Sarah wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:32 AM:Obama who is personable, ignorant, though inexperienced and dangerously religious, can best serve his country by withdrawing from this campaign.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:25 AM:The letter from Bill Buelna says
"Four liberal lawyers (pseudo-judges) can overrule the will of 4.3 million voters, a tyrannical act.".
Four Justices of the California Supreme Court did their job, they upheld the equal protection and non-discrimination clauses of the California Constitution.
It's obvious that Bill Buelna failed Civics 101, because he does not understand the function of a Supreme Court. Simply put, it is to rule on cases using the Constitution as its guide, not public opinion and, as much as possible, not personal or political opinion.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:01 AM:>>>>>>First, Sarah Palin has an interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News; she could not recite the Bush doctrine>>>
Sir, you dont even know what the Bush doctrine is. Bush hasnt published any document called the Bush doctrine. It is only in the minds of moronic liberals. Now, lets see what you know about the Pelosi doctrine, the Hussein doctrine, and the Ayres doctrine

Chuck wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:04 AM:The travel section of one of the local newspapers today celebrates how cheaply you can visit Miami for. They point out you can even get a slice of pizza for $10. I'm sure if they put foo-foo, sprouts and a piece of sushi on it, the liberals would gobble it up

Chuck wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:09 AM:>>>Advocates of same-sex marriage are now suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex marriage.>>> They try to make you think all they want is same sex marriage. That is only the beginning, and you can see it with what they've done with SB777, they've removed mother and father from textbooks, they want 3rd graders to choose their gender, after appropriate coaching from the racketeers, they contiue suits of the Boy Scouts. Same sex marriage is just the tip of the iceberg

Chuck wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:13 AM:Say no to the tourist tax. You can clearly see what Encinitas has done with the "fees" they've added in the last 3 elections. They havent done anything they've promised but instead have raised their salaries, pensions and health benefits. The bureaucrats in Encinitas are nothing short of weasels, and lieing weasels at that.

Nice Endorsement wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:01 AM:I hope everyone noticed that Sam Abed and Ed Gallo are endorsed by David Cline who typically refers to himself as the Commander of the Escondido Minutemen Brigade. When you decide who you want to vote for, what you want your vote to stand for just keep this in mind.

Wanda wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:02 AM:Brian Schultz will be happy to know that John McCain is now "taking the high road".

(tasteless joke omitted)

Gay is not a choice wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:44 AM:Gay is not a choice--unlike religion, which is a choice.

Ron wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:56 AM:I really have to laugh sometimes, when I get a weird response like the one I got yesterday from my old buddy...
"The Wizzer" {Oct 11} @2:51 PM.
He says: "The post from "Ron" (1:47pm) makes me wonder how he can possibly think anyone cares in the slightest about his failed economic theories."

My failed theories? LOL
Let me defend myself here just a bit, I am a little too young to be a hoover-ite, I did support Ronald Reagan's military build-up, and so did the Democrat Congress that laid out the budget for it. Keatingnomics? Are ya kidding me? LOL And I would remind my good friend, I was one of the many conservatives who warned people about Bush being a Big Government "compassionate conservative", which is code for "We like spending other people's money, too." With that huge new drug enetitlement, anyone with a brain should have known were Bush stood on fiscal policy. And as far as McCainomics is concerned, I would trust John McCain more than I ever would a socialist like NObama. Afterall, I never heard of McCain getting his VP's son an earmark to thwart the efforts of sick people from filing bankruptcy.

But in typical Wizzer fashion, he attempts to change the subject, and go to the talking points. And...
AND, he has to maintain the fantasy about his economic hero's: FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.
I will say this about my good friend,
he is consistant. LOL

Socialism vs. Capitalism wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:57 AM:Anyone who frames this election as socialism vs. capitalism is an idiot.

Capitalism is doing just fine, it is ordinary Americans that are hurting.

During the great depression, ordinary Americans who were capable and willing to work, got fired and then could not find work, through no fault of their own. They needed a little help from the government to feed their families until they could get some work. FDR gave it to them. It was not socialism. It was giving a hand up to capable workers who did everything right but lost their jobs anyway.

Government, businesses, and individuals alike will need to learn to pay for things with money that actually exists, rather than credit. That means the US will need to trim its huge deficit. That means businesses will have to sit on a pile of cash for a rainy day. Everyone will need to stop relying on loans and credit. It will be a painful, but necessary transition. It is NOT socialism.

Until republicans wake up and change their message that "we can have everything we want and we don't have to pay for it", they will continue to lose power in American government.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:23 AM:Darrel Beck's letter again tries to raise the spectre or imagined ties between Obama and an alleged terrorist (when Obama was 8 years old and far, far away. He echoes the blog by Reardon at 10:41 p.m. yesterday night who proved that DDWiz is right - every time Reardon gets in over your head you change the subject.

Reardon accused me (falsely) of defending Ayers. Not true. Not one thing I said defended Ayers.
I merely stated FACTS, and Reardon merely grumbled about them but didn't show me where any of my FACTS were in error.

And here are some more FACTS. Those who can't discuss real issues keep trying to link ALLEGED domestic terrorist Ayers to Obama, though that link is extremely tenuous, but avoid the extraordinary links to McCain of a real CONVICTED domestic terrorist.
No, I am not referring to Keating! Keating! Keating! Keating! Keating!
Of course, that link is valid, especially considering how it reflects Republican failures to learn from past involvement in collapses of financial institutions.
Nor am I talking about Sarah Palin's close ties to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party. That is anti-American, but not terrorist, and it involves Sarah, not John, though it does show his poor judgment is selecting her.

I am talking about Marilyn Shannon who gave a speech in Oregon WHILE McCAIN WAS PRESENT (8-30-93), praising Rachelle Shannon who had shot and killed an abortion doctor for performing a LEGAL abortion. McCain expressed no objection whatsoever, and was warned not to attend in advance by fellow Republican Senator Mark Hatfield and had to pass through more than 30 protestors, so he had to know something was amiss. The judge who sentenced Rachelle Shannon to jail (yes, she was convicted, not just alleged) called her a "domestic terrorist." Marilyn Shannon was a Bush delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and a McCain delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention.
(Do a YouTube search on "McCain's Connections with Terrorists" for more details on this and other connections of McCain's direct ties to TERRORISTS.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:34 AM:Capitalism vs. Socialism
The published letter from Don Steigerwald is correct that the issue is a choice between Capitalism and Socialism, although it is puzzling how he then concludes by supporting McCain. Is Steigerwald a Socialist?
It is the REPUBLICANS who have repeatedly brought this country to the brink of Socialism and, this time, have actually gone over the edge, as the GOVERNMENT takes actual ownership of banks and insurance companies.
Republicans have this extreme ideological mantra of deregulated markets, until their house of cards -- lacking the structural foundation and support of a regulatory protective framework -- collapses then, always unable to move to the moderate middle, their extremist pendulum swings to the opposite extreme, SOCIALISM.

FDR saved this country from Socialism in the 1930's by demonstrating a successful model of regulated market entrepreneurship that discredited Socialism and transformed this nation from economic ruin into the greatest economic powerhouse of all time. And PRESIDENT OBAMA (get used to saying it) will be the one who again saves this country from its dangerous flirtation with Socialism.

And the post from "Ron" (7:56am) shows how pathetically he has devolved into utter desperation. He says that his response to any critique of his failed, discredited theories of deregulation leave him "LOL" (laughing out loud -- lauging at the millions of real Americans who are suffering, just like Phil Gramm, the author of modern deregulation of financial institutions and the author of McCain's economic policy, who ridiculed Main Street Americans as a "nation of whiners").
He ridicules the economic policies of FDR, LBJ and Clinton.
FDR got us out of the Great Depression.
LBJ and Clinton were the last two presidents to preside over annual budget SURPLUSES.

FDR inherited economic ruin and created prosperity.
LBJ and Clinton presided over tremendous eras of prosperity.
I'll take my FDR, LBJ (on economics, NOT WAR, where he more closely resembles Bush), and Clinton over the economics of your Hoover, Keating, Bush, Gramm and McCain any day.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Roger wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:40 AM:Robert Douglas has it all wrong. Ever since Sarah Palin did her impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights, in response to the tough "gotcha" question: "What magazines do you read", Obama has been widening his lead.

Symptoms wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:53 AM:Bernard says we shouldn't be able to place campaign signs out in public. He is the symptom of what is wrong with this country- supression of free speech, narrowmindedness, failure to educate oneself on the basic rights in our Constitution and the Amendments. Frankly people like him shouldn't vote because they are all so uninformed!

Chuck wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:02 AM:>>>Gay is not a choice--unlike religion, which is a choice.>>> Gay is 100% choice. The racketeers tell you its genetic so they can milk the most out of it. And religion is a choice too, and morons have a real problem with: "You shall not lie, steal kill or covet etc etc" because its a model of self-responsibility-- a concept hateful to liberals.

Chuck wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:05 AM:>>>Its obvious that Bill Buelna failed Civics 101, because he does not understand the function of a Supreme Court. >>>
I dont think its so obvious. These filthy blackrobes on the CA supreme court are into social engineering. So, it doesnt matter what the people or the law says, it only matters what thir personal agenda is, and the whole planet knows what Blackrobe Georges agenda is

Wanda wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:08 AM:It's past 9:00 AM and nobody has regurgitated the "talking point" that Obama pals around with Bill Ayers.

What's up with this?

Compassionate wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:10 AM:....I believe that most are fine with gays having the same rights as a married couples; we just ask that they call it something else.....

I don't think that's true. When I voice my support for gay rights + call it civil union instead of marriage, I get the same excuses why gay people should not get the same rights as a married couple.

Again. What these people are doing in their bedroom is neither mine nor the governments business, but solely their own.

Ron wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:13 AM:Yesterday, there was an exchange, a nearly identical exchange that I had had with my good buddy...
"The Wizzer" @ {Oct 11} @2:51 PM about taxation of not only "income" but of all assets.

This is what Wizzer said only yesterday:
"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."

Now what I had provided {Oct 11 @ 1:47 PM}, was the breakdown, according to the IRS, who pays the totality of income taxes in this country, by taxable bracket.

Now, towards the end of his post, Wizzer then goes into his radical view of: you need to provide a complete list of income & assets by bracket in order to properly assess their payments, I guess. I really, and honestly do not know where this weird streak comes from, other than to say, that with this cavet Wizzer totally departs from what has been the traditional view of AGI, or ajusted gross income by the government. NOT only does he want to now see your income, your AGI, but NOW he ALSO wants to see your total wealth.
This is a viewpoint I've explored with Wizzer on many ocassions, and has lead me to believe he does have this radical streak in him, based upon an economic egalitarian world view, which stems from Marx and French Socialists.

"Reardon" {Oct 11} @3:37 PM also has picked up on this: "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."

Again, not just my observation, it has now been identified by other's.

To Which, "The Wizzer" {Oct 11}
@7:37 PM goes into full flung denial mode: "I said nothing about a tax on assets."

So, let's review...
Wizzer says: "The figures he provides, if accurate... are utterly worthless without a corresponding breakdown of how much each bracket has in both income and assets."

He WANTS TO KNOW BOTH INCOME & ASSETS.
It is a complete departure from any... ANY time in our history of taxation.
And it is a radical streak of wanting it all.

Was Duke Cunningham a liberal wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:15 AM:Was Duke Cunningham a liberal?
Was Larry Craig?
Was Mark Foley?
Was Ted Haggard?

They all lied. And they take no self-responsibility.

Chuck can say that liberals are evil all he wants, but it is republicans that actually DO the evil. Chuck can say la-la-la and ignore facts all he wants, but we know better.

Larry Craig tried to choose not to be gay, but he failed. Because gay is not a choice! Republicans prove this!

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:20 AM:Good morning "Chuck" at 6:13AM!
I do believe that it is spelled "lying", not "lieing".
Otherwise, your post is right on.
Unless they are spending more money trying to figure out where would be the worst possible place to put another roundabout, like several on 101.
BTW, did you hear that someone wants to put a roundabout at Contreras Road and Highway 371?
Methinks that they're all going daffy.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:27 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 9:05AM,
is that what people are calling complying with the Constitution these days, "social engineering"?
And here I thought that equal protection and anti-discrimination were just part of the California Constitution, the very document that the California Supreme Court is supposed to use as its blueprint upon which to make rulings.
Silly me,
I forgot the GWB doctrine -
"Constitution! Constitution! We Don't need no stinking Constitution!".
Regards, Alf.

NO on Prop. 8 wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:28 AM:Civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits and protection as marriage.

There are 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 on Prop #8. NO on #8 is a vote against prejudice, discrimination, hate, fear.

Roger wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:38 AM:George Smith seems less than impressed with Sarah Palin (go figure). McCains campaign never stood a chance, anyway. At least she provides some comic relief.

Gosh.

Golly, gee.

Marriage Rights for ALL wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:41 AM:In Germany, an anti-miscegenation law was enacted by the National Socialist government in September 1935 as part of the Nuremberg Laws. The Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre (Protection of German Blood and German Honor Act), enacted on 15 September 1935, forbade marriage and extramarital sexual relations between persons of Jewish origin and persons of “German or related blood”.

On November 14, the law was extended to Gypsies and Blacks[20].

Such intercourse was marked as Rassenschande (lit. race-disgrace) and could be punished by imprisonment (usually followed by the deportation to a concentration camp) and even by death.

The Nuremberg Laws were discarded after the capitulation of the Nazi regime to the Allies in May 1945.

MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR ALL.

THE FOUR CALIF JUDGES ARE PROTECTING THE US GOVT CONSTITUTION and YOU.

YOU will be able to practice your religions and sexual beliefs without harming others and without you and others losing their Constitutional rights.

Our rights are based on our Constitution, not the Bible.

Vote NO on Prop. 8.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:42 AM:The letter from Barry Mc Elmurry places the crux of his argument for the discriminatory Prop. 8 on propagation.
He says "The union of a man and a woman is very special, and only such a union can create the next generation by producing children, on which the future of any civilization depends. Since the male/female union makes such a vital contribution to the future of our country, we must recognize such unions as special."
Does he advocate a "civil union" or other second-class status for those heterosexuals who want to marry who are infertile or are beyond child-bearing age?
I think not.
All his smarmy words add up to one thing, he does not want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals,
to have equal rights.
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:45 AM:I find this line of argument just a little disingenuous from "Socialism vs. Capitalism" @7:57 AM. We have been dealing with the legacy of FDR style socialism since the new deal.
My example? Fannie Mae, founded as a government agency in 1938 under FDR, and today holds 70% of all American mortgages. It was not until it was chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government sponsored enterprise (GSE). And LBJ did so, in a semi-conservative move to privatize Fannie to remove it from the Federal Government's balance sheet, so he could balance. It was not a successful "private enterprise" cause everyone knew, if Fannie failed, government would be there to back up, and they have.
A Quasi-public/private mortgage agency of the US Government. Given prime exemptions of regulation as required on similar private firms, given special credit to asset ratios, No reporting to the SEC, and no paying of taxes.
So, this protected enterprise is a long, long ways from being "private", so let's get that cleared up right now!

Socialism is here, and it was injected by FDR and his New Deal.

And I also would agree with you, somewhat. That during the depression, Government involved in Government activities such as building public infrastructure, with borrowing and spending to do so, was definately called for. Personally, I see no difference between FDR building the Hoover Dam, and Ronald Reagan building a military to defeat a Soviet Empire. Both were needed, both borrowed to do so, and both employed millions of Americans.

Where I depeart from the FDR school, is this entitlement expansionism we have seen during the decades since the New Deal.
And this is where conservatives and liberals depart on this issue. From the conservative point of view, roads, bridges, schools, courts.. are all part of the infrastructure for a civil society.
Where we disagree is on the government providing services to individuals, like social security, drug benefits, and medicare, where the taxpayer, your neighbor is required to pay for your individual daily needs on an on-going basis.
I see nothing wrong with welfare, medicaid, or even other forms of temporary services from government, but.. BUT with Time Limits.
Liberals believe it should become part of your lifestule. Like a child living at home, getting free rent, putting all his money into his car, and not being held responsible for his own daily needs. This is where we fundamentally, disagree.

Compassionate wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:51 AM:Thank you for the clarification "No on Prop 8."

I wholeheartedly support gay rights + their right to marry. I just wanted to point out that even a small step toward "civil unions" is rejected by the so-called "compassionate" Christian folks I talked to.

And I agree with you: NO on Prop 8!

What liberals believe wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:59 AM:Liberals believe that every able-bodied man and woman in America should work for a living. What they earn should provide for their everyday needs. But when the minimum wage is not a living wage, the system is broken. When America is the only country in the world where one can go bankrupt because of medical bills, the system is broken. When hard working Americans lose their jobs because of the decisions of wall street billionaires, the system is broken. Liberals believe in personal AND fiscal responsibility.

Liberals know that government can provide some effective solutions, but those solutions have to be smart. Liberals know that we have to pay for what we spend, instead of pretending it all comes for free by ignoring enormous deficits, like republicans do.

Ron wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:14 AM:Keep on going... "OBAMACAN't" @ 8:23 AM.

OK, so you've identified two...
But can you match, person for person the number of radicals in the NObama field? I don't think you can.
So, in this very, very desperate attempt to go tit-for-tat is a losing game for you messiah-ites {small "m"}.

So you gotta go back to the Keating five, where John McCain was exonerated. Yes! He was! And by The New York Times on November 21, 1999. Exonerated. The NYT would never lie. It's the uber-Liberal publication that tells no lies, according to the Dems.
And we all know what the real political deal on the Keating 5 was, cause it was really about the Keating 4, maybe just 3.. ALL DEMOCRATS. So Hal Heflen dragged McCain in, just to balance out the blame. So got peddle that pap somewhere else.

And this last one... Your kidding me, right? McCain was present? LOL
In Oregon, in 93? LOL

So, that's two... a very, very desperate two. Now let's go through the messiah's {small "m"} list, shall we?
Ayers, 1995-2001 {maybe to the present?}
wrong Rev. Wright 1988-2008
Carl Davison 1988-?
Gerald Kellman 1988-?
Frank Marshall Davis 1977-79

I got miles more, friend.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:16 AM:Still changing the subject
The post from "Ron" (9:13am) follows the footsteps of "Reardon" yesterday in misrepresenting what I said.
"Ron" tried to complain about how much billionaires are "suffering" (nation of elitist whiners) by showing the percentages of taxes paid by the few richest.
I merely (and correctly) noted that such information is utterly worthless without putting it into the perspective of their share of both income and assets.
I did not say anything about any new taxes.
"Ron" and "Reardon" -- in typical creative fashion -- simply made that up.
I did not even say such information was available.
I was pointing out that "Ron's" figures were worthless.
If he claims that the information needed to validate his claims cannot be obtained, then that only further underscores how WORTHLESS his comments are.

But that is the problem "Ron" faces these days as he sees the economic house of cards created by his Republcan deregulatory buddies crumbling all around him and the sound of crashing causing Americans to wake up and seek refuge where they always have, with the Democrats who will save us from Socialism as happens over and over and over.

And "Ron" (9:45am) continues to cling to his allegations of FDR's socialism, ignoring the stark reality that FDR saved us from socialism, turned the failed Republican economy around, left socialism wholly discredited by the time he left office, and left the country in unprecedented prosperity (so, is "Ron" a closet socialist citing the SUCCESS of what he calls socialism under FDR? Sorry, "Ron," but true socialist economies have always failed).

Poor "Ron" can't stand the reality: his Republicans are the ones whose ideological pendulum is now swinging to the opposite extreme, as they abandon unregulated market theory and rush lemming-like to true socialism -- ownership and operation by the guv'mint of banks, insurance companies and investment firms.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

But Compassionate wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:18 AM:"Christians" who favor Proposition 8 have littlt if any Christ in their lives, minds or hearts. They try to cover a malevolent and hateful heart with the badge of "Christian", but their foul souls show through it.

Gary in Murrieta wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:29 AM:WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs.

“Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face, with billions of people around the world forced to live on just dollars a day,” said Senator Obama. “We can – and must – make it a priority of our foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/

** The Candidate of Hope is hoping that while he caterwauls about our lost billions, you won’t notice that he has already proposed the most jaw-dropping transfer of wealth in American history: taking nearly a trillion dollars out of the pockets of American taxpayers and doling it out to the world’s worst regimes through its most corrupt intermediary, the U.N.

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:39 AM:Obama lawsuit forces Citibank to make more SUB PRIME loans : Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

While it is very somewhat possible that these loans were denied because of a racial impetus, it is much more likely that the loans were denied because of the stated reason - the individuals' incomes were insufficient to cover to cover the loans in light of their credit history. In addition, it would be improper for a bank to invest in a loan where the borrowers would be unlikely to pay the loan back and, if they defaulted, the value of the home would not equal the value of the loan.

Apollo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:39 AM:Re: DDWiz (8:34 a.m.)
Love ya, Wiz, but gotta make one small correction or clarification -
In your blogs from this morning and yesterday, you referred to the Republicans swing to "socialism."
Yes, this is a valid point, but it needs to be defined more narrowly.
It is not socialism for the masses, but socialism for the rich.
Republican failures cause massive economic collapse and, as usual, they expect the middle class to be the sugar daddy to bail out the richest, even as they continue to float harmlessly down to earth in their golden parachutes.
Republican ideology: privatize profits, socialize losses.

David Cline and Jeff Schwilk wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:16 AM:Use a whole lotta words to say nothing!

Obama Biden wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:26 AM:Need to know our history because history repeats itself.

During the 7+ Bush years we did not follow the Constitution and we lost our way.

It is vital that we follow our Constitution. Our inadequate self-serving politicians/leaders, big business, and some extreme religious people do not believe in the Constitution.

There is much trouble in River city.

The middle-class is shrinking.

The war is costing: 4,000+ dead, thousands wounded mentally and physically, & EVERY DAY war money flows away faster than Niagara Falls.

Some Americans are able to get rich because of the war.

Most everything is not working at a high level (i.e. does not match our taxes; no bang for our bucks): health care, education, stock market controls (aka a depression), Medicare, marriage rights, the war on drugs, abortion rights, relationships with other countries, alternative fuels, Hurricane Katrina-2005 victims, our Fed govt debt, etc.

Time for a change: Obama and Biden.

TOVR wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:26 AM:Once again so-called Christians are praying that Obama will not be elected. Why aren't these Christians praying to heal the sick children of the world or people who need all the inspiration to make it through another day? I thought God and Jesus loves all, but they take it upon themselves to hate. Hate those that are not Christians. All you so-called Christians praying for something bad to happen to Obama...bad karma. Do unto others as you have them do unto you. When God strikes bad, be afraid, very afraid. He will not stand for your hate.

gracchus wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:27 AM:ron, your communiques increasingly confuse me. at 7:56 a.m. you write:

"Afterall, I never heard of McCain getting his VP's son an earmark to thwart the efforts of sick mepople from filing bankruptcy."

will you explain, if you can, what you are trying to say? and some documentation for your opinions would be nice.

i would also like to remind you that ronald reagan did not defeat "the soviet empire" as you claim in your communique of 9:45 a.m. the soviet union collapsed because of its own corruption and incompetence, and the containment policy of truman, continued by following administrations helped lead to that collapse. that ronald reagan defeated the soviet union is one of the biggest lies which u.s. conservatives erpetuate. they also fail to acknowledge that the massive military spending that occurred under his administration along with his tax cuts created huge deficits that flourished until bill clinton entered the white house.

your comparison of ronald reagan's spending on the military to fdr's public works projects are absurd. by raising taxes on the richest u.s. citizens, fdr got millions of u.s. citizens working on projects that stil benefit the country today such as the tvaand herbert hoover's great dam project which bears his name.

ronald reagan by contrast squandered money on sdi, illegally channeled funds to the contras in nicaragua, indiscriminately supported the feedom-fighters in afghanistan against the u.s.s.r. some of whom later became al-qaeda. all the while he encouraged the people of the united states to believe that they could have this military build-up without paying the taxes to support it.

that, ron, is the essential difference between a reagan republican and a new deal democrat. republicans buy military technology and borrow money to pay for it; democrats invest in the people and the country and raise taxes to pay for it.

Oh Alf Don t Lie To The People wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:52 AM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:27 AM: Oh Alf, you just don't understand that there is a world out there larger then the limited space between your ears. You said, "Silly me, I forgot the GWB doctrine - Constitution! Constitution! We Don't need no stinking Constitution!".

You know there is no official written Bush doctrine, There never was, other then the made up ones that you frightened, closet door liberals, also known as libertarians, wish to use to propagate your lustful hate of all things Bush.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:55 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:01 AM:
Malarky. It was codified by the National Security Council in 2002. Gibson defined the doctrine for her after Palin's answer of , "in what way,Charlie.: if it did not exist, why did not Palin just say that she never heard of it?

Oh Please wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:56 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:04 AM:
MMM Good. You betcha!

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:02 PM:Able-bodied workers
The post from "What liberals believe" (9:59am) is fine as far as it goes, but the statement about liberals supporting the dignity and honor of work by "every able-bodied man and woman in America" does not quite get it all. Not just those who are "able-bodied" -- as one who has worked extensively with the disabled, I can assure you that liberals also want full opportunity for disabled workers to enjoy the dignity of career opportunities. In these days of techological wizardry, almost everyone can find a way to make a productive contribution to our economy and to an overall betterment of our quality of life.

And the post from "Apollo" (10:39am) seeks to correct my usage of the term "socialism" and is, well, 100% correct. Allowing for the possible ongoing expression of human imperfections, I will try to henceforth remember to include the qualifier, socialism for the rich.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:16 PM:Ron at 10:14 a.m. continues to get his facts wrong. McCain was cleared of CRIMINAL wrongdoing, but was singled out for exercising poor judgment AND for being the only one of the Keating Five with "close personal ties" to Keating.
And what was the subject of that "poor judgment"? Close ties and inappropriate influence (writing letters to influence an investigation) in a scandal regarding the collapse of financial institutions!
Hmmm, Ron, you don't think that has the slightest, teensy-weensiest bit of relevance to today's economic meltdown of financial institutions?
Naw, of course not.
You conservatives never were too sharp about connecting dots, were you?
And you have not given one single solid link to any inappropriate involvement by Obama.
Not a bit.
Knowing someone, even his pastor, in a NON-POLITICAL association, is totally irrelevant.
Unlike McCain's involvement with Hagee, Parsley, Robertson and Falwell which was ONLY POLITICAL!
And don't get me started on the WITCH HUNTS of Sarah Palin's pastor problem!
So what's the matter Ron, you still can't even find ONE SOLITARY positive thing about your own candidate?
As he sinks, sinks, sinks, deeper into the oblivion of politcal quicksand?
(At least you're in good company. Not many other Americans can, either.)

And Buycks-Roberson at 10:39 a.m. does what conservatives do when the facts are not on their side: distort the facts.
Either that, or this blogger is admitting he/she can't tell the difference between enforcing anti-discrimination laws against redlining and the requirement that substandard loans be provided.
Nothing in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 et seq required that any bank write BAD loans, only that they not discriminate in making good loans.
It was the free-wheeling deregulation by the Repblicans in 1999 and 2005 that, in the name of "reform," weakened and undermined legislation that, thanks to community legal representation from people like Obama, who chose to take his Princeton/Harvard magna cum laude degrees and help the poor instead of, um, making billions in the greed of Wall Street, where he could have been part of the current problem (as Gramm/McCain became) instead of part of the solution, as he did.
Utter desperation.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:22 PM:"Gracchus" is funny even as he misrepresents history to the nth degree.

Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul and Margaret Thatcher joined together to destroy the Soviet Union and they succeeded.

Stalin once asked how many divisions did the pope have. Answer, two people, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Every dime Reagan spent on the military was productive. There is no Soviet Empire and the Russian successors to the Soviets can barely invade Georgia.

Every dime he spent on SDI was productive. We now have a system of anti-ballistic missiles that thwart any effort by any country to shoot missiles at us. At least testing of such systems in recent years have succeeded.

Reagan slashed income tax rates and revenue mushroomed tot he federal government. Small businesses exploded in size and quantity. Included for the first time in American history, Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush laid the foundation for an explosion of Hispanic business ownership that has resulted in 15 years of Hispanic businesses being founded at three times the national rate of business formation.

RR and GHWB slashed unemployment among minorities that even today is reflected in 11% black unemployment versus 14% under Bill Clinton. Even today Hispanic unemployment is less than it was under Clinton.

Gracchus is uninformed, or he deliberately misspeaks of history.

Apollo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:32 PM:Re: SDRaoul (12:22 p.m.)
SDRaoul continues to try to pass along discredited Republican propaganda.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both of whose conservative cognitive functions eventually deteriorated into dementia, had very little effect on the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I will grant that Pope John Paul II had some influence, but that was more in the East Bloc nations that the Soviet Union itself.
There were two primary factors:
1. The economic collapse from the failure of socialism and excessive military spending; and,
2. The personal courage of Mikhail Gorbachev to liberate his people through Glasnost and Prerestroika.

SDRaoul is uninformed, or he deliberately misspeaks of history.

Rhonda is WRONG wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:41 PM:Constitutional rights:
We are supposed to protect the MINORITY from the majority.

Rhonda & PT CM PH BB BM SD you will not lose anything.

Monogamous marriage for all.

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

Homosexuals deserve the same legal benefits and protection as you do.

America 'means' separation of state and church.

Founding fathers left Europe to be free from the Church of England. i.e. Separation of Church and State.

Your religion/church/bible/etc. will continue to be in 'business'.

There are enough marriages to create future generations.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

NO on 8 is a vote against prejudice, discrimination, hate, and fear.

NO on 8 is a vote for equal benefits and protection of our homosexual minority.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:55 PM:America's best known hockey mom, Sarah Palin, was greeted by resounding booes at the Philly hockey game. Earlier at a GOP fundraiser she said she would prevent booing by dressing her 7 year old daughter Piper in a Flyers' jersey. She said "how dare they boo Piper." She dragged little Piper along with her but the plan didn't work. I guess using your little daughter to deflect the booing you're expecting is one of the GOP "family values." Real classy Sarah!

Funny and unbalanced Fox, however, edited the booing out of its video clip and said the reaction was "mixed." They forgot to edit out the many Obama signs the fans were holding.

Chris wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:07 PM:Did any of you read on page A3 where Sarah Palin went from the capital to Wasilla to speak at a church service and she billed the taxpayers for the plane fare and per deim. Oh, thats right, our rags to riches boy, Bill, can't afford a newspaper and I suspect that Ron, Chuck, to Chris and Asteroid don't bother to read the newspaper. They are too busy blogging.

Roger wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:53 PM:Apollo at 12:32 quips: "sdraoul is uninformed, or he deliberately misspeaks history".

It's not a matter of either or, it's both, and it's all the time.
...

Wow tjefferson wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:53 PM:tjefferson
[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:55 PM:They forgot to edit out the many Obama signs the fans were holding.

Wow t(the brain)jefferson, don't ya think that's why they were booing.

Caro wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:56 PM:Chuck and all the other ignorati denying the existence of a "Bush Doctrine",

From the USA Today, March 17 2003, in an article entitled "Confronting Iraq":

Going to war will be the first exercise of what some call the Bush doctrine. Under it, the United States is willing to use its military and economic supremacy to protect its interests and assert its values with or without direct provocation. And it is willing to act with or without the backing of the international alliances that it helped create after World War II.

That's a dramatic change from the policy of containment, adopted by President Truman in 1947, under which a united West would block Soviet expansionism until the Communist regime collapsed. Now, Bush's strategists believe, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the rise of a new terrorist threat a decade later have created the need for new global arrangements.

There are, of course, many other mentions that Google knows about, but this is only one of the first.

You may agree or disagree with the Bush Doctrine as you like, but denying its very existence, sirs and madams, is evidence only of your profound ignorance.

Wanda wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:03 PM:Now that John McCain is "taking the high road", and won't be wearing his Ku Klux Klan outfit to the debate afterall, I have a modest proposal:

How about the candidates wear jump suits, just like the spiffy ones NASCAR drivers wear, with patches from all of their "sponsors"?

Happy wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:25 PM:To paraphrase my pastor this morning:

"Happy people don't have the best of everything.
Happy people make the best of everything."

Obama/Biden '08
Change we can believe in.

THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL caro wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:25 PM:Caro
[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 1:56 PM:"..some call the Bush doctrine".

Show me an offical signed doctrine from the Bush administration saying, this is our policy for Governing the Country, Not a quote from USA Today. You can't because, THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL!!! Sorry Charley Gibson.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:26 PM:Well, "Oh Alf Don t Lie To The People" at 11:52AM,
Lie?
Under the GWB Doctrine -
we have invaded and occupied Iraq who was not in any involved with 9/11 at a cost of over 4,100 DEAD American Troops,
over 26,000 wounded American Troops
and about $700 BILLION DOLLARS,
our National Debt has about doubled from about $5 TRILLION dollars to over $10 TRILLION DOLLARS,
GWB has made more "signing statements" than all other Presidents combined,
Gitmo,
torture,
"enemy combatants",
violated the 4th and 14th Amendments with warrantless wiretapping and spying on American Citizens.
The actual list is much, much longer, but that should suffice to prove the point that my feelings and those of many others (about 70 percent of the American People) are more than justified.
Actually the other GWB Doctrine is -
"The Constitution be damned, I'll treat it like toilet paper and I'll do what I want!! Who's going to stop me? Pelosi says Impeachment is off the table, I've got VETO and the Dems don't have enough to over-ride, so what are you going to do??"
What GWB did has earned him a special place in hell, if there is one.
Regards, Alf.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:47 PM:My answer to Wow tjefferson at 1:53. No, but your absurd spin did make me laugh. Thanks.

Marie wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:48 PM:I am afraid of Obama

A Florida congressman stated recently that Obama could not pass a security check to work for the government because of his past radical associations. Something the public knows nothing about. You, America, don’t know who Obama is. If you did, I do not think you would be singing his praises. The election is about to be stolen, by the MSM and by corrupt ACORN(for whom he was a lawyer and to whom he recently gave 800,000) and Get Out the Vote. Obama’s friends are all radical leftists. His membership in the New Party in 1992 was verified, despite his denials. The school programs he worked on were to radicalize students, not to educate them. Check it all out for yourself. It is on the Internet. Even CNN has a report on his radical connections. Who else wanted to re-distribute wealth? Oh, yeah, that was Marx. If a Republican had belonged to any equivalent organizations that Obama has been associated with, he would have been hounded from the race.

Marie wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:59 PM:to Caro

There are 5 known "Bush" policies.Even CNN admited that was a "gottch" question.

gracchus wrote on Oct 12, 2008 3:06 PM:in his diatribe at 12:22 p.m., sdraoul asserts:

"Stalin once asked how many divisions did the pope have. Answer, two people, Ronald Reagan and Maragret Thatcher."

when stalin posed that rhetorical question margaret was a child helping with her father's grocery business. reagan was a hollywood actor in which capacity he valiantly served his country making propaganda films during the second world war. the statement, sdraoul, shows gross anachronism.

sdi, protecting the u.s.a. from missles really protected the nation on september 11, 2001, didn't, sdraoul? i don't doubt that some scientific benefit has resulted from sdi, but it was still a boondagle. never could it have protected the united states from a nuclear attack as reagan believed. the money could have been spent better elsewhere.

you are dead wrong, sdraoul, when you claim that revenues mushroomed during the reagan years. they declined because of his tax cuts. cite a source showing that federal revenues increased during the reagan years.

Bill Too wrote on Oct 12, 2008 3:18 PM:(Not to be confused with Bill One or just plain “Bill”)

Back again – word of wisdom to all out there – DO NOT wait until you are 80 to have a hernia operation – do it at a much earlier age. It is VERY annoying for the first week at least. Doing fine thanks to our wonderful Socialized Medicine system (VA - Korea). If only private medical care was so good. The price is great too – a few years of my life at a much younger age in exchange for the care. Our current veterans are not so fortunate – they have much more drastic war inflicted problems. We, at least, had fewer options – no major injuries or death being the majority of the results. IMHO opinion death is sometimes the preferable option.

For all of those who insist that marriage is (mainly?) for the purpose of procreation – does that mean that marriage should not be allowed for me and my 65 year old lady friend (who BTW has had a total hysterectomy for medical reasons) because we cannot procreate? Not that we are seriously considering it because it is rather obvious that the primary cause of divorce is marriage – especially since the advent of prenuptial contracts. Get the Church OUT of my bedroom! I no longer live in the “Dark Ages.” Which one of the Gabor girls was it that said “I am a marvelous housekeeper – every time I get divorced I keep the house”?

I am totally bemused by the attitude of the “Conservatives” who are trying to maintain that the Government bailout of the big businesses that got us into this mess does not constitute “SOCIALISM.” Actually, it is NOT Socialism, but Fascism – where the (International) Big Businesses control the Government. Look up the definition for yourself. Socialism benefits ALL of the people – including the workers – Fascism benefits only the “ELITE.”

Our Governor has now said – Just days after he signed a budget (three months late) – that the State would soon run out of money and that we need a $7 BILLION bailout from the Federal Government. This is to pay for Police and Fire protection and Schools. Now I don’t know about this “Conservative” budgeting, but in my household I budget ESSENTIALS first and least important items on a sliding scale of need. Non-essential items (PORK in government terms) come AFTER ESSENTIALS are covered – IF any money is left. “Conservative” budgeting seems to do just the reverse.

All this bickering about who is right and who is wrong – as in “my party is better than your party” reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk encounters a person on a distant planet where they have had a generations long feud and there are only two survivors. When he asks what the problem is he is told that the problem is obvious – HE is white on one side and black on the other – his adversary has the colors reversed – and they end up destroying each other. The stupidity of placing people into categories and brainwashing them to believe that they are better than someone else. That is exactly why I believe that we should eliminate the requirement for voters to have to register by party. Let them vote for whoever the want to on ALL ballots – even primaries.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:12 PM:CARO, as someone who really follows the exercise of government it must be said there are at least 6 or 7 Bush Doctrines. It depends on what the subject is.

Charlie Gibson (with who I served in the Marines with) did put together a Gotcha moment. He should have defined what he meant by the "Bush Doctrine" if he ahs been doing a fair job. He didn't because he wanted to trip Sarah up. She asked back "in what regard" and he had to define what he meant.

Charlie is not an experienced government hand, nor does he have a real journalism background. He is a TV newsreader; he is not a real journalist.

To be one, one MUST have a print background. He doesn't.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:18 PM:Apollo is misinformed and also misspeaks. He knows nothing about the triad of Thatcher, Reagan and John Paul. For his information, they actually met together to plan and plot the demise of the Soviet Union at least once in the Vatican.

Our hot checks were larger than theirs were and they went broke just trying to keep up with us. Plus, the money Charlie Wilson managed to sneak out of Congress financed the shame of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

To not give credit to the Holy Three of RR MT and the Pope is not only disingenuous but also an outright falsehood.

jvc wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:27 PM:Why do we need a government plan for universal health care: GREED!

tjefferson wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:29 PM:Many print edition letters and posts on this forum envoke Bible passages as reason to legally prohibit same sex marriage. Why would be use a religious text as the basis of law in a secular society? The leaders of the four major Jewish denominations (wasn't it the Jewish God who wrote the first testiment?) are against prop. 8. Another Jew, Jesus Christ, is the inspiration for the New Testiment. The leaders of many Christian denominations are against prop 8. Religious authorities can't agree on this issue and this is why it is so important that we keep religion out the debate. The founding fathers were insistant on a seperation of church and state. The United States has one deity, the Goddess of Liberty, who stands atop dome of our national capitol and she has been mute of the issue of same sex marriage. This is an issue of civil rights. Biblical interpretation cannot be used to deny the rights of any minority under the Constitution.

Bush Doctrine wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:54 PM:Wow, Marie at 2:48 and 2:59 p.m.
Thanks for all the really specific, carefully documented info - NOT!
What a perfect example of hate-filled, bigoted innuendo and rumor without one single scintilla of evidence or documentation.

The more the McCaniacs resort to this kind of disgusting desperation, completely unable to find the slightest thing positive about their own guy, the more the clear the looming landslide becomes.

Bush Doctrine?
A "gotcha question"?
Again, cite the exact source.

Well, I will.

How about a document from the United States Department of State (Bush's own State Department).
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm
This refers to the "Bush Doctrine" as preemptive strike, exactly as Gibson stated.
And it is from Sept 2002, exactly as Gibson stated.

Or how about a document from the Department of Defense - Bush's and (at that time) Rumsfeld's - from a speech by VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY to West Point Cadets in 2003 explaining the BUSH DOCTRINE:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28921

Sorry, Marie, you have been busted for being either a bogus FRAUD or completely ignorant.

And your "specific" sources? "It was verified."
Details please. BY WHOM? Please don't give me any of that garbage from Limbaugh, Hannity or right-wing think tanks.
CNN? Give the date and specific reference. Everyone here knows how to use the Internet.
(Just because your candidate doesn't, please don't assume that everyone else is as stupid as he is.)

And as for Obama not being able to work for the government, hello, THE MAN IS A U.S. SENATOR!
And in a little more than 90 days, he will be sworn in as PRESIDENT.

THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:01 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:26 PM: Well Alf, Except for your hysteria, you have shown nothing of the Offical Bush doctrine that you people clame exists, Because there is none, only bad, and some would say unforgivable judgment over the years on the part of Bush, but NO offical written doctrine. Don't burst a gasket Alf, Just stop venting and do a better job proving your point next time.

To Marie wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:06 PM:To Marie at 2:59 pm-
Do YOU know who the real Obama is?
"Obama’s friends are all radical leftists." Really? Name five. Okokokok Name four. Okokokok Name three. Can't? Name two. Really? Name one. O-N-E that he is truly friends with, and not some fabricated fact from the Republican right-wing. Friends. You said radical leftist friends, so name one, and support your input with an unbiased source.
Clearly you are buying into the propaganda fed to you on MSM networks like FOX.
If you can't support your fearmongering with fact, then you are no better than high school girls spreading rumors to gain respect.
-One woman to another.

If there is one wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:11 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 2:26 PM:What GWB did has earned him a special place in hell, if there is one.
Regards, Alf.
Alf, You do not really believe in Hell, therefore you do not deserve to use it to further your point, if there is one.

Apollo wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:22 PM:Re: SDRaoul (4:18 p.m.)
I stand by what I said, Raoul, which I backed up with facts, unlike your fantasies.
Please cite the date that John Paul II hosted Reagan and Thatcher (the latter two already well on their way to the dementia common to simplistic conservative cognitive processes), AND provide documentation such as a white paper or other specific record that confirms that they actually planned a concerted effort to undermine the Soviet Union.
Or are you privvy to special "secret information" that no one else has?

The fact is that a courageous leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, seeking a better life for his people, coupled with the economic collapse of failed socialism and overspending on the military, collapsed from within, with little contribution by the rapidly enfeebling Thatcher or Reagan.

And speaking of overspending by the military, no doubt the very silly, fanciful pipe dream of a space shield (the fantasies of a rapidly deteriorating presidential grasp on reality), which cost HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, contributed enormously to the record deficits and debts piled up by Reagan, which undoubtedly was a contributing factor to the financial crisis of the S&L collapse that ensnared KEATING and McCAIN.
Hoover, Reagan, Keating, McCain, Bush - why would we trust the guys who broke it to fix it?

Do you know the difference Bush Doctrine wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:23 PM:Bush Doctrine
[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:54 PM: Do you have any idea of what the difference between a "Doctrine" and "a reason for reacting" is? apparently not, One is official policy, and the other 3ed person examples you sited, are reasons given to react to a situation.

Gotta Know wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:26 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 4:18 PM
Cite the time, place and criteria of the meeting to which you refer?

Reardon wrote on Oct 12, 2008 5:52 PM:To Tjefferson: ... Even as an avowed Atheist, the “wall of separation of church and state” by Jefferson is a crock.

Jefferson was not a member of the US Congress that passed the First Amendment. He was not a member of the Virginia Assembly that ratified the First Amendment.

His comment about a wall of separation was a comment in a letter written to a friend who asked, more than a decade later, why President Jefferson had failed to declare Thanksgiving a national holiday.

The “wall of separation” was Jeffersons' personal preference, as it is mine, but it is not part of the First Amendment. It never was. It is an extra-legal invention to interpret the Constitution.

In many ways it is like Roe v. Wade, which is also something the results of which I favor, but it violates the Constitution and should be the purview of the States.

(Obey it or amend it! Don't "interpret" it!)

Princess Sarah wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:22 PM:Thank you, Bush Doctrine at 4:54 p.m. for putting the lie to Marie at 2:48 and 2:59 p.m.

Referring to the GOVERNMENT documents, the Bush policy on preemption is not called "A" Bush Doctrine but "THE" Bush Docrtine.
As for having many policies, yes, for God's sake, he is the president of the United States!
He has lots of policies.
But only one is referred to as "THE Bush Doctrine."

If you think there are more, please cite as Bush Doctrine did the actual official references to them as such.

And as for "gotcha" questions, DON'T BE SILLY.
They are not "gotcha's" - THEY ARE JUST QUESTIONS.
It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone if they support or oppose Bush's very questionable and controversial doctrine on preemption, since it had never previously been U.S. policy, and resulted in a tragic, misdirected war.

Notice that when Katie Couric had several days in which she asked exactly the same question of Biden and Palin, when Biden answered them, he JUST ANSWERED THEM. It was just a matter of a news person questioning what his positions are. But when Palin had the same exact questions, she stammered, evaded and made routine questions LOOK LIKE "gotcha's." Similarly, in the debate, Biden asnwered smoothly, easily, and just stated his views. Palin winked, smirked, said "you betcha" and avoided and evaded (and admitted she would, what with being all mavericky and gee whiz golly such-like).
The woman is utterly unqualified, and the idea that she is the one who will take over when old man geezer keels over (or is put out of his misery by Christian Fundamentalist extremists who want one of their own in charge) is utterly terrifying.

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:24 PM:Well, "Bill Too" at 3:18PM,
you sure seem to have a heckuva lot of that there common sense which, by the way, is becoming increasingly less common.
Regards, Alf.

alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:52 PM:Well, "THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL Alf" at 5:01PM,
courtesy of "Bush Doctrine" at 4:54PM,
Here is a direct quote from
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm
"This aspect of the Bush doctrine is controversial, however, because it broadens the meaning of preemption to encompass military action "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.""
Now, if you read (I believe that you might be able to do so) the entirety of that document, you'll see that GWB is, essentially, declaring that he will militarily go anywhere, do anything he wants if he believes (if HE believes) that a threat exists OR MAY EXIST, that he is answerable to NO ONE.
Another quote -
"The Bush NSS confidently acknowledges America's unparalleled position of power in the world and unapologetically holds that a fundamental goal of U.S. grand strategy should be to maintain U.S. primacy by dissuading the rise of any challengers.".
Loosely translated - 'We're the bullies and we will kick the butts of anyone we feel might be able to get as big or strong as we are'.
While there are many 'GWB Doctrines', this one as well as his disdain for the Constitution are why people like me hate his ACTIONS.
He has not preserved nor has he defanded the Constitution as he swore to do TWICE, in fact, he has gone out of his way to violate it, insult it and shred it.
You can not deny the FACTS stated in my 2:26PM post, but you can dispute my opinions.
You can not dispute the FACT that there is a government document (a .gov web address) which states one of the GWB doctrines.
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:08 PM:From the Florida Sun/Sentinal:

(QUOTE)More than 30,000 Florida felons who by law should have been stripped of their right to vote remain registered to cast ballots in this presidential battleground state, a Sun Sentinel investigation has found.

Many are faithful voters, with at least 4,900 turning out in past elections.

Another 5,600 are not likely to vote Nov. 4 — they're still in prison.

Of the felons who registered with a party, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

Florida's elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new registrations in this critical swing state.

Browning said he was not surprised by the newspaper's findings. "I'm kind of shocked that the number is as low as it is," he said.

Asked how many ineligible felons may be on Florida's rolls, Browning said, "We don't know."(UNQUOTE)

John the Baptist wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:43 PM:Re Bush Doctrine: Bush never publicized his Doctrine because it would have emboldened the enemy.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:29 PM:BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did not urge Iraqi officials to delay a decision on a security agreement with the United States, Iraq's foreign minister told CNN on Sunday.

The statement by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari refutes a recent published report and a statement by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin that Obama tried to influence Iraqi politicians negotiating with the United States to score political points.

How abut that Sarah Palin- eh?

Thanksgiving wrote on Oct 12, 2008 9:46 PM:Come on, Reardon at 5:52 p.m., we all appreciate imagination and creativity. But as Alf so aptly noted exactly an hour after you, at 6:52 p.m., you are entitled to your opinions but not to make up your own facts.
Where on earth did you concoct this fable about Jefferson's "friend" and a question about "Thanksgiving" leading to his famous quote about a "wall of separation between church and state"?

Jeez Louise, Reardon, stop making stuff up!

The Baptist church of Danbury, Connectucity, wrote a respectful letter to the President of the United States who, by that time, was Thomas Jefferson, asking him to explain the meaning of the first amendment.
In a reply dated January 1, 1802, the President very correct described the first amendment's prohibition on any "establishment of religion" as meaning the government could neither encourage nor discourage any observation of religious practice, which he analogized to a "wall of separation between church and state."
I am reviewing a complete text of the letter as I write this. There is no reference whatsoever to Thanksgiving. While various presidents designated days of Thanksgiving on an irregular basis (and Jefferson was not one of them), they were not annual, not regular and almost none were in Autumn, until President Abraham Lincoln established a formal annual holiday, originally as the last Thursday in November, beginning in 1863.

Hey Reardon, if you don't know something, the correct answer is either "I don't know" or to remain silent.
No one is compelling you to try to prove what an authority you are on every little point of history on which you feel the need to be a know-it-all who really knows NOTHING.

Reardon wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:18 PM:You are correct as to the origin of the words. That document was not available when I studied the subject, and according to the Library of Congress it became available when the FBI was able to decipher the letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1998.

I apologize for my error as to the recipient of the letter, but the facts remain – Jefferson was not present at the First Congress that wrote the Amendment, and he was not in the Virginia Assembly that ratified regardless of whom the letter was addressed.

The letter was dated January 1, 1802 – well after the First Amendment was written and ratified, and he had nothing to do with either.

From the Library of Congress website sub-titled “FBI Helps Restore Jefferson;s Obliterated Draft:( http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html) “The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

To whom the letter was addressed is immaterial to the question of the meaning of the First Amendment, but I am glad you caught the error.

To Gay is not a Choice wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:31 PM:Sorry to bust your bubble, but you are wrong. The medical community makes it very clear that the Gay/Lesbian lifestyle is a choice. Not that you would know, you obviously haven't bothered to ask them. The fact is that they have produced a documentary called "It's Not Gay".

Stephen wrote on Oct 12, 2008 10:39 PM:I am so fed up with Mr. Scwhilk's biased letters. It's not about who's coming across the border. On the contrary, the lawlessness started on the American side of the fence. We can thank the 1962/1963 Supreme Court for that. They basically said that the Constitution was irrelevant.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:05 PM:Go fly kites. RR related how he met with Pope John Paul at the Vatican and the Pope had maps of Europe and Russia on the floor of his office. They discussed strategies on brining the Soviet Union down.

Look up the date and time yourselves, children.

jvc wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:24 PM:To those who have criticized Reardon,
he has more knowledge than all of you critics combined!

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:27 PM:Read and weep:

"Three Who Changed the World
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

I don't say that everybody has been waiting for it, but I was, and now it is out. The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, by the distinguished journalist John O'Sullivan, packs into an engaging narrative the detail and color of three decades of transformation-spiritual, political, and economic. The three figures who changed the world are, of course, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. For anyone who came of political age by the 1970s, the book is a reminder of just how much has changed. "Ah yes," a reader might find himself saying again and again, "I had almost forgotten that." For younger readers, this is an account of "the olden days" that persuasively explains how we got to where we are."

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:31 PM:Gracchus,... Revenues always increase when taxes are cut, see JFK, RR, GWB.

SDI works. 9/11 has nothing to dow ith that issue. I'll bet no [one] ever hijcak an Americna plane again with ?box cutters."

sdraoul wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:40 PM:Children of the Corn, read it here and quit trying to act like you know hwta you are talking about

Washington Post, Sept. 12:

"And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years.

Another dramatic announcement, you may recall, was his declaration on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (Or, as he put it on Feb. 11, 2002: "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good."

And then there was Bush's second inaugural address, when he pledged himself to spreading freedom and ending tyranny in the world."

Bill Too wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:07 AM:(Not to be confused with Bill One or just plain “Bill”)

Alf wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:24 PM: you sure seem to have a heckuva lot of that there common sense which, by the way, is becoming increasingly less common.
Regards, Alf.

Thanks for your kind words. I like your posts too.

80 years of life –doing my own thinking rather than just blindly accepting what I am told to believe – does have a tendency to make my outlook a bit different from the mass of the “sheeple.” It appears that you learned to think for yourself a long time ago too.

Regards, Bill Too

dave from oceanside wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:18 AM:If the rhetoric exposes the inept decisions on Obamas choice of acquaintances then he needs to address those points. Wasn’t he the one claming he could multitask?
If you’re opting for the easy choices then I guess “Present” as a response is ok but not very constructive or were you multitasking other important issues.
By the way multitasking is not always wise, that is why cell phones cause accidents on the highway. So let’s see you multitask issues on your involvement in Acorn and their fraudulent voter registration and strong arm tactic used to intimidate banks into giving mortgages to people unable to make a house payment. And lets hear more from you on your unconscionable involvement with a church that damns the US and befriending known bombers of government offices. Not paying attention and multitasking did get you in trouble with the above didn’t it! Sounds like someone with ADD.

Roberto1 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:55 AM:Sarah Palin has the balls to speak up...oh wait a minute, you liberals are correct she's a female and has no business in pollylicks. Vote McCain/Palin. Listen to the liberals you think Palin is running against bananarama. The comparison must be becaus she to like McCain is more qualified than Obama.

dave from oceanside wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:07 AM:If the rhetoric exposes the inept decisions on Obamas choice of acquaintances then he needs to address those points. Wasn’t he the one claming he could multitask?
If you’re opting for the easy choices then I guess “Present” as a response is ok but not very constructive or were you multitasking other important issues.
By the way multitasking is not always wise, that is why cell phones cause accidents on the highway. So let’s see you multitask issues on your involvement in Acorn and their fraudulent voter registration and strong arm tactic used to intimidate banks into giving mortgages to people unable to make a house payment. And lets hear more from you on your unconscionable involvement with a church that damns the US and befriending known bombers of government offices. Not paying attention and multitasking did get you in trouble with the above didn’t it! Sounds like someone with ADD.

Thanksgiving wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:48 AM:The point, Reardon at 10:18 p.m., is your spouting off "facts" that are simply poured out with no effort to check their accuracy, which is simply a pervasive tactic of conservatives.
And it was not just a matter of getting wrong the recipient of the letter.
What was that malarkey about Thanksgiving?
Nothing about it in the letter.
It was a request by the Danbury Baptists to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment.
No one, especially not Jefferson, has ever said that an individual letter, written to a constitutent on New Year's Day, claimed to be "authoritative."
But Jefferson coined a phrase "wall of separation between church and state" that, to many, encapsulated a simple explanation of what the First Amendment does mean, that the government deals with PUBLIC policy issues and religion is in the scope of PRIVATE affairs, and never the twain shall meet. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion (positive steps towards religious observance) AND prohibts infringement of "the free exercise thereof." Those two phrases combine to create both a freedom OF religion and a freedom FROM religion.

No one has ever claimed Jefferson's letter to be legally authoritative.
People cite it as they do other literary gems, because it succinctly expresses what they wish they had been able to express as articulately.
The phrase resonates and, in my OPINION, joined with Jefferson's OPINION, yes, it is also an accurate reflection of the intent of the First Amendment.

Gay Choice wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:52 AM:The blog at 10:31 p.m. is just more propaganda.
The "documentary" you cite called "It's Not Gay" is not from the "medical community," it is a hateful piece produced by homophobic religious bullies who want to impose their standards on others.
Did Larry Craig and Ted Haggard, who fought their orientation every step of the way, CHOOSE to be gay?
Why would anyone CHOOSE an orientation that makes them so hated and reviled?

If you want to claim authority from the medical or psychiatric communities, cite something from the Journal of the American Medical Assn (JAMA) or American Psychological Assn (APA) or other PEER-REVIEWED academic or scientific journal, not just another one of your hateful hit pieces.

Alf wrote on Oct 13, 2008 7:52 AM:Well, "Gay Choice" at 6:52AM on the 13th,
the anti-homosexual people are not interested in anything from anyone that might disagree with their irrational position.
Listening to the anti-homosexual folks, one would think that JAMA and the APA are nothing but "liberal propaganda machines" that are out to destroy our American way of life.
Such is the irrationality of people who use religion to mask their fear, bigotry and hatred.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 13, 2008 8:38 AM:Well, "Bill Too" at 12:07AM,
my father will turn 86 this November.
Chances are that he won't see 87.
While he and I have many differences of opinion, love of our Constitution, our country (not necessarily the current government), the written word and to continue learning are things upon which we agree.
And that the bad times as well as the good times are what make us who we are.
Regards, Alf.

gracchus wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:03 AM:concerning your claims at 11:31 p.m., sdraoul, take a look at the government figures concerning revenue during the reagan and gw bush years. it fell. simple mathematics should tell you that you cannot add and subract at the same time.

sdi has everything to do with the events of september 11, 2001. it indicates a military policy which depends upon technology rather than human ability. for a long time the u.s.a. has not been threatened by missiles; the threat has been from terrorists. how many nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, b-i fighter planes, and sdi projects do we need to deal with terrorists? we sadly lack the human intelligence which can effectively handle terrorists.

reagan emphasized military technology. gw bush has as well.

you're right,sdraoul. hijacking a plane in the future will be more difficult. now will you explain how sdi will protect our ports from a smuggled nuclear or dirty bomb on a commercial vessel?

homosexuality is a choice and a sin wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:30 PM:nuff said. oh and I will be helping spread the word to vote yes on 8.

observer wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:32 PM:I say vote prop 8 at the federal level.
this is the only way to have a gay union recognized. By the way it would never pass at the federal level.

But homosexuality is a choice and a sin wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:05 PM:You are wrong on both counts.
Keep religion out of government and out of laws.
Vote No on Prop. 8.

No on Proposition 8 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:41 PM:Is heterosexuality a choice?
No.

If you are a heterosexual,
did you CHOOSE to be a heterosexual?
I don't think so.

Vote No on Proposition 8!

homosexuality IS a choice. wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:48 PM:it has increased since it became the "in" thing. Vote Yes on 8 to keep liberals and leftists from silencing our churches.

Oh pleawe wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:50 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:05 PM:
Document with sources not just your mouth.
Pope never mentioned it in any of his papers. Regan never mentioned it either in any of his official or unofficial papers.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:51 PM:sdraoul: You need to give at least an honorable mention to Boris Yeltsin when he stooped the coup. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have been restored badder than ever.

To David Cline wrote on Oct 13, 2008 9:49 PM:Oh Sure. Sure you "know" Olga Diaz.

You know Olga, like I know the President.

Just because you asked her a bunch of loaded questions (ones you knew weren't just like your mindset)...you claim to know her. Sure Mr. Minuteman (pronounced my-noot-man). You have been telling your tall tales for so long - few believe you.

Typical you would endorse Abed & Gallo - they chant the same rhetoric that you do!

The Minutemen endorse Abed & Gallo --- that's more than enough reason to NOT vote for these two shoot first ask questions later legislators!

Vote for Quality and Intelligence - Vote for Barron & Diaz and move the city forward!!