin will have read, traveled, immersed herself in the issues and will be able to speak from her brain as well as her heart.

Fascinating wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:16 AM:The Republicans are so desperate that they are trying to sell "I won't actually answer the questions you ask me" as evidence that Palin is a "maverick". The vast majority of us out here in reality know it: she's not up to this job, let alone the Presidency. And when the ideologues are quietly sitting there, without the call to do battle with the evil liberals, and they listen to Palin, and imagine her actually being in charge of the nation, actually being THE one who must have it out with Putin and bin Laden and all the rest, they must think, if they have a conscience at all: is this how much I care about my country, that I will insist in public that this woman is the best person for the job?

Focal Point wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:17 AM:Bill One[-] wrote on Oct 3, 2008 7:21 AM:
Bill, you got character.

oh Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:18 AM:And if she had been wearing a wire, wouldn't YOU bash her for doing so?

Randy wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:20 AM:If Palin was truly passionate about special needs children, she would be staying home with her special needs infant, not leaving the infant to be raised by her nanny!

Sarah is just not qualified wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:28 AM:I don't know if anyone else out there is offended when Mrs. Palin refers to the middle class folks just like her as Joe Six pack! Also I do not live in a multi-million dollar mansion paid for by the tax dollars of Alaskans. I don't get to submit a bill to the taxpayers for staying in my own home with my family. I do not think she proved anything last night except she can be a parrot. Once again she has proven that all she is to the Republicans is a WOMAN!!! How degrading for all women. She IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE THE VICE-PRESIDENT, damn I don't know if she is even qualified to be a governor.

Bill One wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:36 AM:I cant believe a few days after a budget gets aproved we now need an emergency loan. What a bunch of buffoons.

Yes Joe Biden did get emotional wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:38 AM:Old Sarah was trying to endear herself to the American people by stating she is just like them, and she understands them. Sarah Palin thinks she has the ability to Vice President because she has a family, we all have families!! Joe Biden was being honest and vunerable I appreciate it. I respect a man who can express emotion and not be ashamed of it. He suffered a great loss and I think he expressed himself perfectly. I guess you think Sarah Palin will be a good negotiator as she winks, nudges them with her elbow, and uses her down home tongue-in-cheek quips. Sorry but I would rather have a man with heart than a woman who has nothing to bring to the table.

Bill One wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:38 AM:To Chuck, you are probably right about Ifill backing off

Sarah Rules wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:40 AM:Gosh darn it if Sarah wasn't just as cute and spunky as she could be!

Golly gee we need her!

Jack_D wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:40 AM:Ronald Hutchison says, "I also was shocked and disappointed when I opened to the engagement and marriage section and saw a picture of two men about to be married." Oh, the horror! How does he find the strength to go on? It must be like McCain felt while prisoner in Hanoi. I wonder where God's "higher law", which Mr.Hutchison says condemns gay marriage, is written. I'd like a copy of that document. Is it at Barnes and Noble?

poor chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:41 AM:Chuck, classy man that he is, man that is terrified of all things "womanly", man who would probably kill you to prove to the world that he is not a pantywaist, is bashing Joe Biden for shedding a tear over the death of his wife. Great stuff, Chuck. You're a real man.

Not qualified wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:44 AM:I agree that Sarah is not qualified, not based on her resume but on who she apparently is. I see her as a member of the campus Christian sorority, including all the back-stabbing-with-a-smile that goes with leadership in those organizations. Her speeches so far have been out of a freshman "Oral Communications" course, well memorized, presenting the "winning personality", showing, under the smile, a raging contempt for others and a flair for sarcasm. Vice President of the United States? LOL

Bob wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:44 AM:Was much impressed with the "new and improved" Sarah! She's a "maverick".

McCain's a "maverick" too.

They're both "mavericks".

I'm sold.

Gwen Backed Off wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:49 AM:How lucky to be in the position of Gwen Ifill. You have to be really careful not to appear to be attacking poor little Sarah. So you go easy. And then you see that going easy is all you have to do: Sarah doesn't need help to show us how shallow she is. Just let her talk! Just let her answer the questions SHE wants to answer rather than the ones you asked. Just allow Americans to sit back and listen, and watch, and decide if they feel that a neighbor randomly picked from a nearby suburb should or could take over the helm of the USA.

Alaska Accent wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:52 AM:One thing has been driving me crazy and perhaps someone here can help. I admit I have never heard an Alaskan accent before, but Sarah Palin sounds exactly like my in-laws who are from Minnesota. Do Minnesota's have the same accent as Alaskans? Why do you suppose that is, when the two states are so far apart? Is that true in any other part of the country?

How is Sarah a maverick wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:55 AM:I don't get this "maverick" thing applied to Sarah Palin. Listen to her positions on every issue. She aligns with Bush more or less perfectly. How is this "maverick"? Because she's a DC outsider? But she's a DC outsider who agrees 99.9% with the President. (I do believe that McCain for years earned his "maverick" label, but he has, sadly, tossed it away for the sake of attaining the Presidency. They should run as "Ex-Maverick/Bush".)

Wanda wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:58 AM:Gosh darn it, Sarah is just so down homey.

Shucks.

Sarah McBush wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:03 AM:Can anyone state specifically in what way the McCain/Palin Administration will differ from Bush/Cheney? I don't mean this "We will get rid of earmarks and overspending" bs, if that was true McCain would be leading the charge against this bailout bill. I mean something they specifically have said they will do that is different than the Bush Administration? Thanks in advance.

Sarah Cheney wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:06 AM:Did it bother anyone else last night when Sarah talked about her ability to "expand vice presidential powers"? On top of her remark printed last week that as governor, she can do anything she wants until the Court tells her she can't, I find this dangerously disturbing. I can't see any difference at all between the Bush/Cheney and the McCain/Palin, with the exception that McCain is older and on the verge of dementia, and Palin is not as smart as Cheney. The Horror!

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:08 AM:>>> is bashing Joe Biden for shedding a tear >>> So what, you've been bashing MCCain and Palin, why cant I bash Biden.
Biden needs a racket like Hussein has. You just get your people to keep buying ads" "If you dont vote for Hussein, you are a racist" The very one calling us racists is a race baiter on par with Jackson and Sharpton

Reardon wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:11 AM:The pols are voting again on passing a pork bill, $110 BILLION more in PURE pork than previously.

If there is a single thing we can learn from the economic crises, it is that enforced egalitarianism – or as the liberals call it, “affirmative action,” failed.

It just did not lightly fail – it was, and is a disaster!

FM Squared has working HARD to get lenders to make loans to racial areas that had been redlined. They were redlined not just because they were minority areas but redlined because the neighborhoods had excess risks in paying back their loans.

Well, they made the loans to those of all races and classes who were risky, and guess what? Those who initially figured the risk were right. Those who wanted affirmative action, to give those of all races a chance at home ownership, were wrong.

Dead wrong!

Not just wrong, but the Compulsory Egalitarianisms, a branch of the Compulsory Utopians, bet not just their fortunes – they bet OUR fortunes! They didn’t just lose – they took all of us down with them.

Yes, there was fraud. Yes, there was greed. All of that was made possible by distorting the marketplace to play in Riskyland paper, with untried financial rules written by politicians.

Affirmative action distorts markets: Financial markets, educational markets, workplace markets -- and sometimes the results cost the entire nation.

It just did.

Liberals will do it again. It’s in their DNA to never learn even disastrous lessons.

Dear Morris Shechet wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:12 AM:God knows and does many things that you and I cannot understand. Understand?

Sarah Envy wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:21 AM:is rampant in here today... Break out the cheese and sour dough!

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:27 AM:>>she can do anything she wants until the Court tells her she can't, I find this dangerously disturbing.>> of course you find it disturbing. Liberals hate that she's a heterosexual, a mother with kids, a hunter, a fisherman, a skinner, owns guns, favors the 2nd amendment, a mayor, a governor and is married to an oil worker. Everything about her disturbs liberals

Does He Whisper In Your Ear Too wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:37 AM:"God knows and does many things that you and I cannot understand. Understand?"

The weakest of arguments. Thank you for making my point.

Liberals Hate wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:38 AM:Then again, Chuck just hates everything.

My Hero wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:39 AM:I have to agree with Karl. Chuck is the funniest guy on this blog! Thanks for the daily laughs, Chuck!

Loss of Compassion wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:46 AM:Chuck at 3:59AM: When your wife and children die in a car crash let us know so we can make fun of your phony tears. Until then, please tell us know of one single example where Biden broke into tears when talking to foreign leaders in his over 30 years in office. What's the matter Chuck, cat got your heartless tonuge?

Ron wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:48 AM:Folks, I just don't know how they do it. I don't.
Yesterday I had asked NObamacan't about NObama's written legal history. Your know> What did he write about as a constitutionaql professor for 12 years? I think that's a reasonable question. Don't you?
Well, then my good buddy "Wizzer"
@5:18 AM has to get into it, and give me a cite. I did ask for one piece, one article, one lesson plan from this Harvard Law School editor, but what I got was a Global Poverty speech, put to print in some magazine.
OK, if that's the only record, the only thing I've got to work with, ok.. I'll go with it.
So, I read the thing, and it is exactly NObama's Global Poverty plan of 2007. If your not aware of what this plan is, it's basically his idea of how to get the world to love us. In short, it's a world-wide welfare program. This, he thinks, will solve ALL the world's problems, because the wealth of the world has not been fairly distributed. Oh, yes.. It's Class-Warfare on a Global level.

So, I get to this one point in his speech, and I read it. It is the wrong REv. Wright's ideology coming through the pages at me. Now, wizz.. as he always does accuses me of lying, taking out of contrest, and misrepresenting.
I did no such thing. You read the passage Wizzer cites, then you tell me, if this is not the wrong Rev. Wright's influence upon Nobama, even though NObama claims he never heard Wright say any such things.

QUOTE: "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... that’s the world on which hope sits!" END QUOTE

Now, my good buddy tells us that passage is intended {as if he's can get into NObama's mind} to show the hopelessness in these countries.
Does it really Wizzer, cause the one phrase blames White Folks as the Cause for the hopelessness.
Their White Greed. Exactly as the wrong Rev. Wright preaches, exactly as Farakhan, exactly as Malcom X.
Exactly.
The White Man is the CAUSE of ALL MY Hopelessness.
Now, you can go on to say that I misstate, lie, and misrepresent NObama, but this is the Heart of this Man.
As taught to him by Frank Davis, Carl Davidson, Gerald Kellman, and the wrong Rev. Wright. Throw in a little crazy Father Pfleger, spice that up with a little Bill "Unrepentant American Terrorist" Ayers.
And you've got yourself , quite a political concoction there.
Wouldn't ya say?

oh Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:53 AM:You bash Biden for crying over his dead wife. I bash Palin for being ignorant about how the government and world works. Hmmm, somehow I think these are not equivalent. And it begs the question: why is crying about that death even something to bash? Chuck should look in on a meeting of a combat veterans PTSD group sometime and see the tears. Chuck might learn that if you love (wife or comrade), and lose the person, you often cry. It's what real men do. But if Chuck insists he's right, then by all means, Chuck, go to that veterans' group and bash them for their tears. Pathetic.

oh Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:55 AM:I think it's ducky that Sarah is straight, hunts, fishes, and is a mother. I don't think it's ducky that she's very ignorant about the world. I don't think it's ducky that she has the vanity to say that her foreign policy decisions will be directed by God. I don't think it's ducky that she would tell my raped daughter that she must go through with the pregnancy. I say: go back to Alaska, Sarah, and be an awesome mother, hunter, fisherperson. Leave me and my country alone.

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:56 AM:>>>You bash Biden for crying over his dead wife.>>> Thats BS. He was crying because the DNC put on his teleprompter to cry, just like they did for Hillary in New Hampshire

Roger wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:57 AM:The 8:55 AM poster just wasn't listening to the debate. I lost track of how many times Sarah refered to herself and John McCain as "mavericks".

She's an "outsider" too.

Not to mention she's just so down homey, just like "Joe Sixpack".

Cute and Spunky too.

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:58 AM:>>Then again, Chuck just hates everything.>>> Just about everything

Ms M wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:59 AM:The following is an excerpt regarding the wall street mess:

Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
....Many events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency’s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

Over the following months and years, each of the firms would take advantage of the looser rules. At Bear Stearns, the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt. The ratios at the other firms also rose significantly.

The commission’s division of trading and markets “became aware of numerous potential red flags prior to Bear Stearns’s collapse, regarding its concentration of mortgage securities, high leverage, shortcomings of risk management in mortgage-backed securities and lack of compliance with the spirit of certain” capital standards, said an inspector general’s report issued last Friday. But the division “did not take actions to limit these risk factors.”

The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”

As was the case with other agencies, the commission’s decision was motivated by industry complaints of excessive regulation at a time of growing competition from overseas. The 2004 decision was aimed at easing regulatory burdens that the European Union was about to impose on the foreign operations of United States investment banks.....

Scotticus wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:04 AM:Ruth has it right. It's incredibly irresponsible for McCain to have picked 'the not ready for prime time' Sarah Palin as his running mate. The sad fact about McCain is that there is a strong possibility that he won't survive his term as president. He is fast approaching the statistical median age of death for American males, he's be the subject of extreme brutality as a POW (which would prematurely age anyone), and he's had Melanoma three times. Add to that the fact that the Presidency has visibly aged every one who has ever held that office, and you can only conclude that if you're planning on voting for McCain, you're likely going to end up with Palin.

Ms M wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:05 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:27 AM:...um Chuck, I think what really and truly disturbs libs about Palin is not because of the wonderful things you stated in your post - what disturbs libs is that she is NOT qualified or smart enough to be VP let alone CIC. The same folks that sing praises of Palin are the same folks who STILL support Bush - and that explains a lot.

Bob wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:11 AM:I'm not sure what the 9:21 AM poster means by "Sarah Envy". Seems to be a lot of people weren't quite stupid enough to buy into the new and improved, down home, golly gee, outsider image.

Insult Humor wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:13 AM:Karl has mentioned that he and his golf buddies enjoy Chuck's humorous posts. I admit I have never seen the humor in Chuck's nastiness, but it did occur to me that there used to be a comedian who made his living off of insult humor by the name of Don Rickles. I believe I understand now why Karl and his friend think Chuck is funny, although Rickles never did appeal to me. It takes all kinds, I guess.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:20 AM:Bob[-] wrote on Oct 3, 2008 8:44 AM: Well pick those Mavericks up at the corral. After all, Mavericks are horses.

chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:20 AM:>>Leave me and my country alone.>>
Now, if your type would only say the same about illegals and terrorists, instead of aiding and abetting them, we'd all be better off. But, we understand why you'd only say that to someone in the other party, especially one that stands for self-responsibilty and morality-- the s 2 concepts hateful to liberals

Three D wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:33 AM:Chuck at 7:25 a.m. tries to quote the Bible, but doesn't quite get it right, as if that should have anything to do with public policy in a secular society.
He says that because God says to "Go forth and multiply" that only couples capable of procreation should be allowed to marry.

Muliply: Actually, the command to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" is given only twice in the Bible. It is not part of the Ten Commandments, Law of Moses or any other general commandment. It is specifically given on two occasions (Gen 1:28 and Gen 9:7), to Adam and Eve and Noah and his sons. In both cases, so the mythology goes, they were the only persons on earth, following the creation accounts and the Great Flood legend, and a command was given specifically to them to begin populating the Earth, kind of like when God specifically commands Jonah to go preach in Nineveh or when he calls someone to a mission in China - it is an individual command, not meant for everyone. After Noah, the command is never again repeated.

Marriage for procreation: Second, there is not one single place in the Bible that says that procreation must be the only reason for marriage. While it is certainly one reason people marry, even the Bible allows that the release of sexual tension is another valid reason. Even the usually strict Paul, with whom I have much disagreement, says in 1st Cor 7:9 that if couples cannot contain their desires, it is "better to marry than to burn" without mentioning procreation. Chuck and others are welcome to marry for whatever reasons they find worthy, but they do not have the right to decide what reasons are valid for anyone else.

Secular Civil Laws: The Bible is not the basis of general laws for our secular society. Many people believe in more metaphorical interpretations of the Bible, or adhere to different faiths based on other sacred texts of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. And many people have no religion at all. For those who voluntarily submit to Bible authority, they may voluntarily accept the same choices that Chuck finds to be right for himself. But again, neither Christians in general nor Chuck in particular have the right to make that choice for anyone but themselves.
Blessings,
3D

Focal Point wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:43 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:56 AM:
Chuck just keeps getting worse today.
You might be funny to others on this blog. Your insensitivity to Biden's moment regarding his deceased wife is beyond the pale. You are acting churlish.

Bill wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:52 AM:Based on new found liberal definitions of qualifications, neither Bill Clinton nor Ronald Reagan were qualified to be President.

Who knew that Reagan or Clinton werent qualified to be President?

Now we are hearing about Palin allegedly wearing a wire?

There are some crackpots in this room.

Insulted wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:54 AM:It's an insult to compare Chuck with the late, great Ron Rickles. Try again.

Chris to Laurie wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:57 AM:On your comment about Palin having all this integrety. What do you base that on. What about her continually lying about the bridge and going back on her word on troopergate. I will submit that you know nothing about Palin exept what you see on TV and yet you think you know all about her.

oh Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 10:57 AM:No, you might recall it was liberals like Obama that said, from day one, "let's get those that attacked us!" Your he-men chose instead to go after the impotent, no-WMD, no-army Saddam. Because Bush needed a war he could win to avoid being a "quagmire" President...and he even got THAT wrong. So while you and McCain were cheerleading the invasion of irrelevant Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda have gotten stronger, the opium crop grew to record sizes, and now we've even lost our allies in the Afghan and Pakistan governments. Yeah, your side is really anti-terrorist. Pathetic. Shameful. McCain/Palin say: stay the course.

Question wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:05 AM:Question for those who like Palin: can you describe for us, specifically, the ways that Palin differs in substance from the policies and philosophy of George W Bush? Please, be specific. What has Palin actually said that differs from what Bush has said or done? Thanks in advance.

Ms M wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:09 AM:Chuck, I hope you are saving your postings to read 30 or 40 years from now when hopefully you may have reached some sort of maturity.

Chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:22 AM:>>> "Go forth and multiply" that only couples capable of procreation should be allowed to marry.>>> Maybe it didnt, but it certainly didnt mean to go into a bathhouse and do what they do, or hop on a parade float and do what they do

Ehem... Does He Whisper In Your Ear Too wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:22 AM:You had a point?

chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:26 AM:>>The Bible is not the basis of general laws for our secular society.>>
Thats for sure.Because "Thou shall not kill, steal, lie or covet" are ignored by liberals The bible teaches self responsibility, the liberals have ripped most vestiges of that out of society and replaced it with SB777

Reardon wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:29 AM:"...poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas..."

attributed to various sources...but proven, daily on this Blog...

chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:30 AM:waaaaaaaa, I wanna be your vice president and you're a racist if you dont vote for Hussein. Does anyone have a tissue?

Catch up Bill wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:32 AM:I criticized Palin before I'd heard her speak for her resume. But for many weeks, I've been criticizing her for who she actually is, as an individual. It is obvious that she knows little about the world or the country. All she has been able to say to us, whom she wants to elect her, have been speeches that she took many days to memorize, hidden from the public all the while. In addition, she has certain philosophical and policy beliefs that I opppose. So, Bill, let's move on from the resume. We all know that there have been many Senators, Governors, and others that have made good VPs and Presidents. We all know that there have been many of each that have not, and could have not, made good VPs and Presidents. It's not the name on the door of the office, it's the person in the office. Palin hasn't got it, charming though she certainly is. Bill, be an honest man for a moment. You must admit that Sarah spent about two weeks after the convention "preparing" to speak to reporters. You saw her with Katie Couric. Sarah sounded like an idiot, completely unfit for the position she is running for, didn't she? Bill? Didn't she? C'mon Bill, what was your honest take on Palin's interviews?

chuck wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:32 AM:>>>when hopefully you may have reached some sort of maturity.>>> that just isnt going to happen. I might say the same of your America & Bush hate posts

Early results are in wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:40 AM:From the Times QUOTE Two quick polls indicated that Biden fared better in the debate. A CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll found that 46 percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Biden won, with 21 percent siding with Palin. A CNN poll found respondents judging Biden the winner by a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent but calling Palin more likable by 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent.

In the 90-minute forum broadcast Thursday night from Washington University in St. Louis, Palin was under intense pressure to show basic competence on issues facing the next president after a series of embarrassing television interviews called into question her readiness for high office. For the most part she appeared confident and folksy, but she also sidestepped certain questions, pivoting at times to talking points and generalities. ENDQUOTE I'm sorry, are we electing "Most Likable" in November? I thought we were voting for President ad Vice President. If we wanted "likable", Art Linkletter and Johnny Carson would be on Mount Rushmore.

Braan n Rail wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:40 AM:Chuck: How do you know what anybody does in a bath house? You seem to speak as an experience expert.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:52 AM:"oh raoul" the guilt ridden white liberal continues his race baiting by suggesting that I state that Obama has succeeded only because he is black.

He also states that Obama was a brilliant teacher at the University of Chicago. I beg to differ. A black non-tenured part time law instructor is highly prized for their presence especially at a liberal school, not necessarily for being brilliant or a scholar.

That goes to my central premise that is such that "oh raoul" cannot challenge it with empirical proof.

In the interest of objectivity, let me quote one of his supporters, Geraldine Ferraro -- "If he were a white man he wouldn't be where he is today."

Is she a racist? Rudi Giuliani basically says the same. As he has a bit more experience than Obama and has hired and fired more people than Obama has known in his life, he knows whereof he speaks. Are all Italian Americans racists?

Remember this, Obama implies that he wanted nothing to do with the anti-Iraq War demonstration organized by his white liberal supporters back in 2002.

He attended and spoke against the looming war not because he even knew where Iraq was as a state senator but because his money people insisted on his appearance.

As to all the Sarah nitpickers here, she made a home run comeback last night and luckily Gwen Ifil didn't pull a Katy Coric weather girl routine in askign questions produced by a resarch staff.

I'll bet Katy the weather girl can't name 5 Supreme Court decisions with Wikipedia to fall back on.

Try MucCulloch v. Maryland...Amistad...
Hernandez v. Texas...The Slaughterhouse cases...Addarand v. Pena... Bakke... Baker v. Carr.

I'll bet weather girl Couric can't even tell us whether or not she disagrees or agrees with the conclusions of the historically important cases.

oh raoul wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:02 PM:I won't comment on your challenge to my sense that you are a racist. Your post is more evidence: Obama was only a prof at Chicago because he's black. And, as always, you insist that the burden be on Obama to prove that this isn't true. (Of course, when there actually IS evidence, such as his being rehired often, when -- you can be sure -- there were other qualified Blacks available, you will say it doesn't count) Yet, you make one assertion after another and offer no proof of a single one. (Start with an easy one: what is your proof that Obama did not know where Iraq was in 2002?) And, like your hero, Sarah Palin, when asked directly about your opinion of how she did with Couric, you cut and ran, saying "it doesn't matter" (aka, "I'll get back to ya!") Raoul, you are a joke, and a racist joke at that. You insult your profession (if it's journalism) with each new spun lie.

oh raoul wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:06 PM:Sorry, one more quickie. I don't know or care whether Couric can name Supreme Court cases. She isn't running for the second highest office in the land. She is not in contention for becoming the person who might have to appoint the next Supreme Court justices. Remember? Sarah Palin is actually running for office. And she seems to be a dunce, based purely on the evidence of her behavior, not on rumor-mongering. You should try an evidence-based approach to reporting sometime. It's quite refreshing to bask in the clear light of truth. Oh, never mind.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:09 PM:Joe Biden veteran Senator, lawyer with low law school grades who barely practiced law before Delaware sent him to D.C. totally fell on his constitutional face last night.

Where was his "constitutional scholar" boss Obama when Biden totally messed up the Constitution?

The duties are not in Article 1 of the Constitution, Senator Biden; they are in Article II.

The Vice President is always the President of the Senate according to Article II; not just when there is a tie vote. He can only vote when there is a tie and that is clearly defined in article II.

Senator Biden does not know the Constitution of the United States and apparently doesn't know what his duties as Vice President might be if he is elected to that job.

What a flake!

Randy wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:11 PM:The government has taken $700 billion from taxpayers and given it to bail out Wall St. fat cats. So much for, "Thou shalt not steal." This bailout will solve nothing, so the next bailout will be for double the current bailout, or $1.4 trillion. If a problem won't go away, just keep throwing someone else's money at it. That's the American way!

But Sarah Was Masterful wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:12 PM:Golly gee, Sarah may not be the devil incarnate but she is still not V.P. material.
Actually, she is if you want someone who baffles with bull because she hasn't the capacity to dazzle with brilliance.
That's not to say that she is dumb, she just does not have a working knowledge of the economy and foreign affairs.
Gosh darn it, a pit-mom, hockey-bull is not what America needs to be the person who is "a heartbeat" away from being President.
Shucks, foooey!

To have been a fly on the wall wrote on Oct 3, 2008 12:15 PM:Thinking about Palin's performance last night, I'd have given anything to have been a fly on the wall during the many days that she was being 'prepped' for the debate. I have a strong feeling that at first, the trainin