Floyd wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:03 AM:Now that it has been determined that Gov. Palin has violated ethics laws in Alaska, she should be much more appealing to Democrats who tend to vote such people into office. This makes her a truly bipartisan candidate.

Stuff happens wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:58 AM:As the prospect and reality of a President Obama draws near Republicans are sure to blame the loss, of course through no fault of their own, on the economy. History, to be sure, will record it was the tipping point turning a squeaker into a landslide.
After eight years of Bush the Democrats had an edge, but, all things being equal, would we have elected an African-American? Or a woman if Hillary would’ve voted against the Iraq war for political purposes instead of for the war for political purposes? Could McCain have won in a straight up fight against either? We’ll never know. But consider this:
Would Bush have won in 2000 without Monica Lewinsky?
Would Clinton have won in 1992 without “It’s the economy, stupid,” and/or Ross Perot?
Would Reagan have won without the Iranian hostage crisis?
Would Carter have won without Watergate?
Would Nixon have won without Vietnam?
And so on.
Challengers cannot control the events that lead to their elections, they just take advantage of them. The incumbent Party always is to blame for the things that lead to their worst nightmare succeeding them.
And so it goes in 2008.

Yes On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:37 AM:Protect moral conscience from intolerant charges of bigotry, the next step.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:05 AM:I went shopping for a street legal golf cart yesterday and came away very disapointed. I found out that by California law, street legal golf carts are only allowed in 35 MPH zones or less. Heck, I can hardly get out of my neighborhood so what's the point? If I buy a SLGC I still cannot drive the 3 blocks to Vons or visit my parents that live 2 miles away.

I was told that Palm Desert recently passed an ordinance to allow street legal golf carts in 45 MPH zones. I plan on lobbying Escondido's City Council to raise the limit for these golf carts to 45 MPH. Please lob a phone call/email/letter to Escondido's City council and help me and many others make use of petrol free transportation.

If I can get this ordinance passed, you will see me humming around Escondido and possibly Restaurant Row in San Marcos in a black cart with yellow flames.

Peace

Rush wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:05 AM:Just wanted to thank Ralph Anderson for his letter, letting us know AM radio reception in San Marcos is strong as ever.

Tune in again today and I'll feed you some more talking points to regurgitate.

Don't try think for yourself, you're obviously not equiped for it.

Thanks again.

As you sow so shall you reap wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:21 AM:I always thought John McCain was a decent man. When he allowed his campaign to be hijacked by the scorched Earth elements, the very same people who smeared him in 2000, I began to wonder.
Princess Sarah the Barracuda has been fostering an almost lynch mob mentality at her rallies. Cries of “terrorist”, “traitor” and “kill him”, yes, “kill him”, are heard from the crowds. Certain segments of the Republican Party do not need encouragement in this regard.
The shame and embarrassment on McCain’s face was there for all to see last night when he had to defend Obama against insinuations from his own supporters. And got booed.
The one guy said he was scared, scared mind you, to raise his newborn under an Obama Presidency. The lady actually said that Obama was an Arab. McCain was forced to concede his opponent was not, in fact, an Arab. Unbelievable.
When a candidate plays dirty and wins, he gets to be President and most people forget how he won. If they lose, they get forgotten. In McCain’s case, he’ll have to return to the Senate. Does he go back with any shred of dignity?
It’s his choice now.

To Janet Price wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:55 AM:You are misinformed. In the (Republican majority) 109th Congress, 2005-2006, bills were introduced in the House and Senate to revamp the oversight of Fannie and Freddie. The House version of the bill was the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, HR1461 and the Senate version was Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S190. The bills were very similar. HR1461 was introduced in April 5, 2005, subsequently amended, and passed the House on October 26, 2005 by a 331-90 vote, with both Democrats and Republicans voting for it. S190 was introduced in the Senate on Jan 26, 2005, sponsored by Hagel and co-sponsored by Dole and Sununu. McCain was not originally a co-sponsor, and only later tried to sign on after it had already died. S190 was discussed in the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005 with the result, "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably", which I believe is Congress speak for, "we don't like this, please go rewrite it and we may reconsider", i.e., the bill died in a Republican controlled committee and never came to the floor of the Senate or back to the Senate Banking Committee for reconsideration.

In any case, this bill alone would not have solved anything. Not only would it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority, but it actually would have increased the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance.

And FYI: Obama does have the American Flag on the side of his plane. Take a look for yourself, and don't believe every email that fills your inbox.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:16 AM:Happy Saturday to all - what a beautiful day in San Diego! I thought I'd start the day off on this blog with a little humor. The following excerpt is from an article posted on the net:
.....Now, as he spends his last months in office trying to avert a global economic collapse, Mr. Bush has been telling people privately that it’s a good thing he’s in charge......Oh my - now you folks have a great day!

To Lisa Prazeau wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:29 AM:Once again another freak-out liberal woman in the letters against Gov. Palin and Senator McCain about sending their son off to war. You must keep your kids under rap. The young men signed on the dotted line to join up. They were not drafted as some of you 60's stuck folks think. You just as usual want to control everybody. AND quit this thing of "unqualified" You need to look up the Constitution about it. Oh and don't go by Biden because he does not even know what article it is under!

Yes On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:32 AM:Maintain the traditional definition of marriage: between a man and a woman.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:51 AM:I guess that post election day "Yes on 8" will be posting "Write letters to the U.S. Supreme Court".

Roger wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:54 AM:John McCain has decided to take the "high road"?

Does this mean he'll be taking the "LYNCH OBAMA" bumper sticker off his limo?

No On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:57 AM:Maintain equal protection under the law: marriage is defined as between one adult and another adult.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:13 AM:Republicans are now the party of hate and anger. When I see the LIES in today's letters from Ralph Anderson (no, Obama will have been at his 24/7/365 Senate job 1,477 days by the time he is sworn in - TEN TIMES what you give him credit for, and 1,477 days more than Clinton, Reagan, either Bush, Carter or Eisenhower served in the Senate) and Janet Price (no, Obama has often worn U.S. flag pins over the years and has freely led the Pledge), and then witnessed the racial ephithets, calls for violence and outright hatred shown by hateful Republican extremists at McCain rallies, I wonder if this is really possible.
Then I read some of the hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages - and, gee golly whiz, I don't even have to specify who I am referring to, everyone knows right away - and have to shake my head in sadness that we even have a fair dose of this nastiness right in our own community.
Sad. Scary.

Debate Facts wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:25 AM:Lee Davis' letter is correct that there is serious media bias, but has the direction backward.
The "mainstream" media, owned by the corporate Wall Street titans who benefit from conservative corruption and corporate welfare, strongly favor the Republicans and are terrified of real reform.
In "fact checking" the debate, the biggest omissions were in McCain's outright LIES.

McCain LIED about earmarks, failing to note that he selected as his running mate the governor whose state had the highest per-capita earmarks in the entire nation and TWENTY TIMES those of Obama's state. And the issue is not just the earmarks, but the HYPOCRISY. Obama is the real reformer, not McCain, but McCain is making his assault on ALL earmarks (rather than selectively on merit or not) a core issue of his campaign. In contrast, Obama does not seek a blanket ban on ALL earmarks, because some have merit, but actually worked across party lines with ultraconservative Republican Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) to actually pass an earmark reform bill that requires transparency, and that all earmark requests be posted online. A scalpel, not a hatchet (is that too nuanced for conservatives?)

McCain LIED about Obama's record on taxes, as many media reports did confirm, though not the North County Times.

When Obama sought a moment extra to rebut the lies, corporate lackey Brokaw would not allow it, and "moved on" to other issues.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:32 AM:Re: Yes On 8 (8:32 a.m.)
As has been pointed out here so many times (thank you 3D), "traditional" Bible-based marriage consists of one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe, in an arranged marriage, maintaining "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
I'm sure this blogger supports the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints) who want to return us to traditional marriage as defined by the Bible and practiced throughout most of history.
The rest of us will vote to PROTECT FAMILIES and DEFEND MARRIAGE: vote NO on 8.

Re: She Said (8:51 a.m.)
Nice effort, but a factual correction: whether Prop 8 passes or fails, it is not subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court since the case was decided ONLY based on the Calfornia Constitution.
However, IF Prop 8 fails, it changes the state Constitution, which effectively overrules the decision.
If that happens, the California court could still declare it unconstitutional, but that would then have to be based on the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, which would then be subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:34 AM:After the election it's going to be fun to see the Obamaites continually have to defend why their new president Barrack hasn't been able to get anything done.

NO on Prop. 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:38 AM:Protect us from returning to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Protect us from the drivel of religious fanatics.

Keep the right of equal protection under the law alive,

Vote NO on Prop. 8.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:41 AM:As old as he is, McCain never learned to be careful when you let the dogs loose. Sometimes they'll come back and bite you. His shameful campaign tactics have caused him to sink so low in the polls he had to repudiate his own message yesterday. "Obama is not an Arab, he is an honorable man." And "you, your wife and child don't need to be afraid if Obama is elected president." His own followers booed him. Nut-wing radio isn't going to like those remarks at all and I can't wait to hear what Rush has to say on Monday. I think McCain is also thinking of the debate on Wednesday when he promised to tell Obama to his face that he is a terrorist by association. I suspect, though, he's actually too much of a coward to actually do it.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:43 AM:Karl @ 7:05: I think Palm Desert has special street legal golf cart lanes which they can set speed limits. A part of their general plan.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:47 AM:...."The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election."...WOW, but we aren't surprised are we? And they are the duo who is going to clean up Washington - PATHETIC. Somewhat par for the party - got enough America?

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:50 AM:Well, "She Said" at 8:51AM,
"Yes On 8" and people like that person don't do not understand that the U.S. Supreme Court hears only cases brought before it as the ultimate legal authority from a case of a lower court.
Vote No on Prop. 8.
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:50 AM:He Said
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:34 AM:...we shall see won't we. He will have a majority in congress so it will be very interesting - I am so looking forward to having a change in our country.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:56 AM:Um, "Apollo" at 9:32AM,
I think you made a boo-boo.
You said "IF Prop 8 fails, it changes the state Constitution, which effectively overrules the decision.".
I think that you meant to say -
"IF Prop 8 PASSES, it changes the state Constitution, which effectively overrules the decision."
Regards, Alf.

Predictions wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:59 AM:He Said at 9:34 a.m. echoes the pathetic comments of the letter writer several days ago who talked about a "Told Ya So Club."
Just because Republicans have failed to achieve anything but one domestic and international and financial disaster after another, does not mean that Democrats won't return to our long traditions of peace, prosperity and competence.

Why should we put the slightest stock in doom and gloom predictions of negative, pessimistic Republicans who have not gotten one thing right in the last eight years?

As Poppy said so eloquently several days ago, we have been in the Told Ya So Club for the last eight years and there is no joy in it.

Poppy wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:00 AM:"Floyd
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:03 AM:Now that it has been determined that Gov. Palin has violated ethics laws in Alaska, she should be much more appealing to Democrats who tend to vote such people into office."

I call you out as a slanderous liar and a troublemaker, sir. McCain picked Palin for his VP. Lose with it.

Wanda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:04 AM:I suppose now that John McCain has decided to take the "high road" he won't be showing up for the debate in his Ku Klux Klan outfit after all.

To Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:05 AM:If you are too selfish to share the use of the word marriage then let's just get rid of the term altogether and everyone use Legal Partnerships. Why should you get your way and your equals do not?

To He Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM:"He Said
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:34 AM:After the election it's going to be fun to see the Obamaites continually have to defend why their new president Barrack hasn't been able to get anything done."

You have my sympathy. We watched you defend your President for eight years and you look even more deperate every day. It sucks to be you.

Observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM:To no on 8 who wrote at 8:57

You define marriage as between one adult and another. Can I marry my good looking first cousin? A very slippery slope we're going down

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:10 AM:It's not just the intentional omissions, Lee Davis.
It's the out-in-out mimicking of the daily talking points from the messiah {small "m"}.

Personally, I have not seen one article about how difficult it was for Old Joe O'Biden to switch gears, flip-flop, 180 degree spin job from "the Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training", to now: Most Qualified?
Huh?

Not to mention, the key reason NObama chose O'Biden was for his foreign policy expertise, yet.. NOBiden has been wrong on so many occasions, it is laughable that the press has not gone through NObiden's record.

Many other under-reported NObama's changing positions: sittin down without preconditions, NObama & Biden have said two completely different things about
clean coal, depending on which State they were in.

It is beyond omissions, it is an out-in-out Love Affair with the idea of a Barackous NObamous presidency, the liberal bias will be the hangover America will feel soon after he fails to do what he now says.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:12 AM:Re: Alf (9:56 a.m.)
Argh! Ya got me! Fair and Square! It was indeed a boo-boo by me and your correction is what I intended.

I guess it is just too hard to spit out the words "Prop 8 passes."
Ouch! It hurt just typing it!

And your blog at 9:50 a.m. is also exactly right. The U.S. Supreme Court is only an appellate court; it does not have "original jurisdiction" with certain specified exceptions, in Article III section 2 of the Constitution, such as one state suing another state or matters of international diplomacy in which one party claims diplomatic immunity - obviously none of which apply in this instance.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 AM:OBAMACAN @ 9:13 AM: is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black in regards to "hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages". I hope that both Democrats and Republicans sink each other. They don't have much further to go. When Obama wins he will be the victim of a witch hunt much more vicious than that of Clinton or Bush. Good job OBAMCAN, keep it up.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:27 AM:Ms M @ 9:47 AM:

Polititians violating ethics standards? Tell me it isn't so. I thought all polititians were as clean as the driven snow.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:28 AM:to Alf @ 9:50: The Supreme Court also does not make their decisions based on letters, emails, etc. But, I wouldn't put it past the Yes on 8'ers to frantically try anything.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:32 AM:to He Said @ 9:34.. Are you sure you're not Ron in a shorter verbiage form?

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:35 AM:I would like to thank the Liberals on this Blog for their high-class, and liberal attitudes – as demonstrated just today by: “he's actually too much of a coward” and “in his Ku Klux Klan outfit” and “corporate lackey Brokaw” and “"LYNCH OBAMA" bumper sticker off his limo” and lynch mob mentality” and all the while decrying “hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages.”

Amazing hypocricy.

Ms M wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:37 AM:Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 AM:...he may be subjected to a witch hunt but it won't deter him from being a "great" president. He will stay on his course just as he doing in his campaign. After being called a terrorist, accused of being unpatriotic among other things, he still stands above this madness looking and acting so presidential. Oh, by the time the election is over, any witch hunt will be an exercise in futility. If there was ANYTHING, ANYTHING at all, we would not be hearing about Ayers.

To Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:44 AM:"Karl
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 AM:OBAMACAN @ 9:13 AM: is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black in regards to "hateful, nasty, vicious blogs in these pages"."

I specifically asked you for an example of Obama/Biden using hateful, nasty, vicious attacks on McCain/Palin and you told me if I didn't know you weren't going to tell me.

McCain and Palin's disgrace is now out there for everyone to see and repudiate, including high powered conservative members of their own party.

Karl, using a blogger on this page is not an example. Chuck trumps anyone here for nastiness in any case.

Try again.

Your Cous wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:47 AM:Observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM: You probably could if you both can pass the blood test required by the state and if state law permits such an arrangement.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:51 AM:Well, "Apollo" at 10:12AM,
I understand when you say "Ouch! It hurt just typing it!"
One reason that I oppose religion being interjected into law is that religion does not use logic, reason or rational thought as its basis, religion uses faith and emotion.
Propositions like Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 (and "good-old" Prop. 83) are emotion-based. Props 4 and 83 were "named laws", "Sarah's Law" and "Jessica's Law" respectively.
The strange part is that, while there actually was a "Jessica" for which Prop. 83 was written, there is NO "Sarah" for which Prop. 4 was written, NO "Sarah" involved at all.
I NEVER vote for a "named law" specifically because naming a law is supposed to be an emotional appeal, a "tug at the heart-strings".
When writing and enacting laws emotion SHOULD be "checked at the door"
so that "cool heads can prevail".
Logic, rational thought and reason are the components of a wise law,
emotion is the prime component of an unwise and probably un-Constitutional law.
Regards, Alf.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:57 AM:ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

* Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
* In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Poppy wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:58 AM:Karl says, "When Obama wins he will be the victim of a witch hunt much more vicious than that of Clinton or Bush."

And when that happens we will lay the blame on McCain and his handlers, where it belongs, for running a campaign that incites hate without rebuke. That blame will be shared with the viscious right wing talking liars like Limbaugh and Hannity. They will be disgraced and no longer relevant.

The American people will no longer tolerate hate and fear from their political leaders. Obama has a presidential challenge ahead of him but I am confident he was put here exactly at this time because he is capable of rising to this challenge. McCain is clearly NOT.

Ron often asks why, if McCain is so bad, why Obama's lead is not more significant? Consider the fact that a virtually unknown black man has risen in such a momentious and powerful shot to be in sight of leading the world's most powerful nation means Obama had to come from far behind in the beginning and overcome great obstacles to achieve even this much.

As the time grows near and more people see what Obama is made of, his numbers grow to double digit leads.

We, the American People will quell the witchhunts and viscious attacks. We will once again gather together strong and prosperous, as we face a future with a strong new leader with ethics, grace, vision and intelligence.

Read it and weep, you who cling to the old ideologies. Your day is done. We are ready to face the future.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:59 AM:PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
PROPOSITION 9
This

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:01 AM:To Karl @ 10:44 AM:

I was addressing you and no one else. I was not addressing the DNC. Reardon generalizes the same thought at 10:35 AM this morning. Thank you Reardon, I thought I was the only one who sees the hypocrisy here.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:02 AM:ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF
PROPOSITION 8 ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 8

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman.

Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.

YES on Proposition 8 does three simple things:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

The narrow decision of the California Supreme Court isn’t just about “live and let live.” State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage. (Education Code § 51890.) If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn’t be forced on us against our will.

Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.

However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

CALIFORNIANS HAVE NEVER VOTED FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. If gay activists want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for the rest of society. That is the wrong approach.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 RESTORES the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Voting YES overturns the decision of four activist judges. Voting YES protects our children.

Please vote YES on Proposition 8 to RESTORE the meaning of marriage

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:05 AM:Poppy @ 10:58 AM:

I certainly hope you are right "We, the American People will quell the witchhunts and viscious attacks". I do however doubt it will happen. This crap has been going on for a long time and is getting worse with each new year.

From the Bear wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:06 AM:OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION—the law of our land—SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE—NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That’s what this election is about—equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.

Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

That’s why Proposition 8 is wrong for California.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech.

PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That’s just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY.

In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV, or do in our private lives. We don’t need Prop. 8; WE DON’T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.

REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT MARRIAGE.

When you’re married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE, AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need.

EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. Prop. 8 separates one group of Californians from another and excludes them from enjoying the same rights as other loving couples.

Forty-six years ago I married my college sweetheart, Julia. We raised three children—two boys and one girl. The boys are married, with children of their own. Our daughter, Liz, a lesbian, can now also be married—if she so chooses.

All we have ever wanted for our daughter is that she be treated with the same dignity and respect as her brothers—with the same freedoms and responsibilities as every other Californian.

My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently, and now the law doesn’t treat them differently, either.

Each of our children now has the same rights as the others, to choose the person to love, commit to, and to marry.

Don’t take away the equality, freedom, and fairness that everyone in California—straight, gay, or lesbian—deserves.

grj wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:09 AM:So the McCain/Palin rallys stir up hate, fits right up there with god told us to go to war in iraq and all kinds of war mongering mentality that goes on with America trying to save the world. How bout signing up those thousands of gang memebers who currently are destroying a good peaceful environment in our society they are already versed in killing mentality.

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:11 AM:Well Ms M @ 10:37 AM, while I do not share your optimism about an Obama presidency I would prefer that you are right and I am wrong on this one.

Since shortly after the war broke out I placed a 30 foot banner across the back of my house facing the golf course that states "God Bless our Troops and our President". My liberal friends have asked if I will remove the "President" part if Obama is elected. My answer of course is "Hell No".

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:13 AM:To Alf and all who want a no vote on prop 8. Stop all the back and forth about the supreme court. We can all see you have a brain. Gay marriage is just a weird concept all together. I have a grandson who quite frankly shouldnt have to witness two guys kissing in public. More explaining to do. And lets go down this road. If prop 8 is defeated and I take my grandson or grand-daughter to the movies to see a remake of the little mermaid, is it ok for Ariel to have a female love interest? Are you guys getting my point or is this all "AGE APPROPRIATE"?

Bob wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:15 AM:Regarding Reardon's 10:35 AM post, I would have to guess that some of the liberal posts you've quoted are a response to comedy of the ethically challenged McCain, who's campaign as been 100% negative attack ads, deciding as a last gasp to "take the high road".

Espero wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:23 AM:Observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:08 AM:You can marry anybody and anything if anybody and anything can fill out the marriage license, pass the blood test and pay the fee as provided for and defined by the individual state. It is the individual state that gives the definition of marriage and the qualification for same within its state boundaries. It is interpreted by the individual State Supreme Court. The only time it would be challenged is if the language, purpose and practice of the defined marriage was in some way conflicted with the Federal Constitution.

He Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:24 AM:Poppy @ 10:58: "he was put here exactly at this time because he is capable of rising to this challenge". Exactly who put him here? Sincerely, that is one of the funniest, dreamboat, ridiculous statements I've heard on these blogs ever. Divine intervention? Yeah, that's right!! You'd have a tough time getting that past most libs. I bet it sucks to be a fanatic.

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:36 AM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:13 AM:No one has to be married in order to kiss or hold hands publicly. Public affection is not age appropriate for very young children to observer. You are entitled to your opinion as it governs yourself and those under your charge. The rest of the public does not care what you think. Yes it is appropriate for Ariel to have a female love interest. Movie makers produce a product that sells. If it sells, such an interest might be in the remake. If it doesn't, then such scenes will not be present. You not only want to censor movies but also life. You need to wake up. Life is for real. It is not a rehearsal. It is real.

Wanda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:41 AM:Bob at 11:15 AM is on to something. How can you not laugh when, after 24/7 of "Obama palls around with Bill Ayers", McCain decides to "take the high road"?

Has he mentioned this to the McCain / Palin campaign folks?

Did Charles Keating tell him, "You might not want to go there, John"?

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:47 AM:I don't know if "Poppy" @10:58 AM is smoking the poppy, or drank the kool-aid, but Dude... get a grip on yourself.

This entire post is right out of the fantasical ravings, bordering on the lunacy, as only the Cult of Barackous NObamous can produce.

Let me, burst your bubble.
The only thing that will come to Washington D.C. should Nobama become elected, is the Thugocracy, Chicago-style.

Personally, I can not wait. I'll be one of the many in the "I told you so" choir. Yes, we will see the "95% tax cut" vanish, right into the Bill Clinton/Liberal Democrat's of 93 tax plans of down to the $33K a year increases, plus retroactive to the prior year.
Yes, we will need to tighten our belts, for me personally, it will be easier, I'll buy a couple of cups less a week at Starbucks, but the result of that will be more lay-off's from Starbucks who make min. wage.

And you won't be able to lay blame on anyone but NObamous because he will be THE ONE who'll bring it on, himself.
The one thing I do foresee by a Pelosi/Reid/Nobamous reign of terror, is the reduction of freedom of speech.

Since NObamous has said to "his following" to "get in their faces", the cult of NObamous will attempt to shutdown all venues they perceive as
hate and fear, as directed by the most far Left political leaders.

NObamous simply is NOT up to the
presidential challenge ahead of him.
But he'll have Old Joe NoBiden at his side to be wrong nearly all of the time.

McCain is bad, but NObama would be worse, way worse. Which is why NObamous can not close the deal. Which is why the Liberals are coming ut in full force, beating down on their own union, blue collar people who they fear will not go the way of the socialist NObama. They will, of course, blame them for NObama's loss, not because they disagree with him on policy, they have turned, and played the race card on white blue-collar worker's, and will blame them should NObama lose.
It's already pre-set.
Which is why you have James Carville, amid other's saying there will be race riots, if the messiah {small "m"} loses.
And from my ear to the ground, I'm hearing the people who were chanting "kill" inside the McCain/Palin crowds were Liberal plants {yes, just as Hillary planted questioners} for the ready-made NObama press to report.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:50 AM:From today's New York Times (Excerpt): Mr. LaBolt emphasized that Project Vote and Acorn were not as intertwined at that time as they are today, when a significant part of Project Vote’s revenues flow to Acorn and various of its affiliates as payment for services.

But according to Sam Graham-Felsen, who blogs on the Obama campaign’s Web site, Mr. Obama himself linked his 1992 work to Acorn in a meeting with Acorn’s leaders in November.

“Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work,” Mr. Obama said, according to a post Mr. Graham-Felsen made in February.
(UNQUOTE)

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:51 AM:Well, "observer" at 11:13AM,
go back a few decades and your post could have just as easily have been a letter to the editor against interracial marriage. Imagine having your grandchild being exposed to a black man kissing a white woman or a white Minnie Mouse having a black love interest.
I am not in favor of two people performing tongue examinations of the other's tonsils in public no matter which gender combination they are.
Does that mean that it should be illegal?
NO!
You have a right to say your selfish and discriminatory words and I have a right to disagree with you.
Regards, Alf.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:52 AM:Military must stop railroading our soldiers Well, Reg George you recommend that a ten million dollar bounty be placed on Ben Ladin's head and the job turned over to Blackwater. The bounty is already 25 million on Ben Ladin's head. Blackwater is too busy picking up easy money in Iraq.

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:59 AM:to yo yo

I woke up years ago and see things quite clearly. This social experiment is going to be a disaster.

Roger wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:59 AM:Well Reardon (at 10:35 AM) some of us find it humorous that the "NEW AND IMPROVED" John McCain now wants to take the "HIGH ROAD" after his entire campaign has been vapid attempts at character assassination of Obama.

His bumper sticker actually reads "LYNCH THAT ONE" :)

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:02 PM:Well, "Yo Yo" at 11:36AM,
I live my life as if it will cease when my body dies.
Having smashed 3 vertebrae is quite real enough for me.
This ain't a rehearsal, not for me.
That's part of what makes Alf who he is.
Regards, Alf.

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM:to Alf.

You distorted what I said. Im not talking about going back decades. Come on, give me a flipping break. Were talking about today. Dont rationalize this to make it work for your way of thinking

madscipiper wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM:Because it is marriage, damn it!
Calling it a civil union, or being willing to allow the gays to pay for a lawyer to draw up contracts to protect their families is as 'civil' as asking us to sit at the back of the bus, or drink from that fountain over there. Sure, the seats are comfy and the water is wet, yet it diminishes me and mine as less than fully human.

Civil unions is a clear message that we are not worthy---it's marriage lite, without full protection or respect for our commitment to each other, leaving us and our children vulnerable to the vagaries of popular opinion.

Of course I understand why people fight it, because it weakens the arsenal of bigotry---if we call it marriage, it 'legitimizes' homosexuality. Give the blessings of government sanctioned marriage to 'the gays' and our children will grow up thinking it's, gasp, "normal". How ever will we be able to teach them 'the gays' are demons when they are registering for gifts at the china store? The most threatening thing about gay marriage is that it makes us less threatening.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM:To From The Bear: I have asked this before, and no one wishes to tackle it with specific answers – perhaps you will:

You state: “In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That’s what this election is about—equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.”

Does your definition ("All") include polygamy? Marriage” of blood relatives?”

“ALL” is a VERY inclusive term.

If “All” does not REALLY mean ALL, who gets to set the terms of society? The people or the Courts?

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:24 PM:Re: Observer (10:08 a.m.)
For your info, in most states, it is perfectly legal for "Kissin' cousins" to marry.
And I don't know why the conservatives can't get it through those stubborn heads that the Supreme Court decided the case based on the CONSTITUTIONAL prohibition of GENDER discrimination. There is no analogous Constitutional equivalent based on consanguinity (proximity of "blood" relationships).

Re: Karl (11:05 a.m.)
Kind of dangerous, isn't it, making references to "witch hunts" after that video circulating of pastor Muthee (who had actually persecuted women in Africa for being "witches" - talk about your literal "witch hunt") laying on of hands to Sarah Palin to cast out "all manner of WITCHCRAFT."

And about politicians being "clean as the driven snow," have you ever seen snow that has been driven in?

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:27 PM:>>>Read it and weep, you who cling to the old ideologies. Your day is done. We are ready to face the future.>>>

Surely, only someone who has smoked the poppy, or drank the NObama kool-aid could come up with a statement like this?
Eh.. "Poppy" @10:58 AM?

The Thugocracy that WILL come to Washington should Barackous NObamous be elected, will astound many.
Given his personal predilection of collecting unto himself so many radical, and questionability criminal charactors that surround him, it is any wonder why those who claim to see so clearly, are so fooled.
The protection racketeering by the MSM that surrounding the NObamaman now, will slowly give way as Nobamous, if elected, will begin to throw them under the bus, as he has done to all those who disappoint him. This is the pattern of the messiah {small "m"}.
Just as the press supposedly lost all judgement and objectivity during the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the hangover after the election of NObama, will be worse. The installing of sliding scale socialists inside the buearocracy of the Central government will be massive, preventing any future administration from dismantling it. This was the genius of FDR, and his Raw Deal. Once installed, as Ronald Reagan once said: "The next best thing to enternal life, is a government program."

In my own opinion, this economic downturn, which I predicted would come as a result of borrowing to fund entitlement programs for decades, is probably arrived just in time.
It will limit some of the damage, but it certainly will not stop them from trying to install more programs and systems that will last for generations, just as we have seen the New Deal diasters coming home to roost.
It's a time of choosing folks,
Do you want a government so entrenched into your everyday lives, or is it time to throw off the socialist tendencies and encroachments that have been at the heart of our failing economic system?
Your already poorer as a result of liberal government interventionism.
How much more blood do you really want them to suck from yur life, and livihood?

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:29 PM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM: Well, my friend. How do you feel about a black man kissing a white women in public today? Should it be against the law? What is your opinion about biracial marriage today? No. you will not get a flippin break.

Surfer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:31 PM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:17 PM: That is what you are doing,Dude. Your rationalizing to hour way of thinking? See Ya!

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:48 PM:to yo yo

I have NO problem with blacks, whites or whoever. I have absolutly No problem with a biracial marriage. Stick to the topic

Mutiny wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:53 PM:Time to jump off the sinking ship and declare mutiny. The SSS McCain is sinking...lies, dishonesty and stupidity are taking that ship to the bottom of the ocean. Palin is Guilty. McCain has no clue (neither does Palin). Stop yer Republiscums vicious, unfounded attacks. Barack Obama is a true Christian and deserves to be in the White House.

I Am wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:54 PM:I am proud to be an American.
What makes me sad is that our national reputation both here and abroad has been destroyed by our lame duck president and the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration, of which McCain has supported more often than he has opposed.
What makes me sad is that our country told manufactured lies about WMDs, in order to knowingly invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our men, women, and chidren in our homeland. What makes me sadder is that our focus is STILL on that country, rather than rightfully turning our attention to the perpetrators of the heinous crimes against our people.
I am proud to be an American.
Day in and day out I wake up, tend to the needs of my family, work dutifully at my job, try to give back to my community, all the while I wonder where my government is for me. Oh! That’s right… since I am not in the upper echelons of the “have’s” and “have mores” I simply don’t exist in their eyes. I am simply collateral damage in this class warfare whereby somehow the fruits of our deregulated economy are supposed to trickle down to me.
Oh wait. Due to deregulation, heavily supported by John McCain, there are no fruits that can trickle down. And oh wait! Nothing actually does trickle down to me and my family, since (when there have been ebbs rather than flows) those in the have and have more status don’t pay taxes equitable in ratio to what I pay in taxes.
I am proud to be an American.
I believe in the words indoctrinated in the Declaration of Independence that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
ALL men and women.
All men and women created EQUAL.
I believe in the power of the words to inspire a country’s people to believe in an existance of a nation that can restore faith in democracy, faith in members of its society from all classes, faith in all people from all orientations, faith in people from all backgrounds, and restore our dignity and respect.
The past 8 years have not worked for our great nation. We cannot risk more of the same with John McCain and Sarah Palin.
I am proud to be an American.
I am proud to be a Democrat.
I am proud to believe in the power of motivation for a greater cause.
I am proud to be a Barack Obama supporter.

Interesting wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:57 PM:Interesting that Mark Foley, Craig, Haggart, Allen, Murphy and others (all republicans) got caught engaging in sex acts with other males. Maybe if they had suppressed their same sex urges and been able to openly date/marry someone of the same sex, then things wouldn't have turned out so bad for them. Vote No on 8. Those voting yes better look in the mirror because you too might be suppressing your feelings for those of the same sex.

Yes On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:19 PM:The decision of the California Supreme Court could have be challenged by an appeal to the US Supreme Court for the use of 'legal jujitsu' to make its equal protection ruling. According to the CA Constitution (Article 2, section 10 (c), 'The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.' There is a plausible argument that the California Supreme Court violated the DUE PROCESS clause of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court could easily pull rank on the California Supreme Court. Apollo's hope that limiting the decision to intrepretation of the California Constitution to preclude a appeal to the US Supreme Court is just a hope that the US Supreme Court will not employ 'legal jujitsu'. In the new world of political courts pandering to special interests, such a hope will not last long. Since Prop 8 was already in process, that is the first step in the journey.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:23 PM:It looks as if the last nail has been driven into the coffin of Reagonomics/unregulated capitalism. Yesterday Bush (who for years has been telling us to be afraid) paraphrased FDR's "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" when he said "anxiety can feed on anxiety." And when Paulson says that the Treasury Department was working on a plan to buy equity in "a broad array of financial institutions," he really means he is nationalizing those institutions. This is the stake that will destroy the monster of Reaganomics and it's almost as if FDR himself is pounding it in. I've lost plenty in this catastrophe, but at least as a liberal I get the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." I also anticipate the enjoyment of listening to the neo-cons screaming "socialism, Marxism, commmunism."

Poor Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:29 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:02 PM: It's no wonder you and your kind are in so much fear today, I read your posts, I guess in your mind, this is as good as it will get, What a sad way to get through life.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:33 PM:Well, "observer" at 12:17PM,
I am and was pointing out that the "arguments" which you present against homosexual marriage and the acceptance thereof, are, essentially, the same as were used to argue against inter-racial marriage.
The weakness, the basis in fear and the hyperbole are the same nonsense today regarding homosexual marriage as regarding inter-racial marriage many decades ago, the prime difference is that today there is the vain attempt to hide outright discrimination, whereas no such attempt was made back then.
This is now,
homosexuals are here,
they are no longer mostly "in the closet".
The choice is whether to fight a losing battle for fear, discrimination and prejudice,
or to accept that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, one of them is to marry the adult of their choice.
Regards, Alf.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:33 PM:Dear Reardon. I'm so, so sorry that "My liberal attitude" offended you with my remark that "he's actually too much of a coward" when I doubted McCain would be brave enough to call Obama a traitor to his face in the next debate. If you want to avoid sleeze, for heaven's sake do not watch any McCain/Palin speeches. You will drown in the muck.

All in your point of view wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:36 PM:I find it supremely ironic that Karl considers Chuck someone with a good sense of humor that the rest of us don't get, yet Karl thinks the rest of us are viscious. Could it be that we have a different sense of humor than Karl?

See, now I consider this an example of witty humor, and Karl considers it viscious.

"Wanda
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:04 AM:I suppose now that John McCain has decided to take the "high road" he won't be showing up for the debate in his Ku Klux Klan outfit after all."

I guess it all depends on your on perspective, doesn't it?

Guess you are just like the rest of us, ain'tcha, Karl?

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:47 PM:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but...
does this speech, cause that's what it is here from "I Am" @12:54 PM,
A Speech so similar to that of NObama's in Germany, it is frightful.
I'm telling ya folks, this Cult of Personality is borderline schizophrenia.

Out of one side their mouths they say "X", then right out of the otherside, without skipping a beat, they say "Y".

I love my Country, I hate my country.

I love this part, in particular, where he says: "...I wonder where my government is for me"?
Then get's into a fantasical theory on how upper echelons of the “have’s” and “have mores” are prefered, and he is simply "collateral damage."

Let me explain something to ya Bub...
Government is supposed to represent everyone equally, even those you appear to loathe, those who make more than $250K a year. It is not they who have received the greatest benefit of government resources, it is the middle & lower classes, by far.
Entitlement, upon entitlement build percisely for the lower & middle-classes, And paid for by the Upper incomes.
This is a country where the top 1% pay nearly 40% {39.6%} of all income taxes, for precisely the benefit of the lower & middle classes.
This is a country where the top 5% pay 60% of all the income taxes in this country.
This is a country where the top 10% pay 70% of all the income taxes in this country.
This is a country where the top 25% pay 86% of all income taxes.
This is a country where the top 50% of taxpayers pay 96% of all income taxes, precisely for the benefit of the lower & middle income people.
The lowest imcome people in this country pay 4% of the entire load.
Nearly 65 million person's fall into this bracket, with 49 million of them not paying ANY Federal income taxes, and most receiving back, by virtue of EIC, a welfare stipend.
So, Bud... DON'T lecture us on how we don't care. Even with historically lower tax brackets, the Rich in this great country are their brother's keeper.
As opposed to your candidate, who like's to talk a good game, but still has a half-brother living on $12 bucks a year, while he enjoyed a $4 million dollar income last year.
Shared sacrifice? NOT for NObama.
And that's a matter of personal judgement & charactor, you've conveniently over looked. The moral of this story, goes like this.
You ain't his brother, and you are heavy.

Bigotry Against Scouts wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:47 PM:Yes on 8 has a valid point. In San Diego, the scouts were being attacked as a bigoted organization for not trusting gays as leaders. The scouts judged that they were not morally straight. At the same time scouts were being attacked, a leader at Camp Mataguay (in easter San Diego County) was molesting youth at the camp over a 4 year period!

'A former Boy Scout camp administrator has been sentenced to 13 years in prison after pleading guilty to charges that he molested teen-age boys.
Glenn Jordan, 33, admitted to 12 counts, including felony child abuse, sodomy and distributing pornography to a minor.'
www.nctimes.com/articles/2001/02/23/export3875.txt

'Jordan, whom witnesses described as a friendly and approachable "father figure" to many of the scouts, was found to have provided alcohol to boys at his camp cabin, which was equipped with a hot tub.'

'One boy, now 17 years old, testified during a preliminary hearing that he was sexually molested by Jordan. Other witnesses said Jordan would grab them frequently and make sexual remarks.'

The Scout's policy to protect the child was perfectly logical. Yet, Alf would probably claim that the Scouts were being illogical. Thus, Alf's admitted dislike of the scouting organization is not based on any logic whatsoever. a cover for his own sentiments, which have not logical or evidential basis whatsoever.

I suspect that Alf and Apollo will be the first to attack all organizations opposing gay marriage as bigoted, and attempt to have tax exemptions repealed, teachers removed from position, and many other attacks on such 'illogical' religious 'zealots'. It is only logical.

No on 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:49 PM:I will vote No on 8, but speaking as a heterosexual, it is up to gay folks to spend their $$$$ on this campaign. You guys and gals have no kids (usually). Often you have dual incomes. If you can't be bothered to spend enough money to match the bigots, you don't deserve to win against them. Those of us sympathetic but with dependents can't afford to contribute this time. And the bigots are super rich!!!!

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:55 PM:Well, "Poor Alf" at 1:29PM,
MY KIND???
WHAT, PRECISELY, IS MY KIND???
Is it someone who doesn't believe your particular belief system?
Pity me not.
You say "What a sad way to get through life.".
That value judgement is based on your opinion of my life, an opinion that I do not share.
I've flown cars, I've rolled cars and, hell, upon occasion, I've even driven cars on the street.
I enjoy, as much as possible, every moment because I would not be who I am and where I am without both the good and the bad.
That I do not sacrifice what you think I should for some belief that you have is, quite frankly,
your problem, not mine.
Regards, Alf.

To Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:56 PM:Were all past politicians and judges in California anti-homosexual bigots? Should we get out chisels and sledge hammers and remove all memorials of these bigots from our public forums, park, and venues?

Yin to your Twisted Yang wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:58 PM:Just because a liberal and/or a gay wants to legally "get away with it", does not make "it" right, "it" aka:Gay marriage, DUI, Drugs, Alcohol at 13, Cheating on your spouse, Burning the flag, or any one of a thousand things that most conservative folks do not appreciate. And if that makes me and others like me intolerant to your abnormal ideals, then great, so be it. I for one am proud to be the yin to your twisted yang!

Ron wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:05 PM:It is simply amazing to read something like this by "tjefferson" @1:23 PM.

"...unregulated capitalism."

Dude, I don't know from what Planet you hail from, but...
This is NOT and NEVER has been an unregulated system of capitalism, since the days of the founders.
What we have today is government intervensionism... let me rephrase that... LIBERAL government interventionism. With a particular bent towards socialism, as brought to us by the importing of it by FDR.

The legacy of FDR is the melding of the two, capitalism & socialism, which in time leads to a type of merchantilism.
And it is something that Adam Smith wrote plenty about.
You see, within a merchantilist structure, companies, business must go to the political power brokers to either gain tax or regulatory advantage, or they seek to have imposed upon their competition more tax & regulatory schemes. It is not a truly free market.
The socialist bent within the New Democrat party, is this rebirth of what FDR termed his second bill of rights, as we currently have seen in the housing market. Housing was a key plank of FDR's 2nd bill.
Prior to the repeal of Glass-Stegell, was this push by Liberals to make homeownership mandatory, and to do it by punishing lenders who would not subscribe to risky persons with bad credit historys. Under threat of legal prosecution for "racism" aka "red-lining", Lenders sought a way out, which.. the government handed to them, by way of Fannie & Freddie, and Franklin Delano Raines. The Securitization of risky loans thru Fannie/Freddie. Rather than be legally prosecuted, and since this GSE (government sponsored enterprise) would buy them up from them, removing the risky loan from their responsibility, they sold them.
I hear plenty of anger about these so-called Titans of Wall Street, but no so much about the Titans of the GSE's.
Who collected bonuses based upon accounting fraud, way in advance of the failure.
This is not the fault of "unregulated capitalism", that's a lie.
It is the result of Affirmative Action programs disguised as homeownership.
Just as this inexperienced presidential candidate, is both the affirmative action candidate, and Mascot politics.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:06 PM:Re: Yes on 8 (1:19 p.m.)
Sorry, but I would think someone would get embarrassed after continuing to spout off about stuff he/she has no knowledge.
Unless there is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which is impossible in the case of granting MORE rights, any interpretation of "due process" under CALIFORNIA statutes or the state Constitution, is solely the jurisdiction of the California Supreme Court.
Again, the case was decided solely based on California law.
Good luck with your appeal.
Spend a lot of money.

Do you conservatives just make stuff up as you go along?

Karl wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:07 PM:All in your point of view @ 1:36 PM:

"I guess it all depends on your on perspective, doesn't it?"

Sure does

Guess you are just like the rest of us, ain'tcha, Karl?

Not even close, I am a lot more opinionated and the joke about the KKK is sick.

Obama Marriage wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:11 PM:Obama opposes same-sex maariage.

McCain Marriage wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:12 PM:McCain opposes same-sex maariage.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:13 PM:To tjefferson: I don't object so much to the name calling (it was much worse in Colonial times, and during the Lincoln election), as I object to the smug hypocrisy of liberals who claim it is only being done by others.

I think my post demonstrated that sufficiently.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:24 PM:Here is the problem:

McCain is old and crotchety
Obama is inexperienced and naïve
McCain was involved with Keating
Obama was close to Rev. Wright, and Ayers
McCain knows nothing about the economy
Obama knows nothing about the economy
McCain picked a questionable VP
Obama picked a questionable VP
McCain has the support of some scary right-wing nuts
Obama has the support of some scary left-wing nuts
McCain has some white supporters who vote primarily on race
Obama has some black supporters who vote primarily on race
McCain has a potential First Lady who needs to be kept under wraps
Obama has a potential First Lady who needs to be kept under wraps
McCain will have an administration filled with Republican hacks
Obama will have an administration filled with Democratic hacks
McCain is a career Washington politician
Obama is a career Chicago politician
(Sigh)

Wanda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:32 PM:I Am at 12:54 quips: "We can not risk more of the same with John McCain and Sarah Palin".

What do you mean by "risk"?

We're guaranteed more of the same! Their entire platform (other than associating Obama with Bill Ayers) is MORE OF THE SAME.

Where have you been?

NO Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:43 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:33 PM:This is now, homosexuals are here,
they are no longer mostly "in the closet". accept that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Alf, That's your opinion, Mine is NO!! I don't have to accept anything just because you tell me to, or because 3 to 4% of the population is gay and another % like youself thinks it OK. Man Alf, You get more full of yourself every week!

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:48 PM:If gay marriage is to be accepted why is'nt this voted at the federal level?
It seems to be a big waste of time and money to get the gay issues passed from state to state. Get this agenda at the federal level and see what happens. It dosent make sense to have a gay union legal in one state and not another. People move you know.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:51 PM:Discredited Economics
The post from "Ron" (1:47pm) makes me wonder how he can possibly think anyone cares in the slightest about his failed economic theories.
Hoovernomics, Reagnomics, Keatingnomics, Bushnomics and McCainomics have been utterly discredited.
There is no more credibility there, if there ever was.

In typical Republican condescensions, "Ron" thinks he is in any kind of position to lecture or "explain" anything to anyone about economics when his way has led to repeated economic collapses.
"Ron" doesn't even know the right questions to ask. He joins the "nation of whiny elitists" whose big complaint is the amount of taxes paid by those who are doing better than everyone else.
The figures he provides, if accurate (and I haven't checked them, though "Ron's" record of factual accuracy is a serious problem), are utterly worthless without a corresponding breakdown of how much each bracket has in both income and assets.
Please provide this information along with sourcing, then maybe we can talk.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Well All in your point of view wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:55 PM:All in your point of view
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:36 PM:

You are just propagating the childish racial agenda. You and your racially motovated garbage just won't let it go, Well you?
You, or no one you know, was brought over here in the bowels of a boat and forced in to slavery, Right? Change B.S. it's only more of the same, just a different color.

Bob wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:57 PM:Well Alf at 1:55 PM, chill out. It was probably just a typo, he meant to say "your ilk" :)

Poor Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:59 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 1:55 PM: I'll say it again, Poor Alf!!

Wanda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:06 PM:Regarding the 1:36 PM post, anybody who wasn't already rolling on the floor laughing at the concept of John McCain "taking the high road" probably wasn't going to be amused by this.

Sorry.

Do Not Trust Courts wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:09 PM:Advocates of same-sex marriage are now suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex marriage. Public accommodation laws are being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership

gracchus wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:11 PM:in your communique of 11:47 a.m., ron, you assert:

"I'm hearing the people who were chanting 'kill' inside the McCain/Palin crowds were Liberal plants {yes, just as Hillary planted questioners} for the ready-made NObama press to report."

would you like to tell us, ron, where you are hearing this? is it from one of those devious websites on which you based your uncorrobated claim that 5 million mortgages belong to illegal immigrants.

you made a vicious accusation, ron. prove it or retract it.

Yes On 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:18 PM:To Apollo at 2:06 pm. You are blind to the right taken away from the voters by the CA Supreme Court. The Court is invalidating a voter passed initiative based on the later actions of the legislature, which legislature is unable to change an initiative. Beside, in the modern age of legal jijitsu, courts can do anything they please, as the supreme body that get to declare what the constitution means without limits. Therefore, there is no basis for your statement that the US Supreme Court cannot invalidate the CA Courts decision. One tyrannical court deserves another. Remember Bush v. Gore.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:28 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 1:56PM,
you and
the last paragraph of "Bigotry Against Scouts" at 1:47PM, are being ridiculous and
perfect examples of the hyperbole of which I speak.
Regards, Alf.

jvc wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:32 PM:What is wrong with the bailout of the financial markets? One of the reasons it is wrong is because it supports the theory that our economy is driven by financial market jobs while Main Street workers do not depend on Wall Street for jobs!People who are not working are NOT eligible for credit!

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:33 PM:Well, "Yin to your Twisted Yang" at 1:58PM,
the strident and inane tone of your post is as desperate as McGWB's campaign of late.
BTW, you forgot bestiality in your mindless rant.
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:37 PM:One often wonders why DD posts at all.

DD: We have an INCOME TAX. We do not have, have never had, will not have and I can't imagine the violations of privacy necessary to develop, an "INCOME AND ASSETS" tax.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:40 PM:Re: Observer (2:48 p.m.)
Which enumerated power of the Constitution (Artice I Sec 8) did you have in mind that would authorize federal involvement in matters of marriage?
If it is not enumerated to federal jurisdiction then it is a matter for states to address.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:48 PM:Well, "NO Alf" at 2:43PM,
if it were merely MY opinion,
we would not be discussing this right now.
There are 4 California Supreme Court Judges who looked at the case before them, looked at Prop. 22, looked at the California Constitution and said that homosexuals have the right to marry, that they cannot be discriminated against as it has to do with marriage.
We will see how much it is just my opinion on Nov. 4th.
Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:51 PM:Re: Do Not Trust Courts (3:09 p.m.)
More scare tactics.
No church has ever been required to comply with any civil rights standards. The Mormons continued open discrimination against blacks for 14 years after the Civil Rights act, until they voluntarily changed their beliefs.
Please stop the rumors, lies and innuendo.
Instead of saying "advocates of same sex marriage," be specific. Give us the names and specific actions they have taken.
When you have issues, you run on issues.
When you don't, then you need to lie.

She Said wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:52 PM:to Do Not Trust Courts @ 3:09. Where are these events taking place? I would have thought I'd heard at least one example.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:53 PM:Well, "Do Not Trust Courts" at 3:09PM,
be specific,
name names,
name organizations.
Your post, absent any specifics, is meaningless fearmongering, nothing more.
Regards, Alf.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:53 PM:This is for Ron at 2:05. I have avoided commenting on your posts because I'd rather not be part of your fantasy world. All I'll say about your childish response to my post is that you should read the Wealth of Nations before you ever again cite Adam Smith to validate your absurd remarks on economy or finance. You also need to know that merchantilism has absolutely nothing to do with your "melding of capitalism and socialism." Merchantilism is an economic philosophy advocating that countries should incourage exports and discourage imports. I'm not going to wade through the rest of your post. Your ignorance of history and economics is exacerbated by your shaky grammar and confused syntax. Please take a class in remedial English if you expect people to try to make sense of your posts. Life is too short to waste time on your sophomoric and disorganized essays.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:55 PM:Well, "Bob" at 2:57PM,
that's ever so much better.
Regards, Alf.

radman wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:00 PM:to Alf and all the ultra liberal thinkers out there. Until gay marriage is voted on at the federal level it really dosent make sense to waste precious tax payer dollars putting it on a state ballot. Why put all the time and effort if gay marriage is not recognized in all states? I just dont get it. Whats the gay couple going to do in lets say Texas if they move and its not recognized? Theyre going to have big problems. And to be quite honest, I dont want California labeled as a gay state. Just my opinion.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:02 PM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 2:48 PM:
Read the Constitution. The topic is not in the Federal government. Therefore, it is left to the individual states. I rather doubt that a marriage case would be brought before the Federal Supreme Court. A case for Equal Protection Under the Law and can probably will be.

observer wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:06 PM:Sounds like Alf would make a good lawyer for the ACLU

Roger wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:06 PM:No Karl (2:07 PM) the joke was actually funny, perhaps way too close to the truth, but still funny. The worthwhileness impaired, ethically challenged, McCain / Palin ticket is sick.

The very concept of John McCain "taking the high road" is funny.

I would have to imagine, with your head stuck where it is, you don't have the same perspective :)

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:12 PM:I concur, "Reardon" at 2:24PM,
(Sigh)
Regards, Alf.

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:15 PM:Observor: Equal protection under the law is the topic. Either all citizens have equal rights or no one has rights under the law.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:17 PM:Well, "Karl" at 7:05AM,
Palm Desert in the summer?
Nope.
Regards, Alf.

snerd wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:19 PM:Ron's blog at 2:05 is a mish-mosh of economic theory refracted through a prism of ignorance. Much like listening to Sarah Palin being interviewed, each sentence may make sense but the amalgam is totally without sense or substance. The Republicans have done a wizzard job of confusing people like Ron into believing that their economic theories have some sort of logic and as a result people of limited means continue to vote for a party that only exsists to make the rich richer with the results we are all dealing with now. Hopefully this will be the end of the fraudulant economic policies that conservatives like to call the Reagan revolution.

hardtack wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:26 PM:Only one thing wrong with Reg George's letter -- too, logical.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:31 PM:Reardon at 2:24 p.m., how can you possibly equate a very remote acquaintance with an ALLEGED terrorist who was never convicted of anything (charges were dropped) in an event that that 8-year old Obama was not even remotely involved in, with McCain's direct involvement in a BANKING SCANDAL, when the collapse of financial institutions are the core issue involving the current economic meltdown?
Obama/Ayers is a completely irrelevant distraction; McCain/Keating goes to the heart of political corruption and financial scandals that we are wrestling with today!

hardtack wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:33 PM:So, Joe Martin: Do you suggest we tax and spend our way out of debt?

hardtack wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:34 PM:If "smoke free" hospitals don't make sense -- what does?

Focal Point wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:49 PM:Do Not Trust Courts: Cite some documented examples?

hardtack wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:13 PM:Tell me, please, somebody – how can Lance Williamson make a statement like : “today's bad results of market freedom”?

We haven’t had “market freedom” since about 90 days after the ink dried on the Constitution.

Don’t answer! The question was rhetorical. Of course. Lance Williamson was educated by the government.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:16 PM:Well, "Poor Alf" at 2:59PM,
you have your beliefs and I have mine.
That I do not sacrifice what you think I should for some belief that you have is, quite frankly,
your problem, not mine.
I enjoy this world,
alot,
how about you?
Regards, Alf.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:59 PM:Christopher Buckley, a contributor to the National Review and son of Bill Buckley, the magazine's founder, has endorsed Barak Obama for president. The intellectuals have abandoned the Republican party. McShame has the votes of bigots, those who speak in tongues, those who think dinosaurs coexisted with men, those who think the earth was created in 6 days and those who think Obama supporters are America hating traitors. As a liberal, even I grieve for the disgraceful end of the once proud Republican party.

Alf wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Well, "Yes On 8" at 3:18PM,
you still do not get it.
The California Supreme Court ruled that the "will of the people" was in violation of the California Constitution.

(Do you remember Prop. 83?
70 percent of the people voted for it.
Since it contained a part that was "punitively ex post facto", that part was ruled to be un-Constitutional.)

Prop. 8 seeks to bypass the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
Even if it passes, it will be overturned either by the State or United States Supreme Court based on the same type of challenge that was ruled upon earlier this year.
You are doing nothing but lining the pockets of lawyers and wasting everyone's time.
Regards, Alf.

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 6:52 PM:Yes On 8[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:18 PM:
There is not legal jujitsu. The Ca Supreme Court has the right and duty to legally interpret the state Constitution. It is the duty to enforce the equal protection clause and to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
The Supreme Court will determine what cases it will hear. The federal cases deal with the interpretation of the US Constitution. The Supreme court will do and say nothing about any subject unless the case is brought before them and accepted. Like Apollo said, good luck.

hardtack wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:03 PM:Reardon: re your 15:37 – – The reason DD posts is because he is a lying, collectivist, Marxist activist.

What I wonder is why you bother to read, let alone answer the twit’s brainwashed BS?.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:37 PM:Changing the Subject
The post from "Reardon" (3:37pm) purports to reply to me, but actually has nothing to do with what I posted.
I said nothing about a tax on assets.
I had responded to an earlier post from "Ron" in which he joined the "nation of elitist whiners" who complain about the fairness of taxes based on the percentage various quintiles pay of the total. I noted that, apart from information about income assets, the point was utterly irrelevant.
It was not about taxing assets, about which I said NOTHING; it was solely a gauge of wealth in terms of assessing fairness.
But I suppose that was just way too nuanced, huh?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

yadda yadda wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:38 PM:radman[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:00 PM:
States d have reciprocal law agreements.

No on Prop. 8 wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:51 PM:Civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits and protection as marriage.

More than 1,100 federal and state benefits and laws that other couples can enjoy through marriage that make lesbians gays transgender individuals be unequal under the law.

Without marriage an employer in California can decide to deny any medical benefits to a partner even if they are in a domestic partnership.

Marriage licenses are civil contracts issued by the govt and not by the local churches.

The Constitution's separation of church and state guarantees freedom of religion against govt intrusions into spiritual and religious matters.

Amending the Constitution to restrict marriage can also affect your freedom of religion and speech because it opens a breach in the law that separates church and state.

A ban on interracial marriage was lifted by the Calif Supreme Court in 1948, when an unconstitutional referendum proposal said interracial couples would destroy family values.

Why stop the "pursuit of happiness" when the happiness and equality of gays and lesbians is not taking any rights away from the majority.

Would you be happy if govt decided who you should love and marry.

Vote NO for #8. NO on #8 is a vote against prejudice, discrimination, hate, fear.

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:52 PM:Re: Yes on 8 (3:18 p.m.)
No, YOU are the one who is blind.
An initiative STATUTE cannot overrule the Constitution.
I can assure you that if 61% of the voters, or even 99% of the voters, passed an initiative to outlaw your particular sect or cult, you would be first in line filing papers in court.
You cannot pass an initiative to reinstate slavery, outlaw freedom of religion, etc.
The CONSTITUTION of California prohibits discrimination on gender.
An initiative statute cannot overrule that.

Yo Yo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:02 PM:observer[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:06 PM:
yes Alf would. Alf is dedicated to the defense and preservation of the Constitution. I do not think that you can say the same based upon your blogs today.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:03 PM:To Obamacan: Your name identifies you as a kool-aide drinker, but I will try to reply, understanding the futility after your ignoring your compatriots hate-filled comments today, while commenting on others hate-filled comments.

Keating was investigated with a Special Prosecutor who declined to prosecute McCain but said McCains’ association with Keating showed a lack of judgment. That is exactly the problem with Obama and Rev. Wright/Ayers – bad judgment.

Please do not insult me by saying Ayers was not prosecuted. You know he is guilty because he has admitted it (no BRAGGED about it!), and so has his wife. They were not prosecuted because of prosecutorial misconduct – not because they were, or are innocent.

Would you associate with O.J. Simpson on the grounds that he was not found guilty of anything? (prior to last week.)

Obama’s “bad judgment” in his alliances are almost too numerous to catalog, but I quoted the New York Times today on his alliance with, and praise of Acorn.

But I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to comment in detail to my one-line comment., but I can’t imagine why you would invite my comments.

(Actually I do. Bad judgment.)

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:09 PM:o.K. Hardtack. Quit sugar-coating it -- what do you REALLY think of DD?

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:27 PM:DD: "it was solely a gauge of wealth in terms of assessing fairness"

How, exactly are we to asses" fairness, unless we report our "wealth?

Are we to report it on our income taxes?

We can, and should, only report our income because we have an INCOME TAX!

your search for "fairness" appears to me to be a search for "economic equality." I assume you do not favor a flat-tax, which would be "equal treatmment under the law."

But, only you know what is in your heart.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:30 PM:Name calling instead of issues
The post from "hardtack" (7:03pm) lets off the steam of his frsutration about being unable to address issues in a substantive way by unleashing a torrent of insults that I would never be allowed to get away with. He calls me a "lying, collectivist, Marxist activist" and a "brainwashed twit" and yet, by failing to address a single point of substance, he reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of his inability to engage in critical thinking.
But, oh yeah, this is the same guy (at least the same screen name) who once tried to claim that the writings of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained the Founders' belief that freedom and equality were mutually incompatible, while I maintain that one cannot have true freedom without equality (of opportunity, not oucomes). I pointed out the silliness of quoting a work that espoused a return to MONARCHY as being compatible with the Founders who rebelled against that form of tyranny, and he had to sheepishly slink away and basically concede that he had no familiar with the works that HE cited.

Now "hardtack" calls people Marxist. No "hardtack," I oppose Marxism, Communism, Socialism. True liberal market economics creates a structure, a foundation, a framework of protective rules that -- just like rules of sports make possible an infinite range of strategies and rules of the road enable and infinite range of possible destinations -- rules to protect the various elements of the market such as workers, consumers and the shared infrastructure strengthen true Capitalism, just as its founder, Adam Smith wrote.
It is regulated market entrepreneurship that saved this nation from Socialism after Republican DEREGULATED markets had run our economy into 3rd world depravity.
And now it is REPUBLICANS who are turning to pure Marxist Socialism as they take the actual ownership of companies after their economic theory has been AGAIN utterly discredited as they drive our economy into utter devastation.
It will AGAIN be Democrats who will again rescue this nation from Republican Socialism.

Stop calling names, "hardtack," and see if you can learn a little basic history and economics and stop supporting the failed theories of Hoovenomics, Reaganomics, Keatingomics, Bushomics and McCainomics.

Republicans have gotten EVERYTHING WRONG, from the environoment, to the economy, to emergency services, to international respect and even invading the WRONG COUNTY.
January 20 and PRESIDENT OBAMA can't come fast enough.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Yin to your Twisted Yang wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:37 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 3:33 PM:
No Alf, I did not forget, Now there you go again Alf, assuming stuff that is not there. Bestiality is another topic altogether, Why would you tie it in with Gay marriage? and, What is your subconscious trying to say Alf? Maybe it's time you reevaluate what you really believe. Only in the mind of Alf could one come up with that.

Kevin wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:37 PM:Where are the letters to the editor for the Californian for Saturday?

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:45 PM:Yet again, Reardon at 8:03 p.m. shows he flails and squirms but really knows NOTHING.
You know nothing of my screen name. I have several, for use with different issues.
In discussing the presidential campaign, I am proclaiming my confidence that Obama CAN - YES WE CAN!
The difference with McCain is that his involvement and "bad judgment" was directly related to the financial collapse of the S&L's under Reagan's deregulation, which McCain supported. It is directly tied to the most critical issue of today and shows that Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, have learned nothing from the failures of Hoover, Reagan, Keating and Bush - with McCain representing just more of the same.

As for Ayers, a letter to the editor of the New York Times 10-10-08 BY THE PROSECUTOR OF AYERS CASE (which is still up on their website today) objected to their characterization of the dismissal as being based on "prosecutorial misconduct," and laid the blame at the feet of Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell (later himself convicted in Watergate).
I dispute your claim that Ayers "bragged" about the bombings or even admitted them. Since the case was dismissed and he never confronted a jury verdict, he is not subject to protection under "double jeopardy" and, if he had any such admission, he could be arrested and tried again (there is also no statute of limitations on terrorism).
Ayers himself has clarified the quote that Limbaugh keeps repeating, from a New York Times interview that was, ironically, published the morning of September 11, 2001. The much interview was much earlier, and the papers were printed and delivered way before the attack occurred, so the timing was an unfortunate coincidence.
The interviewer asked if he was remorseful for his actions. Without saying WHAT he did, he said he did what he believed was right at the time, so could not be remorseful. As a separate statement, but juxtaposed by the paper next to that statement, he said that he "didn't do enough." He later clarified that he meant he did not do enough to stop the war; it was not a reference to any (alleged) violent activities, but that the paper put the two separate statements together.
Again, how can you say it reflects on Obama's bad judgment. When they met briefly in 1995, six years before that interview, Obama had no way of knowing about this guy who did something when he was 8 years old and in Indonesia. At that time the guy was a respected educator. They were not close. The guy held a "meet and greet" coffee for him, one of hundreds who did so. That's what campaigns do. Ayers gave him one donation of $200 - wanna compare to how much Keating gave, and how many occasions?
Obama never "palled" with Ayers, traveled with him, or was close to him. Keating was. The investigation you referred to noted that, of the Keating 5, only McCain had close personal ties.
To a scandal tied directly to the key problem now facing this nation: the implosion of our financial markets.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:02 PM:How about that Sarah Palin- eh?

How about that Sarah Palin? eh?

How about that Sarah Palin? eh?

"Flyers fans, show Philadelphia's class and welcome America's #1 hockey mom, Sarah Palin," the massive electronic message board pleaded, to little effect. Booing quickly erupted when the smiling candidate emerged from a tunnel leading onto the ice, muffling the applause of any Palin supporters in the crowd.

Some in the audience simply gave her a thumbs down gesture. Others called her names.

Apollo This wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:07 PM:Apollo
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:52 PM: So acording to your interpretation Apollo, The CONSTITUTION of California prohibits discrimination on gender(period). So any Male should be able to legally walk into any and all ladies restrooms or lockerrooms and make full use of them, according to your interpetitation of The CONSTITUTION of California.

OK Apollo, Report back and let us know how well that works out for you.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:08 PM:Grandpa McCain is shocked?

McCain was shocked by the words of Georgia Congressman Lewis, ""What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. [Sarah] Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse," Lewis said in a statement."

I am shocked too. I am shocked that you did not deny the remarks of your campaign about Sen Obama and did not put a stop to unfounded allegations. McCain permitted for weeks these types of terrible assaults before taking any positive action.

Then McCain presents himself as a victim based on Lewis's astute and correct observation. You really gotta wonder about that old out of touch man who just doesn't ge it.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:13 PM:More changing of the subject from Reardon
The post from "Reardon" (8:03pm) continues to try to deflect the issue to what "Ron" raised (and my response to it) to some imaginary reporting of assets that I said nothing about.
"Ron" cited a list of quintiles of taxpayers, and what percent taxes they paid (though he did not document his assertions and his "facts" in the past have been notoriously unreliable).
I simply noted that, even if accurate, his point is WORTHLESS without equivalent information on income and assets. If he cannot provide it, then that is his problem. I didn't even say the information was available, though I imagine that there are credible census estimates of wealth by quintile, even if not linked to individual taxpayers.
The point is irrelevant. If "Ron" wants to make assertions about fairness that demand data he can't provide, maybe he should think more carefully before running off at the keyboard. And maybe YOU should address your comments to the one who raised the issue, not the one who pointed out the ridiculousness of it.
Oh, but that wouldn't match your pre-conceived prejudices, would it?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Apollo wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:20 PM:Re: Apollo This (9:07 p.m.)
The Constitution of California prohibits MANDATORY requirements to discriminate based on gender.
There are many instances in which private individuals or organizations are permitted to make the choice to discriminate, but they can not be required to do so.
If a law were to be passed REQUIRING separate restrooms for men and women, it would be unconstitutional. But if private organizations are allowed to have separate restrooms, not a problem.

And frankly, I would have no objection at all to unisex restrooms, especially with private stalls. It would reduce women's common (and valid) complaint when they wait in long lines while we breeze in and out with no line. I have been in men's rooms when impatient women came in to use ours instead of their own and used a private stall. Didn't bother me at all.

Hmm. Maybe we SHOULD outlaw separate restrooms based on gender.

Good try CANMAN wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:22 PM:OBAMACAN
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 8:45 PM: Good try CANMAN, Your real dilemma is that you are too emotional over this election, Never the less, Reardon at 8:03 p.m. has you hands down on this one!!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:32 PM:Sarah Palin:

"Branchflower said that Palin was within her rights as governor to fire her public safety commissioner, but that she "knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda" — namely, the termination of Palin's former brother-in-law, state Trooper Mike Wooten. Palin also improperly allowed her husband, Todd, to use state resources in his efforts to get Wooten fired, the report stated."

Todd Palin using pressure. What? Why is the Alaskan Governor permitting her unelected husband to represent her office? What would she do as Vice President?

you goota wonder sometimes. You betcha.

CANMAN fumbles wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:55 PM:Oooh, wow, Canman at 9:22 p.m., wow, that was really convincing.
You vent and rant and let off steam but didn't actually make a point.
Guess what: nobody cares about your opinion, just because you say so, if even you can't find a single thing to support it with!

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:57 PM:APOLLO: Please explain separate restrooms in government buildings, including the US Capitol.

Gotta Wonder How Silly You Are wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:57 PM:Gotta Wonder
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:32 PM: You are trolling in the Ocean for Goldfish, It's just silly.

US Capitol wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:05 PM:Question for Reardon: are the restrooms in the U.S. (federal) Capitol subject to the California STATE Constitution?
Or don't you understand the Federalism on which our entire Constitution is based?

I agree with Apollo.
We should have unisex restrooms with private stalls.

Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig might have been spared tons of humiliation based on the denial of his same-sex attraction that he not only didn't choose, but denied even to himself.
Pitiful.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:23 PM:To US Capitol: Please spin up to speed -- we have bypassed the election in November and are discussing "equal protection under the law" of the US Constitution -- under which the Yes on 8 vote will likely be appealed, if it passes.

Good try CANMAN wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:34 PM:CANMAN fumbles
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:55 PM:Oooh, wow, Canman at 9:22 p.m., wow, that was really convincing. You vent and rant and let off steam but didn't actually make a point.

Apparently I did. And you are way toooo emotional as well,(Vent and rant and let off steam) When did all that happen? Just like OJ, you were betrayed by your own words. Guess what: CANMAN fumbles at 9:55 PM: Just because you say so, is the main support for most of the blogs here, Why? because your right, It's all opinion, and Nobody cares, that's nothing new, but we keep writing.

Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:41 PM:OBAMACAN: Your defense of the Weatherman activities of Bill Ayres is touching.

Would you say a few nice words about Jeffrey Dahmer also, just for the record?

Opinion wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:42 PM:Actually, Canman at 10:34 p.m., about half the bloggers here do support their opinions with FACTS and RESEARCH.
They are called "Liberals."
I understand why this goes way over your head.

US Capitol is a leakn wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:48 PM:US Capitol
[-] wrote on Oct 11, 2008 10:05 PM: "...We should have unisex restrooms with private stalls. Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig might have been spared tons of humiliation..."

So US Capitol, if the good Senator Larry Craig was flagging with his foot for a female in the next stall that would have been OK with you? Pitiful, That says it all. Go figure.

rsxguy wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:24 AM:anyone notice the russian brides/prostitution tours ad when goin through the NCT website? is anyone else disturbed that there would be an ad like that on a website frequently viewed by kids in school?

She Said wrote on Oct 12, 2008 3:37 AM:Reardon wrote on Oct 11, 2008 9:57 PM: Please explain the shared restrooms in the coed dormitories at UCSC (since mid 80's). Not just individual unisex facilities. Yes, private stalls, male and female students next to each other at sinks, men shaving, women brushing their teeth,......

He Said wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:04 AM:Asset Taxes. We already have forms of asset taxes but not included in the income tax. 1) real estate taxes based on assessed value, 2) personal property taxes based on vehicle value. Years ago there was a "floor tax" in California for companies to pay taxes based on inventory. The ended when companies began moving their warehouses to Nevada.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:40 AM:Actually, "Yin to your Twisted Yang" at 8:37PM on the 11th,
if you look at the more strident anti-homosexual marriage letters and comments from when the case went to the California Supreme Court until now,
you'll find that many of the more shrill opponents listed,
as a "standard argument" that homosexual marriage would lead to, or result in,
child molestation, polygamy and bestiality.
Such farcical statements were emitted, spewed forth, with quite a degree of regularity.
Such hyperbolic nonsense is the norm for those who fear the acceptance of homosexual marriage.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:13 AM:As if on cue, "Yin to your Twisted Yang" at 8:37PM on the 11th,
here comes a letter on the 12th from Christine Martinelli saying "Is that next? Why not? The mistress needs protection, right? Maybe her dogs as well."
The utter insanity that comes from those who oppose something so simple and basic. Regards, Alf.

ChiComs wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:14 AM:The Communist Chinese, like Alf, dislike religion because it is not logical.

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:44 AM:The comments about "unisex restrooms" reminds me of the time (long ago)when I went to Binche, Belgium for their quite famous Mardi Gras celebration. The plaza was jammed with students and others dancing, singing and drinking beer and spiced wine!! Mostly beer!! I was with a group of women, and when we had to go, we searched for a restroom. (Men didn't always need one in Belgium in those days.)One bar had one restroom, with two urinals and one stall. That was it. When in Rome (or Binche), you know -- As we stood waiting for the stall, against one wall , a series of men entered, used the urinals on the opposite wall, zipped up their pants and left. It made for many laughs, both then and later -- and none of the ladies was hurt one bit.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:24 AM:No, "ChiComs" at 7:14AM,
I dislike religions like the Witnesses and other bigoted fundaMENTALists.
They try to interfere with my life by taking up my time
or try to control the lives of others that I know by things like this discriminatory Prop. 8 garbage.
They are not satisfied practicing their religion themselves, they attempt to inflict it upon others.
The right of homosexuals to marry is as much a right as the right of heterosexuals to marry, no more so and no less so.
The Constitution protects the Right TO religion
AND
the Right FROM religion.
The United Church of Christ (my folks)and the United Methodist Church (my wife) are fine examples of churches which neither intrude nor attempt to legislate their religion, their religious beliefs or their morals upon others.
Mrs. Alf and my folks respect my position, which is not as you might think. That is, if you ever do think rather than simply react.
By the same percentage that Prop. 22 won,
OR MORE,
Prop. 8 will fail.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:33 AM:Well, "Vista Granny" at 7:44AM,
an ex-brother-in-law of mine had a sailboat. His rule for the "head" was -
"On this boat there are no pointers".
The reason is obvious when one is listing (heeled) at 30 degrees or when the wind is gusty.
Regards, Alf.

To Julia Godinez wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:40 AM:Oh Julia you are so dramatic!!! Believe me when a person comes here undocumented it is far from free. Some have given their lives crossing the border!! You must be speaking about females as you say "we are paying for their babies to be born". What has happened to you? How have you become so callous to the plight of the woman? They come here because they are desperate. They are not eligible for all the freebies you state in your letter. Once again you are spreading lies. I appreciate Bill Flores, El Grupo, Tina Jillings, Claudia Smith, Enrique Morones and others who defend their Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:20 PM:Gotta Wonder How Silly You Are Prove it.
You just call names, You offer no substance. That is indeed, silly.

To Karl wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:45 PM:I bet you are going to lobby the council - you are the council! Nice that you can afford a new golf cart - in this economy! Scooter!