Floyd wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:34 AM:It's this way -- when a liberal opposes someone, it's because they are expressing hatred. When a conservative takes issue with a politician's policy by marshaling facts and figures to support their case, liberals assume it's hatred because that's the only method of disagreement they know. For proof, just look at all the letters from the liberals about Sarah Palin -- from the things they say about her you'd think she was worse than Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy or Bill "Lied Under Oath" Clinton!

Floyd wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:38 AM:You're right, the Sprinter does screw up traffic during rush hours. Maybe we need a ballot initiative that prohibits Sprinter operation during rush hour. That would help clear up the mess.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:50 AM:In her letter, Peggy Taylor now used "the children" as pawns in advocating the discriminatory Prop. 9.
She says "Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children"
while failing to note that about 50 pwrcent of "traditional marriages" end in divorce which leaves any children in broken homes
Which is better -
A) a home with bickering adults,
B) a home with only one adult,
C) a home with loving adults as parents?
If you chose "C", given the fact that about 50 percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, why not have two loving adult parents no matter what the gender combination is?
The only reasons for not having two adults of the same gender are fear, ignorance and prejudice.
Vote No on Prop. 8.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:03 AM:The letter from Leland Gordon is a perfect 10.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:14 AM:The letter from Bob Ference begs the question or two or three,
what do you call having the government take money from the People and giving it to the banks and Wall Street?
Who started the deregulation and who kept decreasing the regulation of the banking industry?
Whose idea was this bailout, uh rescue that will cost The People and their children for generations to come?
You can't lay those off on Obama.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:29 AM:Part of the letter from Robert Martinez has me bothered.
He says "You just lost $100k on the value of your home. Did your mortgage payments also come down? Now you are still making payments on a $500k home, taxes and insurance.".
If you "sign on the dotted line", you agree that you are borrowing "X" amount of money,
you are not borrowing an amount of money that varies as the value of the house changes.
If one uses the "logic" of Robert Martinez, his mortgage payment should also GO UP if the value of the house goes up. I bet he would scream blood murder if the bank raised his payments as the value of the house went up.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:44 AM:The news is reporting that Passengers overpower man who attempted to hijack Turkish jet. It wont be long before Pulse, CNN and the rest of the blithering liberals will wonder if excessive force was used on the terrorist filth. And, as for the nationality of the hijacker- lets just say his last name was not Smith

Fair and Balanced Observation wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:09 AM:"Floyd says: It's this way -- when a liberal opposes someone, it's because they are expressing hatred. When a conservative takes issue with a politician's policy by marshaling facts and figures to support their case, liberals assume it's hatred because that's the only method of disagreement they know."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh Please wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:30 AM:Floyd[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:34 AM:
So where are your facts and figures, Mr. Conservative. Hatred? Just visit a McCain rally and listen to the outbursts. LOL. LMAO.

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:32 AM:I do hope Floyd's 1:38 AM post was an intentional joke.

Being as the number of people who drive to work far exceeds the number who ride the Sprinter to work, the ballot initiative would probably pass (there are an awfull lot of Floyds out there).

Blithering Liberal wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:38 AM:Apparently, Chuck is back (or has quit posing as Short Bus Skippy).

His 6:44 AM post is full of the facts and figures with which conservatives present their reasoned arguments.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:46 AM:Obviously my good buddy...
"Apollo" }Oct 14} @9:19 PM, needs my assistance. I'm more than happy to provide the required education, as I always do.

We were having this discussion yesterday about who really gets to decide in a free market what, where, when, and how.
As opposed to a government run healthcare plan, when they tell you who, when, where, and how.

To which, he responded: "Are you kidding Ron? Customers are bosses?
You obviously don't have much experience with self-employment, do you?
If you go to the doctor or dentist, you may be the "customer" (even if they call it "patient"), but it is the professional who tells YOU what you need.
And under Obama's plan, you can switch carriers or switch doctors."

He avoids answering the question, because he knows what I'm saying is true. How many times have we all read right here of medical providers complaining openly about the payment/reimbursement rates of either the State, or the Central gummint?
I know I've read many. Currently, the way government contains and controls costs, is by restricting payment for services to medical providers.
I've pointed several times to a story about a 64-year old women in Oregon, who was denied cancer treatment, because the State was reserving State funding for youth. I predicted this would happen inside politically run programs, where patients are left to fend for themselves, when the State decides, based on budget priorities, who they'll treat, and what they'll offer as treatment. If the government is allowed to run healthcare, by budget, this will be a proxy method of determining who, what, when, where, and how. As was the case of Barbara Wagner in Oregon who was denied cancer treatment, but offered "pallitive care", which included doctor assisted suicide.
Of course, the "youth" are all future taxpayers. Just a little too cynical you think? I don't think so.
It makes perfect sense, if you a human secularist, who has rejected life at the beginning, see's old folks as a drag on the economy, sucking away economic resources to younger, stronger future citizens. And being a human secularist, throwing off the yoke of religious oppression of christian orthodoxy thus rejecting the church, yet being hard-wired as religious creatures, you then turn towards the State, the last vestage of hope.

Does this all sound rather fantastic?
I don't think so, it has all happened in history. Do yourself a favor, and google Eugenics. We had flirted with it in our past, we still have vestages of it with us still today. But, it was in Germany 1933-1944 were we all saw the fullfilment of these human secularist practises. Afterall, they were the people they were waiting for too.
To paraphrase NObama.

Republican Socialist wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:49 AM:I was puzzled by the letter from Bob Ference.
He rails against the socialist takeover of our economic system and the redistribution of wealth, and then ends up with the non-sequitur of opposing Obama.
What?
Bob, open your eyes. This has been done entirely by a Republican administration.
You can't campaign against Obama's lack of Washington experience, and then hold him responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong in Washington, especially when it has been done by the opposite party!

And I was REALLY puzzled by the blogs from Ron on yesterday's page, ranting against Obama's health insurance proposal and, at the same time, the expansion of socialism.
How can he compare Obama's private-sector proposal, which many liberals object to because it is neither full single payer or government run, and complain about the expansion of socialism, when his party has just taken over the largest property-casualty company in the world?
Why is owning and operating a property-casulaty insurer not socialism, but setting standards and providing backup options for private health care services is soclialism?
Sorry, but that is too complicated for the mind of this simple Republican conservative.

Poor Ray Erler wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:51 AM:Enough said!!!

Roger wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:52 AM:Ray Erler's reasoned argument in favor of Sarah Palin, with all the facts and figures we've come to expect from conservatives, has made a believer out of me.

I was especially impressed with: "She doesn't stumble and search for words...". She certainly doesn't. It's like nothing so much as a word association test, where she blurts out the first thing that pops into her head.

It's a real hoot to watch.

Seems a shame we won't be seeing anymore of her after three weeks.

Backcountry wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:53 AM:Robert Green is convinced that Obama "The Messiah" believes and preaches that we are not divided and are all Americans. I wonder if this is what Obama meant when he told a group of San Francisco elites in a private meeting when talking about small town rubes in Pennsylvania?...."They cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them"

As far as I am concerned Obama is just a figurehead who may talk a good game (as long as he has a teleprompter) by telling people what they want to hear but we need to look out for the radicals, terrorists, Marxists and extremists who surround him who will be the ones really running the government.

Just remember Orwell in 1984...."All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:01 AM:Ray Erler just can't get enough of Caribou Barbie, likely because of all the facts and figures she uses to bolster her reasoned arguments.

Apollo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:02 AM:Re: Stephen Carter (letter)
Carter writes an excellent, excellent letter, but I do think one statement could be misconstrued. He is correct in excoriating Richard Kirk's baseless ideological rant against the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. Kirk clearly distorts CRA by saying it "essentially pressured banks to abandon prudent norms" when it did nothing of the kind. It only outlawed redlining and provided secondary funding sources with which to assist QUALIFIED buyers in previously unacceptable areas. Carter's reference to "relaxed standards" misrepresents the demands of the legislation which were more along the lines of reform that weakening regulatory protections. This law worked well for almost 30 years until undermined by deregulatory "reforms" in 2005 passed when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency.
The rest of Carter's letter's letter, and the overall tone and conclusions, is excellent!

Re: Ron (7:46 a.m.)
This rambling rant says nothing to address the actual point about whether health care that is provided by private insurers meeting government standards. According to Ron's "logic," any so-called "private" business contracting with the government would be socialistic. Since he has repeatedly tried to portray himself as both a self-employed business owner and a government contractor, according to this criterion, he is the biggest socialist in this blogosphere.

Short Bus Raoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:06 AM:Floyd's thoughtful and reasoned pots at 1:34 AM is the truth.

A recent study at the Raoul Sinverguenza Institute has found that 94.3% of blithering liberals are silly.

That's the truth.

Because I say it is.

She Said wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:07 AM:The Pro 8's are reducing themselves to the "child card". I received a forwarded email from my good Orange County religious brother. I would have cut and pasted it but I deleted it. The two undocumented talking points where about (1) teacher teaching children about same sex marriages (shame, shame, teaching legal issues) and 2) a teacher invited her students to her same sex wedding. In addition, there was a request for funding the Yes campaign. Silly and easy to answer questions: where are these peoples' heads? Can't they see that which is to be?

To Ray Erler wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:10 AM:It's too late Ray, Palin has already shown her mettle. She is corruptible (trooper gate), she is a liar (didn't support the bridge to nowhere, and her recent declaration that she was cleared of any type of wrong doing in trooper gate), she stirs hatred and national division (her recent lies about Obama) to peddle her own political career, and she has pathetically poor knowledge of world and national events (as was clearly displayed during the pathetically few interviews she and her handlers have allowed). Yes, she is mediocre, like the rest of us Joe six-packs. But since when is being mediocre something we should celebrate as a qualification for a leader, especially during these complex times. Republicans gave us 8 years of Bush and we saw and are seeing what dishonest, unintelligent and secretive politicians bring us. Now Republicans want us to vote in a Bush with lipstick (and McCain, a Bush-clone locked into Bush policies and the good-old boy Washington scene). Do they really think we are that stupid? Sorry Ray, this isn’t a head scratcher, it’s a no brainer.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:13 AM:And then there's my buddy...
the land reformer "gracchus" {Oct 14}
@11:50 PM, again questioning my sourcing, when I have routinuely had to point him the the direction of sources.
I thinkk I'm growing tired of doing people's homework for them, but...
since I'm a compassionate person, I'll help you out, yet one more time.

I was reading the UK Telegraph, just for your information. But, I'm noticing a trend here, first my good buddy ask ME to document my sources, yet I never recall seeing any of HIS sourcing?
That would appear to be a bit of a double-standard, I have to prove all my points, every jot & tittle, yet...
Nothing from you? Again, I don't mind keeping you knowledgable, but there does come a time when, after I teach you to fish, you fish. Ya know?

And certainly, I would expect this from my good friend, he applauds the "cheating" of going around bueracratic rules set-up to deny cancer drugs to needy patients. Yes, it's true, they are cheating, they are breaking the rules set-up to deny care, but it only works for those who can afford them, privately.
I guess what he misses in all this governmental morass is the idea of why the Brit's took over healthcare, in the first place. So people would not be denied care, and all... ALL would receive the same care. He blows right past it, probably like he blows past my posts, by either scrolling or using the (-).

And he also found it encouraging, as most human secularist would, that money that could be spent on helping the sick & the dying, as being spent on "jobless youth", to help them "find themselves."
Again, one of my pet peeves with secularists, they are perfecting willing to divert funds from older sicker persons, and give to the future taxpayers to help the State.
Everything begins, and end's with "The State."

Keep digging for that whistleblower story, it is there. Do you find it odd, that we are encouraged by the State to blow whistles, yet when it is done, the blower, as it were, is then attacked?
I sure do. But, not surprising, since these systems are run by the bueracrat, for the bueracrat, and to protect the bueracrat.

And finally, the conditions, as properly reported by this whistleblower, went ignored. And then you question why these government run hospitals are filthy? Perhaps your not aquainted with a story, that just happened last year in LA, where a woman went to a publically run hosptial, and died on the floor in the ER, while the janitorial staff mopped around her?
When Brit patient's fear the system so much, they then buy these "patientpaks",
to protect themselves against getting sicker, while in the hospital.
That should tell you everything you'll ever need to know how these government run hospitals are actually run.

But, finally, it should concern you, that when Barackous NObamous pledges to lower your medical costs by $2500 a year, that you do not see where this is going?
If you pay less, you get less. If the government pays, you'll get even less.
As is the case of every... EVERY Liberal legacy program, social security, medicare, medicaid, pensions, etc., etc., etc.... ALL broke.
And heading for disaster. And their only option, their only opinion, ever.
Is more money. When they can't manage the money we've already given them?
Is that really wise? I don't think so.

Bob wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:13 AM:Well, Backcountry at 7:53 AM, your misquote is from "Animal Farm" not "1984".

Then again, this the closest your post comes to accuracy.

Even MORE bad news for yahoos wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:21 AM:From the NY Times QUOTE The McCain campaign’s recent angry tone and sharply personal attacks on Senator Barack Obama appear to have backfired and tarnished Senator John McCain more than their intended target, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found.

After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.

Over all, the poll found that if the election were held today, 53 percent of those determined to be probable voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama and 39 percent said they would vote for Mr. McCain. ENDQUOTE Can this be? Can the American voter finally be saying that talking rationally about issues is a GOOD thing? And that sliming, lying, and smearing is COSTLY to the slimer? Well glory be! Maybe it IS a new dawn for us, and maybe the Atwater/Rove/Palin way of doing politics is finally dying.

Word wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:23 AM:Going to "pot". What does that mean? Some old school term?

Same Sex Polygamist wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:23 AM:I'm really pleased with Richard Boonstra's letter, which essentially concedes the issue of same-sex marriage and argues, instead, against polygamy, which is not on the ballot and which has no relation to the Constitutional prohibitions against mandated discrimination based on gender.
The source for his off-topic concerns?
Quoting people from Utah, where there is probably the strongest anti-gay sentment in the country, but the strongest pro-polygamy sentiment, showing how completely unrelated the two subjects are.
Thank you Richard!

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:32 AM:Blah, blah, blah, more empty rhetoric and hollow words of generalities from those unable to find a single legitimate objection to Obama or a single positive reason to support their own candidate.
Marcy Young's letter talks in vague, rambling generalities and says nothing except that she likes McCain and doesn't like Obama. Ho hum. Vague generalities. Empty rhetoric. Nothing of substance.
In like mind, Backcountry at 7:53 a.m. uses the word "messiah." Uh huh. How many times have we heard this? And ONLY from Obama opponents who have to misrepresent the fact that Obama supporters have a solid candidate who is clearly the better of our two choices. No one who parrots this right-wing hate radio talking point has ever been able to cite an example of an Obama supporter who worships him, claims he is perfect, or that he is anything other than a good man who is the best choice from the available options.
Again: No reasons to oppose Obama. No reasons to support McCain.
I guess that makes the choice clear.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:33 AM:Apollo doesn't know what he is talking about when he comments on Community Reinvestment act mortgages.

I worked for a large California Savings and loan that was purchased by Citibank. Both banks bonused loan officers when they closed a "CRA" loan. Citibank in particular pushed very hard for subprime loans because they fulfilled CRA quotas and were short-term profits.

I'll stack my years as a banker to Apollo's any day when it comes to defining what happened with bank mortgages after I retired.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:39 AM:“Oh please" just how many McCain/Palin events have you attended? Until you do and actually witness some of the crowd's behavior I suggest you keep your laughable comments to yourself.

If you really want to criticize outrageous behavior and comments perhaps you should direct your ire at the most racist congressman in Congress, the "revered" John Lewis who unleashed, or tried to, the dogs of racism on McCain and Palin. He has absolutely no evidence that his charges are true. His charge is fiction and libelous.

In fact, it is his candidate and his campaign that have humped racism for months, not McCain and Palin.

Parent wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:39 AM:The blogger "She Said" shines the spotlight on an event that should concern most parents. The fact that a public school sponsored a field trip to city hall for 18 first graders to witness their lesbian teacher marry her partner demonstrates that indoctrination of our children is already occuring. We should expect more of this indoctrination because the California Teachers Association is backing the No on 8 effort. First graders normally study reading, writing, and addition and do not take field trips to weddings of any kind. This was an inappropriate use of educational resources aimed at brainwashing impressionable children. Vote yes on 8, or as a parent you will not be allowed to voice an objection to this kind of "education" for your 6 year old.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:44 AM:Waking Up Socialist
The published letter from Jack Fulton makes an excellent point about Americans who would never vote for a socialist, waking up one day and finding that "they live in a socialist state."
And excellent work, citing as a source the head of the American Socialist Party, Norman Thomas.
Since Thomas also rightly blamed FDR for the destruction of Socialism in America in a 1936 interview in Time magazine, he must have been referring to the Republicans who would be the ones to sneak socialism into our political system and, what do you know -- he was absolutely right!
How clever they have been -- for years accusing Democrats of being socialists until, suddenly, they institute full-blown government ownership and operation of productive resources, making us now an openly socialistic system.
Thanks for the warning, Jack, but aren't you a little late?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Blessing supporter wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:47 AM:Stotmeister's support is almost reason enough I wont vote for Blessing- what were you thinking Mike?

He Said wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:54 AM:So, To Ray Erler @ 8:10 AM: After analyzing your review of Sarah, it seems she would be a good complement to Obama. You know, "the birds of a feather" thing.

Apollo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:57 AM:Re: SDRaoul (8:33 a.m.)
SDRaoul's conclusion has no relation to the "facts" he asserts, though any "facts" from Raoul are automatically suspect. The fact that pushing loans to unqualified that would be guaranteed by someone else, even if they did not meet credible underwriting guidelines, was a dishonest, lazy, cheating way to cut corners and find an "easy way" to meet the mandates of including underrepresented populations.
There was nothing in the Act that mandated reduced standards.
That would have only been the policy of Raoul's company, not the CRA.

Another reason I would never do any financial deal with Raoul.

Micheal wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:57 AM:Can someone tell me, since every Liberal social scheme hs been a complete failure and has bankrupted our state and country. Why would anyone espouse leftist ideals and think that all we have to do is spend more and more money that we dont have on programs that have already been proven to be failures.

oh raoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:03 AM:You know as well as anyone that the McCain rally where people in the audience shouted all kinds of absurd and terrible things about Obama, so much so that McCain allowed his former, honorable self to go "off message" and defend Obama, only to be booed by his own supporters! And you also know about Sarah Palin criticizing Obama for "palling around with domestic terrorists". Why must you falsify so much, raoul? And in such transparent ways? Why, raoul? Tell us.

Speaking of Messiahs wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:05 AM:I don't get how conservatives criticize Obama as a "Messiah", and then talk about how Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air who will singlehandedly clean up all of Washington politics and corruption. I never heard an Obama fan make such an outrageous claim. But the yahoos on the right seem to believe that the barracuda is some kind of superhero.

Michael and Chuck wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:09 AM:Wow, Michael seems to have gone to the Chuck school of political science and history. At that school, there is only one lesson: anything bad that happens is the fault of liberals. No one who attends this school ever thinks about this idea, since, if they did, they'd see that blaming people who have had almost zero power since 2000 (maybe since 1994) makes absolutely no sense.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:11 AM:How many times do I have to say this? I mean.. really!!!
"Republican Socialist" @7:49 AM,
just because you look forward to a time when we can all be equal, in the rice paddies, does not mean the I subscribe to what is going on inside the swamp that is known as our nation's capital.

I was against the bailout, have been against the bailout, and I am still against the bailout.

Just because GWB & McCain want to flirt with socialism, does not mean that I am also signed onto it.

And what is now truly scary...
Is that with this election being so close, and a guy who ranks 1st, while an avowed, a real socialist, Bernie Sanders ranks 4th, could be given the keys to the kingdom. And with, I might add, a group so far left, you got McGovern out there protesting some of the stuff these Marxists want to do.
That's how far to the Left these people are.

So, again, for your own education...
please don't scroll past, or use the (-) to not read this and live inside the echo chamber, cause I know your comfortable there...
I'm not for this bailout, never have been for the bailout, and think it was the WRONG thing to do.
Unfortunately, I'm not voting, I don't really have a say here.
And this is why sliding scale socialists really scare me. Your own individual economic security is just as important, as your right to be secure in your own home.
However, in the Liberal scheme of things, not only will they sell your house out from underneath you, after they've given you an affirmative action loan, but then they will actually have the nerve to tell you, that it's Your Home, and Government don't have a right to take it from you. When THEY are the LandLords!!!
How do those two thoughts go together?
Like nailing Jello to a wall.
That's how.

SATIRE wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:11 AM:What is Michael at 8:57 a.m. thnking?
Liberals have been a failure?
The same Liberals who got us out of the Great Depression, won World War II, developed the Manhattan A-Bomb project, operated the Berlin Airlift, put a man on the moon, transforemd record budget deficits into record surpluses?

And compared to what? The conservative Republicans?
The ones who got us INTO the Great Depression, the 1980's S&L collapse (thank you McCain/Keating) and the current economic meltdown (thank you McCain/Gramm)? The ones who invaded the wrong country and could not defeat a ragtag enemy after we toppled their leader? The ones who took record budget surpluses and transformed them into record deficits?

Oh, I get it. That was satire again, wasn't it.

oh Michael wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:13 AM:You mean such liberal failures as getting women and african-americans the vote? You mean such liberal programs as government-run fire departments? Or state-sponsored education that made possible the college education of all those GIs after WWII and since? Maybe Michael means the New Deal. Michael would prefer, I guess, laissez-faire free market unregulated business, that great conservative idea that gave us the current financial mess and the great depression. Don't get all nostalgic on us, Michael. Those really weren't the good old days for most people.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:17 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:39 AM:
Poppycock, hombre. Ever watched TV. Ever heard of it. Ever watched the news. It is right there on your screen. Heck, it was even on your favorite TV station. You have seen it yourself. You are a hoot. Just for the record, I would not have any interest in attending a McCain rally.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:20 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:39 AM:
Your comments Lewis is just pure conservative manure. How many Lewis news ops have you attended? I suggest until you do that you keep your laughable comments to yourself. Your conservative deflection and change the subject technique is laughable.

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:25 AM:Micheal at 8:57 AM questions why we should "...spend more and more money, that we don't have, on programs that have already proven to be failures?"

Made a believer out of me!

I was about to vote for McCain because I figured 100 more years of the ruinously expensive, counterproductive war in Iraq was a terrific idea, but now that I've seen the light I'll be voting for Obama.

Thanks.

Short Bus Raoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:32 AM:Apollo's 8:57 AM post is all lies!

In fact, a recent study by the Raoul Sinverguenza Institute found that sdraoul's facts are 100% accurate 100% of the time.

That's the truth.

Because I said it is.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:33 AM:Haven't you heard...
"NOBAMACAN't" @8:32 AM?

He IS THE messiah {small "m"}

Nancy Pelosi said so, Louis Farrakhan now says so...
Many others have said so...

NObama thinks he is, speaking from his Barackopolis in Denver.
So, as Old Joe NOBiden says: It's time to get in, time to get on board...
and drink the kool-aid.

OMG wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:33 AM:Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnn... Same old rants from the same old myopics, no real substance in fact but entertaining anyway! The Independent vote will decide your fates in three weeks, deal with it!

Surfer wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:49 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:39 AM:
Get real Dude. Lewis did not make any charges. He expressed his opinion. Lewis said the McCain rallies was reminding him of the Wallace era. So, a black man who expresses his opinion is a racist. Was Lewis a Black Panther? See ya!

Ayres is a Moderate wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:49 AM:From Todays Chicago Tribune: "Ayers' office door is decorated with pictures of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Che Guevara and Malcolm X. It is also home to pictures of children, bills of rights for students and parents, and a rainbow-hued greeting card advising "How to Be Really Alive." A place of prominence is give to a New Yorker cartoon of a man interviewing for a job. The interviewer says, "I'm trying to find a way to balance your strengths against your felonies."

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:49 AM:As I scan Ronn's comments here and there, one thought occurs to me. How awful it would be to have to work for a man like him. As for the small business "mantra", a major thing wrong with our country today is the fact that so many have to work for a small business. Benefits and good salaries go out the window when small business rules. And, if a small business owner actually manages to make a PROFIT of more than $250,000 (all for himself), why shouldn't he pay higher taxes? And do you think someone would just quit and pout if they did?

Haha raoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:50 AM:"sdraoul
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:39 AM:
“Oh please" just how many McCain/Palin events have you attended? Until you do and actually witness some of the crowd's behavior I suggest you keep your laughable comments to yourself."

Ever heard of video, raoul? I can see this crap every night on the tv for myself. I wouldn't be caught dead at one of the fringe lunatic events that Palin/McCain put on. Bet that was you in the back holding the stuffed monkey with a Obama sticker on it. When you saw the camera on you, you quickly pulled it off and passed the monkey to a kid. What a classy guy!

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:58 AM:Obamacan ...says: "uses the word "messiah." Uh huh. How many times have we heard this? And ONLY from Obama opponents...

Did you forget it was Louis Farrakhan that used exactly that word "Messiah" to his followers when describing Obama?

It is available at you local YouTube site.

FARRAKHANT wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:18 AM:Thank you Reardon at 9:58 a.m. for proving my point by citing an example of someone describing Obama as "Messiah" who Obama has both renounced and repudiated (remember the debate with Hillary) and who is also rejected, renounced and repudiated by most of Obama's followers.
--FarrahkanT, but Obama CAN.

Richard wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:20 AM:Incredible that after the years we've had with people saying one thing and doing the opposite, that someone here in North County actually believes that Obama is the charlatan, not those leading this current administration. Our head honchos still want to somehow believe that Hussien was behind the U.S. anthrax attacks and thus refuse to formally apologize for that claim made to the Australian Parliament. They legalized torture to get information they want to hear and tell us 'we don't torture'. 935 well-documented lies to start a war in Iraq, and now we see it totally backfired because thousands of Christians who resided in Mosul for 1,800 years are now forced to evacuate to escape the ravages of Al Qaeda that were able to enter post-Saddam, weakened Iraq. Obama's not the charlatan here, sorry sir.

Oh Please wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:23 AM:sdraoul: It appears my retort to your comment was censored. Let me know if you attended the debates tonight after you watch them? Or, perhaps, you should keep your laughable comments to yourself. After all, you really did not attend.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:23 AM:I have seen no liberal comments on Obama announcing to a plumber on video tape that he intends to redistribute the wealth.

"Spread(ing) the wealth around" was Obamas' phrase.

Since it is obviosly not a misquote -- it is on videotape -- would a liberal please "nuance" this for me -- I am a plain person, given to thinking that words have meaning.

Surfer wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:28 AM:Ray Erler: Dude, when you going to pop the question? See Ya!

gracchus wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:35 AM:in your communique of 8:13 a.m., ron, you insist that the story about the whistle-blowing anasthesolgist in britain does exist. i will believe you when you provide the source. otherwise, based on your record of factual fabrication, i will continue to consider it fiction.

whenever you question one of my statements, ron, i shall be happy to give you my source upon your or any other person's request.

i would like to correct one of your paradoxes, ron. you wrote "human secularist." most people write the oxymoron "secular humanism." you should be aware that humanism was a roman catholic movement that developed in europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. it was an intellectual response to the corruption within the church which sought to banish superstition and to elevate reason in the worship of god. the conservative hijacking of the word "humanism" to become synonomous with secularism or atheism is completely ahistorical.

fianlly, ron, yes you do have to prove your points. within the past week you claimed that people shouting "kill" at a palin rally were liberal plants. you have yet to proved your accusation.

and your egregious accusation last friday of 5 million illegal immigrants int he u.s.a. holding mortgages has not been substantiated or withdrawn.

with a recent record like that, ron, why should i or anyone else believe that your communiques contain any element of truth?

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:36 AM:I want you to notice the devious genius that is Barackous NObamous.
Look right here in "Vista Granny"'s
post @ 9:49 AM.

"As I scan Ronn's comments here and there, one thought occurs to me. How awful it would be to have to work for a man like him. As for the small business "mantra", a major thing wrong with our country today is the fact that so many have to work for a small business. Benefits and good salaries go out the window when small business rules. And, if a small business owner actually manages to make a PROFIT of more than $250,000 (all for himself), why shouldn't he pay higher taxes? And do you think someone would just quit and pout if they did?"

Where in any... ANY of NObama's statements does he ever say Profits of $250K? Where?
He clearly says; If you "make" $250K.

As each one of you will atest by your paystub after Uncle Sam takes his cut, before you even see the check you boss wrote, you MAKE $60K a year, but your take home, your net profit is $45K, approx.

Now what the heck is Granny, and the rest of you talking about. The English language being what it is, is not exacting. Hence, the slippage of the NObama rhetoric on "making" $250K, versus what Granny perceives his to be saying.
You see, Barackous is that wonderous empty vessal, that you place all of your hopes, dreams, and futures into.
Show me where he has spelled it out that he is ONLY talking about $250K a year in profits?
Cause it ain't there.
And that's how he keeps fooling em, day after day.
Oh, and just so ya know....
if 409 million low income Americans ain't paying taxes now, they can't get a "tax cut."
What they'll get is a welfare stipend.
Been doing some thinking about this, how bout we just try this, and leave the gummint out of it?
How about, we adpoted people, families?
Sure, we could sign up, get a picture of the person, or people, just like they do when you sponsor a kid in Central America. That way, you can get updates, keep track, get to know them.
Insitead of just hoping your unfriendly government will actually do as they say?
I know we already do this in Social Security, your kids pay for your trip to the bingo parlor.
We just need to make it direct.
But then, the bueracrats won't like that so much, I think.

Obama supporter wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:36 AM:Reardon
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:58 AM: I can't hear you!, and if I close my eyes, you can't see me, I'm an Obama supporter.

gracchus wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:43 AM:backcountry at 7:53 a.m.: i remember; you forgot.

"all animals are equal; but some animals are more equal than others."

source: ANIMAL FARM

author: george orwell, great socialist writer

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:43 AM:DD: Obama seems to have an exceptionally long list of radicals he has had to renounce -- but please note that he has not done so until after his run for the presidency.

Just today, Obama has renounced Jesse Jacksons' statement on Israel.

Just as Clinton had a "Bimbo Eruption" division, Obama has a "Radical Eruption” division.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:45 AM:Well, "Micheal" at 8:57AM,
are you talking about the "liberal" program of deregulation that resulted in our "liberal" president pushing for a "liberal" $700 BILLION dollar bailout, I mean "rescue" of "liberal" uderegulated banks and "liberal" Wall Street?
And the "liberal" $700 BILLION dollar SO FAR war in Iraq?
Are THOSE the "liberal" programs of which you speak?
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:45 AM:Reardon @ 10:23 AM

I think Vista Granny @ 9:49 AM nuanced a liberal point of view on wealth redistribution with her rant on small businesses. Having worked for small businesses all my life in the Construction Industry, I for one can say that I received good benefits and such a good salary that I was able to retire at 50.

So much for your theory Granny.

grj wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:50 AM:Sad to think because of bush people are still paronoid of radical islam?
George Bush created a lot of hate in the world for america by attaching innocent countries.It is sad to think people believe MCCain/bush clone,
will make the world better. More violent and hated, yes

Chris wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:51 AM:I see that Jim Gibson is up to his usual by throwing out more of his stuff in order to pander to the military loving flag wavers probably in order to help him get votes for the Oceanside city council. I am talking about how Gibson wants the Vista School Board to make a statement in support of proposition 8. I hope you in Oceanside get him so we can be rid of him.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:51 AM:To Obama Supporter: Nice turning of a phrase!

Beautiful!

Chris wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:57 AM:So Floyd talks about conservatives marshaling facts and figures to back up their claims. What rot. I have never seen a conservative put out facts and figures only rhetoric about how the Liberals are bringing the end of the world. As far as Sarah Palin is conserned she is a classic example. All this stuff we heard about her is false and all she does is put out all this right wing propaganda.

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:01 AM:No, Richard at 10:20 AM, it's not really incredible. Folks just regurgitate whatever they've been spoon fed on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh without even attempting to digest, leave alone think about any of it.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:02 AM:Well, "Richard" at 10:20AM,
what baffles, astounds, amazes and perplexes me is that the same people who lie time after time keep getting elected or re-elected.
Like the person who keeps hitting his head with a hammer and expecting that this next hit will not hurt.
Isn't there a disorder listed ANYWHERE in the DSM4 for that?
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:28 AM:From the New York Times Today

WASHINGTON — The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States trooped into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department at 3 p.m. Monday. To their astonishment, they were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left.

The chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, was receptive, saying he thought the deal looked pretty good once he ran the numbers through his head. The chairman of Wells Fargo, Richard M. Kovacevich, protested strongly that, unlike his New York rivals, his bank was not in trouble because of investments in exotic mortgages, and did not need a bailout, according to people briefed on the meeting.

But by 6:30, all nine chief executives had signed — setting in motion the largest government intervention in the American banking system since the Depression and retreating from the rescue plan Mr. Paulson had fought so hard to get through Congress only two weeks earlier.

What happened during those three and a half hours is a story of high drama and brief conflict, followed by acquiescence by the bankers, who felt they had little choice but to go along with the Treasury plan to inject $250 billion of capital into thousands of banks — starting with theirs.”

Question: Why should any bank not needing a "bailout" be REQUIRED to take one?

Chris wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:34 AM:So now sdraoul say's he was a banker. This on top of being a journalist and author. He and Bill ought to get together.

Oh Ron.... wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:45 AM:Ron, get a clue.

Obama will raise takes for folks with an AGI (that's AFTER DEDUCTIONS) of 250K+. When you run a small business, as I have, your AGI is well short of your gross income because of all the business deductions you take.

I ran a successful small business for almost 10 years, and I made enough to support my family in a decent house, but I never came close to reporting $250K in income in a single year. My gross receipts were mostly more than $250K, though. Most of that paid for business expenses, reinvested in the business, or put aside for retirement, etc.

I'd hate to see you run a small business, Ron!

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:47 AM:It ain’t the sex, it’s the cover-up, the illegal hiring, and the sexual harassment of an employee:

ABC News:” The FBI has reportedly begun its own preliminary investigation into an ABC News report that West Palm Beach Congressman Tim Mahoney (D-FL) hired an alleged mistress to work on his official staff and then paid her $121,000 to keep her from going public and filing suit after she was fired.

FBI agents have reportedly contacted members of Mahoney's staff and Tuesday sought legal files surrounding the secret settlement, according to current and former Mahoney Congressional and campaign staff workers."

Question wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:55 AM:If the majority opinion here despises Rush Limbaugh, why does his program keep growing, with more than 20 million listeners? The same question could apply to Fox News...

Answer for Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:55 AM:According to the Wall Street Journal 9/14/2008, Jason Furman, Sen. Obama's economic policy director, replies that "making" refers to adjusted gross income.

Adjusted gross income, or AGI, is what's left after taking your total income and then making various "adjustments," such as deductions for moving expenses, individual retirement accounts, student loan interest, self-employed health insurance payments and numerous other items.

However, adjusted gross income is before you claim either the standard deduction or itemized deductions.

If you filed Form 1040 last year, your total income appeared on line 22, and adjusted gross income appeared on line 37.

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:57 AM:Chris, if you read Reardon's posts, he rutinely cites articles and statistics, and he is quite a conservative. Ron and SDraoul also cite statistics, but I take those with a grain of salt.

Mahoney is scum wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:59 AM:Mahoney ran as a "christian conservative" and as a "blue dog democrat" who was openly critical of Pelosi and House democratic leadership.

Mahoney is a conservative, as was his predecessor Mr. Foley.

Democrats should be happy to boot this idiot out of congress.

Can we get someone other than a conservative christian adulterer or a closeted gay republican out of this strange Florida district?

She Said wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:00 PM:Regarding Tim Mahoney (D-FL): Just another of the millions of men who think with their little head, not their big one. It's immaterial whether they're Demo's, Repub's, no party what so ever, corporate exec's, laborers, any race or ethnic group, etc.

Reardon speeks the truth wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:10 PM:To Reardon at 10:23AM: I could not agree with you more Reardon. As a conservative businessman and one of Obamas desperetly needed cash cows in Obamas 5% (Take it from them)catagory, I would like to tell you what it means to me.

However, I think It will be better if I have some of our estemated 8 employees, that I will have to let go after Obama gets his wish to raise our taxes. 8 employees that are more like family to me, 8 employees that will be needing to access and drain the system as they look for new jobs, and not contribute to the system as they currently do now. I'll let them speek for me, and we can ask them at that time if there sacrifice made any middle class family wealthier, as Obama claims while he is selling it to the masses to get elected. We'll get back with you then.

Oh by the way , did you hear the latest Lib talk similer to the 9:49AM post that says ,"If joe the plumber's business makes more then 250k a year, he is not a small business and can afford it". That's the self-centered, small-minded, Think about yourself only, Can't look at the big picture mentality we are dealing with. Keep up the good work Reardon.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:11 PM:Ding.. Ding..Ding!!! WE have another loser! And it's none other than...
"Oh Ron...." @11:45 AM, Telling me I need to get a clue. I think...
it's time for HIM to get one.

Yet, he persists in his fantasy:
"Obama will raise takes for folks with an AGI (that's AFTER DEDUCTIONS) of 250K+. When you run a small business, as I have, your AGI is well short of your gross income because of all the business deductions you take."

See what I mean about an empty suit/vessal? It could mean anything your little heart hope it will be.
All ya gotta do, is.. believe.

From the messiah! {small "m"}:

QUOTE: "Repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts for families over $250,000 while continuing to leave their tax
rates at or below where they were in the 1990s:
o Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and
39.6%. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today. Obama would also restore the 1990’s
levels for the personal exemption and itemized deduction phaseouts (known as PEP and Pease).
Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to
ensure that no married couple "MAKING" less than $250,000 (or single "MAKING" less than $200,000) was
affected by these changes.
o Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates
that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only
families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20%
rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in
2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii
o Dividends: The top dividends rate for people making over $250,000 would be set at 20 percent.
Dividends will not return to being taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Obama’s 20 percent rate on
dividends will be 39 percent lower than the rate President Bush proposed in 2001, and would be
lower than all but 5 of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.viii
o Estate Tax: The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7 percent of estates. For the
remaining 0.3% of estates over $7 million per couple, Obama will retain a rate of 45%. This policy
would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84 percent relative to 2000.ix
o Average Tax Rates Below the 1990s: Overall, the top 1 percent of households – people with an
average income of $1.6 million per year – would see their average federal income and payroll tax
rate increase from 21 percent today to 24 percent, less than the 25 percent these households would
have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.xi" END Quote

YOu stand corrected. Making Income...
and it's all messiah talk. {small "m"}
Thank me!

Short Bus Raoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:11 PM:Chris' 10:57 AM post is all lies!

Here at the prestigious Raoul Sinverguenza Institute we come up with facts and figures all the time. Just today the institute released the results of our latest study: Chris' posts are dumb!

That's the truth!

Because I said so!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:12 PM:Question[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:55 AM: For the same reason that his 20 million listers are not on this blog. What does his popularity with conservatives have to do with the liberal disdain? (You need to document that 20 mil figure)

to kathleen burge wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:14 PM:sorry kathleen i will not tolerate evil
you definition of love and compassion is also suspect

SPEAKING OF VOTER FRAUD wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:17 PM:Up in Orange County many registered voters are returning their jury summons, because they either "No Habla", or they are not a U.S. Citizen. HUH ! ?

I really hope the government aggressively prosecutes instances of deliberate voter fraud. Meanwhile lazy Americans who do nor vote will let the elections be blatantly stolen, just like our country is being overrun.

R/ Skip

Ms M wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:18 PM:Question
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 11:55 AM:..we know that there are a lot of people who need to be led around and told what to think - just look at the last 2 elections.

Richard wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:21 PM:Yes, may God help this country help itself, because no leader, without miraculous help, could ever attempt much of a re-right of a wrong as huge as the lied-about invasion of Iraq. The ramifications can only be estimated at best but are already set. Going back in time to get a do-over is impossible. Mitigation, coupled with what are the mechanisms by which we should be fighting actual (not presumed) terrorist operatives, instead of blind pre-emption, are the things we need to be figuring out. Unfortunately this administration will not likely ever have answers and yet they're still there for at least another 3 months for more mischief. There STILL isn't even anyone arrested or accused for the outing of Valerie Plame, our chief foreign weapons of mass destruction CIA operative who was in charge of overseeing the undercover assessment of Iraq's WMD's prior to the invasion. She had said there was nothing there and indeed there was noting there, and yet she was ignored and in fact exposed thorugh cynicism spread to reporters by Rove and Libby from Cheney's orders that were barked out withm a total lack of understanding of who the Wilson's were. If we can't even resolve our own internal problems, protecting ourselves form outsiders is virtually impossible.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:22 PM:To She Said: O.k. I'll buy that argument, but then why was the "Foley Scandal" grist for the three-letter national news nightly for weeks?

BTW, as a former TV executive, I was waiting for the day when a cable news department program with rising viewership, crossed the graph line of three-letter national news programs which are plunging.

Last week, the Bill O'Reilly show out-pulled viewership from the CBS Evening News every night.

It is like watching the trend lines of newspapers, v. the trend lines of "alternative news sources"

If you own newspaper or MSM TV stock, sell short! The expiration date of those products has been reached.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:28 PM:And...
Even MORE wishful thinking on the behalf of the NObama-ites!

"Answer for Ron" @11:55 AM is now "quoting" one of Barackous NObamous's economic advisors!!
And just to give it a little GRAVITAS, he then quotes it from a conservative newspaper... SOOOOOOoooooo
It MUST be true! Right? Wrong!

In a minute, provided it gets past the hall monitor, I cut & pasted, using quotes this time, so don't start going off on me...
I quote him saying, from his own plan, on the website... MAKE, or MAKING.

So, you can listen to his "advisors" all you want. We were also told by his "advisors" & his web site that he never had nothing to do with ACORN, and now that's.. coming unglued.
We were also told, Bill Ayers.. I was just 8 when he was doing all that crazy stuff. But, he was 30, when he worked with the guy, knowing he "did" "all that crazy stuff."
We heard from his advisors, and the messiah {small "m"} himself, that he never.. NEVER heard Jerimiah Wright say anything in the entire 20 years he sat in this man's pew's, and yet...
He throws the guy under the bus, after then saying, well.. yeah.. I heard it.

Empty vessal my friend, empty suit...
to place ALL your hopes, dreams, and lay your future's at the feet of "The One."

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:31 PM:The 11:55 AM poster may well be shocked to learn that 50% of the population has an I.Q. below 100.

Add to this the people who are too lazy to think for themselves.

Skip wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:39 PM:During a campaign event in Ohio, Obama gave the following responses to questions concerning his new Tax Plan.

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Spread the wealth around? This is America, isn't it? Redistributing the "wealth" is a classic tenet of Marxist philosophy. Communist China, the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and so on.... they all believe in government ownership of basically everything. Hard work, initiative, expertise... none of that is rewarded. Instead, the efforts of the talented and the hard-working are taken from them and given to those who don't work as hard. The result is a decrease in productivity, not to mention the self-fulfillment that comes from being rewarded for a job well done. And this is exactly what Barack Obama wants to do!

Chris wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:52 PM:I have seen some of Reardons stuff and most of it you can take with a grain of salt.

Chris wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:00 PM:The question was asked why Limbaugh and Fox news keeps going. If you follow the conservatives you will notice that they don't think outside the box. They only are a bunch of Parrots. No matter how old they get they never get any wiser. As I said I have changed my mind about these conservatives. Whereas so-called Liberals are more attuned and don't need their daily marching orders. It is my oppinion that the conservatives need Limbaughs and Fox whereas we Liberals are not inclined to follow some pied piper.

Boat wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:37 PM:Reardon
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:23 AM: Speaking of "spreading the wealth around" what do you call what Bush, Bernanke, Paulson, et.al have been doing lately?

Radical Bimbo wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:43 PM:Submitted 11:26 a.m. and skipped
Resubmitted 1:42 p.m.

Reardon at 10:43 a.m. (addressed to DD!?)
tries to "link" Obama to an "exceptionally long list of radicals" which he tries to compare to Clinton's "bimbo eruptions."
But in every single case the "link" is very remote, very tenuous or, in the case of his pastor, a bizarre distortion of the real context.
Trying to compare that to Bimbo Eruptions is a real stretch - those involved with bimbos, including almost all the Republicans who accused Clinton, had a much more direct connection (literally)!

OBSERVATION wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:51 PM:Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., was reacting to a report that two White House memos, in 2003 and 2004, gave the CIA written approval for using specific interrogation techniques on al-Qaida suspects. Those memos followed an earlier Justice Department opinion clearing the way for harsh interrogations so long as the methods did not cause intense pain similar to causing death or organ failure.

The existence of the White House memos was revealed in Wednesday's editions of The Washington Post.

hardtack wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:54 PM:ALF : pursuant to our exchange yesterday (Congressional responsibility / power).
Walter E. Williams has an excellent column today titled: Political Monopoly Power.
You can find it on TownHall, Opinion.

This is my second try at this post. It’s worth the effort – Recommended reading for all.

Answer wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:59 PM:As a society we have steadily moved towards being more partisan, angrier, less tolerant of opposing viewpoints, and more interested in spectacular forms of entertainment. Fox and Rush cater to all these trends. More hateful, more partisan, more insulting, louder, angrier. It sells in the current USA. Long, complex, rational discussions of issues is boring, elitist, suspicious and doesn't sell. The success of Rush and Foxnews is a mirror of what we've become. As proof, you can see how many people would even brag about this fact. RIP American democracy and the founders' vision of an informed electorate.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:03 PM:Boat: Check my 11:28 am -- I do not, and never have supported the "bailout."

It simply prolongs the pain of the market caused by the stupid and greedy, and the same people who got us here are the ones still in charge: Paulsen, Cox, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and about seven out of nine mega-bank presidents.

Some of the $800 billion "bailout and Christmas Tree" money should be spent building prisons for a lot of fraudulent paper signed or approved by a lot of fraudulent people.

bodecea wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:03 PM:Parent,

re: the 1st grade trip to see their teacher's wedding in San Fran....I got a chuckle out of you leaving out a few pertinent facts: 1) the Parents planned that trip and surprised the teacher 2) written permission slips were required, and 3) any student not going simply went to another teacher's class.

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:07 PM:I've talked to many liberals and conservatives and I've seen examples of independent thinking and parroting. Therefore, voters need to research the facts instead of repeating talking points, regardless of party affiliation.

Chris to Looking Glass wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:09 PM:Some of the stuff I am refering to conserning Reardon are his comments about spreading the wealth around. Now spreading it around is fine if it goes to the rich but not the averaged joe. Now the other thing is Jackson's comments on Israel. I don't know what they were but probably true. I doubt REardon knows anything about Israel. Just the same old myths that the conservatives never question. Why should Obama bring out things that he doesn't have too. Why doesn't Reardon talk about the lies from Sarah Palin? What I hate about conservatives is their holier than thou attitude and how they cause all kinds of problems for others (like war) based on their ignorance and they simply refuse to check things out especially if it conradicts all the propaganda they have been raised with.

Even MORE bad news for yahoos wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:17 PM:From the Times QUOTE Sarah Palin's favorability rating is now 32 percent, according to the new Times/CBS News poll, plummeting 8 points from earlier this month, and her unfavorable rating soared 9 percentage points to 41 percent. ENDQUOTE One by one, even many hard core conservatives are endorsing Obama, finding the Palin pick utterly objectionable. Christopher Hitchens, who left the libs by agreeing with McCain and Bush about Iraq, is backing Obama. William Buckley's son is backing Obama and quit his job at the National Review over it. In many cases, these folks say the Palin appointment was a big reason: they still have their conservative values, but they see her as a danger to the nation and they, unlike McCain, put country above party or ideology. I hope all of you got a nice buzz from Sarah's 15 minutes of glory. That's all she had and America sees the truth now. They should have kept her hidden until election day. Once the buzz was over, people had a chance to reflect: is this woman really Presidential material? The answer is obvious to those who are patriotic.

Boat wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:22 PM:Reardon
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:03 PM: I didn't mean to imply anything personal. I just think that with people fretting about Obama's alleged statements, in light of actual events, it is kind of ironic.

I agree with you that people should lose their ill gotten gains & go to jail. We'll have to wait & see if that actually happens I guess.

That March 2008 Federal Reserve Bank study is worth checking out. The one that Stephen Carter mentioned in his letter to the editor. I did & it is interesting. Also, if you Google "Gramm deregulation" one of your first hits is a Mother Jones article that is worth reading, too. The article is entitled "Foreclosure Phil " which would be funny except for the seriousness of the situation.

bodecea: It is called "The Logical Fallacy of Ommission." At least it was when I took logic at Palomar College back in the Jurassic Period. I tell you something but I leave out salient facts. Thus, I am not lying, but I am not exactly telling you the truth either.

Karl wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:26 PM:A few miscellaeous thoughts I received via email today

"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them".

"Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits"?

"One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country".

"Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party".

"What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it".

"It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people".

Karl wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:30 PM:Wow! Chris accusing someone else of a "holier than thou" attitude. Now that's funny.

Backcountry wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:33 PM:It was Louis Farrakhan, leader of The Nation of Islam who praised Barack Hussein Obama as being "The Messiah." This is a powerful endorsement by the most radical, anti-American leader and we should all be concerned, whether we are liberals or conservatives. We must realize before the election that Obama is merely a talking figurehead whose administration will be influenced, overrun and operated by extremist powers tthat really don't care about our constitution or our laws.

In my entire 75 years I have never seen our nation in greater danger than with the choice we have this election. It is no longer a debate between Democrats and Republicans (both of whom make plenty of mistakes, but at least we can argue over). Instead we are faced with a man in Obama who represents pure Marxism and who is surrounded by dangerous forces who, I believe want to overthrow our way of life. We cannot turn our government over to the likes of Louis Farrakhan, George Soros, to ACORN or to all of the radicals and extremists who are attracted to Obama, or anyone else who believe Obama is The Messiah.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:35 PM:Chris: When I am asked by friendly politicians if they can use my name, I always answer: "I am willing to support you, or oppose you depending upon which will help you the most."

In that light, I am happy to hear you don't like my posts.

Please continue. Some people take solace in their friends and in their opponents.

My cup runneth over.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:43 PM:Karl[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:26 PM:
I think that I understand what you are saying. The truth of the matter is that it is the voters who placed, are placing and will place politicians in these 545 offices.
It is we who are responsible. You get what you pay for.You get the type of representative that you voted for. Our problem is that the American people do not have the gravitas to face the truth and to deal with it. The American people have delegated problem facing and problem solving to the future so that they can enjoy today. They elect representatives who will give them that today. We have been doing it for decades. The American people did not think that the day of having to pay for the use of all that credit and the inability to obtain more credit would ever happen, OOPs. Campaign for Liberty. Ron Paul in 2012.

joe4473 wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:44 PM:It is very interesting reading these commnets. The NC Times seems to have a very liberal, left wing readership and anyone that does not conform to their beliefs is chastised and wrong. Too bad, this could be a good rag. First off, I could care a less about Obama's change, he is a politician, Republican or Democrat, they are all exactly the same, rich and don't care about the middle class. They only say they care to get votes and then dump on us all the time. Too much talk about Palin not being qualified to run the Country. That is nice, but she is running for VP and not President; however, she is definitely more qualified than Obama base on her Governorship alone, and he is running for President. Maybe, we should do away with political parties and just vote for whoever is going to be the best for the Country without party sides. At least then there would be no Republican-Democrat BS, just individuals who either stand for what we believe or not.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:46 PM:Well, "Chris" at 11:34AM,
it appears that my other reply to this comment didn't get posted.
I checked .
Yes "sdraoul" was, indeed, a real estate loan officer, a banker.
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:53 PM:Boat: Personally, I support pure deregulation, but what we had was the worst of all worlds -- failed regulation.

Worst, because in pure deregulation the populace understands caveat emptor and employ outside resources as a check.

In the current case, we had oversight that did not oversee, leaving the populace to depend on not just barkless dogs, but dogs that (in both political parties) actively sought expansion of housing to those who history has demonstrated were not creditworthy. Pure social engineering. Everyone knew the risk or expanding loans to the risky, but hoped they were seated when the music stopped.

President Bush BRAGGED about his expansion of home ownership. Since just about every person who was creditworthy and wanted a home, already owned a home, where did he think the expanded ownership was coming from?

Both political parties use the levers and powers of government to whatever ends they believe will expand their power. Once the bell-shaped curve center has been filled by the market, government works on expansion at the six-sigma range.

That is exactly what happened. Democrats are not the culprit. Republicans are not the culprit. Government is the culprit, and both parties use the same levers, because the levers are available.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:03 PM:Well, "hardtack" at 1:54PM,
I read it, an excellent column!
The one thing that got missed the money to pay those other about 7,000 members of Congress.
Regards, Alf.

Michelle wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:05 PM:Is this a joke? She MUST have got a ticket. How can you not see those BIG RED FLASHING LIGHTS? I live right there. I see cars continue to pile into the intersection, which just happens to be a camera light, even though they know they are not going to make it. Yes it is dangerous. Hopefully the police will crack down on these middle of the intersection people that think they have the right to block traffic. The people in charge to correct it would be those that DO IT.


Intersection an accident waiting to happen

Who is in charge to correct an ugly, dangerous situation daily? Cars and trucks turning from Oceanside Boulevard to College Boulevard, the Sprinter coming, gates go down but cannot be seen, so cars continue to turn with nowhere to go, stuck in the middle of College and Oceanside Boulevard, cross-traffic weaving around the back of these cars trying to reach the other side before the light changes. Dangerous situation.

Eva

Oceanside

Just Thinkg Out Loud wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:06 PM:Skip[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:39 PM:
Capitalism does not work without a large and producitve middle class who enjoy the fruits of their labor. The middle class has been crushed. Millions of them have joined the rank of the poor even at the federal poverty level. We will soon have a nation of concentrated wealth and poverty. Americans have been the most productive workers in the history of the world. Still look at their situation and the calamity our nation faces. We need to get back to making products. We need to develop a balance of industrial capitalism and financial capitalism. Financial capitalism is a system where only the wealthy can benefit as they have the capital to make capital. The rich need to save this nation or themselves. If they do not act to save the nation, they will soon hear the International.

john wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:15 PM:Karl - if you want to clean house, I will help push the broom.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:22 PM:Well, I guess my post did NOT make it past the hall monitor, but your NObama-ites, you know where to go to hear the "good news"? Now don't you...

Remember what I said, English is an inexact lanaguage, and NObama is a master at bait & switch.
First immediate withdrawal, to 16 months, to maybe 2013, and back again to 16 months. After the surge works, of course.

He is the ultimate huskster, he whispers these sweet nothings, and you design the rest of the concept in your own minds.

If I told you that I "make" $250K a year, would you automatically KNOW, that I was refering either to my net take home or profit, or my gross?
You wouldn't, unless I specified.
NObama does not specify, he simply says: If you MAKE $250K or more a year, then I will raise your taxes.
It's fuzzy, on purpose. And that way, for a reason. So that after he get's into office, then he can begin to spin it again, and then try to fool you again.
But, I feel most of you don't really care, because you think it don't concern you, cause your not anywhere near close to $250K, and he's waving a fat $1,000 bucks in my face.
For clairity, it's a thousand for couples, $500 for singles. Just so ya know.
But, it's not really about any of that, it's about taking for you. Oh Yes!
Now, just about now people are saying, I don't make $250K, your lying again Ron. Well.., not quite.
If you work for a small employer, if he don't make as much money, you don't make as much money either. You see, it rolls down hill, little trickle down.
He get's sacked with a huge NObama tax bill, oops.. there go the company picnic. Capital gains tax goes up, that nice new machine you were gonna get trained on next year, you know the one, state of the art? Well, no dice.. NObama just gave your machine money to your neighbor, who works when he wants, if he works at all. We know, he certainly doesn't pay any Fed taxes.
But, that doesn't concern you. Right?
Cause your sticking it to the Big Guy!
Taxes goes up, everything sold goes up in price... pretty soon, your boss is looking for ways to declare a loss.

But, that don't concern you.

Richard wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:36 PM:Two things came to my attention today. On is that in Vietnam they don't call the Vietnam war what we do; their textbooks call it the American War. Quite sad.
Second, a letter from Barbara Boxer explained why she voted against the bill to provide nuclear technology to India which I also opposed. She said that India is in coopration with Iran on military issues. Bummer, because in Iraq, where we provided them with weapons when we were friends that were misused later, who's to say this too won't backfire?

tjefferson wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:38 PM:"What makes America great is what's in this room tonight" said a smiling John McCain when he gave the keynote speech at an ACORN rally on Feb. 20, 2006 in Miami. That was over 2 years ago. Maybe McCain forgot her was there or didn't know where he was at the time. Or maybe he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN.

Richard wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:43 PM:Who said anything about 'giving away' the country to anyone? That's precisely what has been wrong for years, where Cheney and Bush have been given license to do whatever they want with our military in Iraq. In my entire 60 yeras I've never seen anything like what has already been going on!
Who are we supposed to vote in, McCain/Pailin so we continue to pound the wrong country for what other people did to us? We would likely have a better chance trying to re-normalize the country with someone who is semi-rational and listens to others, than with the constantly irrational GOP's 'you're a terrorist if you aren't with us' hatred.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:44 PM:Well, "Boat" at 2:22PM,
the truth, the WHOLE truth and NOTHING but the truth.
All too often, the WHOLE truth, the part(s) which would not serve their point, is not disclosed.
Unfortunately for all of us, both "sides" are guilty.
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:47 PM:OOPS! Looks like someone forgot to invite Ms. Energy Palin to the party:

DOVER, New Hampshire (CNN) – The campaign of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the Alaska governor was unaware of a visit by Russian energy officials to Anchorage on Monday.

Eight high-level officials from Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy conglomerate, traveled to Anchorage earlier this week to meet with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the chief executive of ConocoPhillips to discuss energy projects and the possibility of expanding into new markets....oh my! You go Sarah - looking good.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:51 PM:Backcountry[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:33 PM: Playing the Muslim card again. Obama is not responsible for what Farakan thinks or says or endoreses. Farakan's endorsement does not make Obama a Muslim, a radical or a terrorist. Does John McCain have to pay you a visit and tell you that Obama is a decent man and you do not have to fear an Obama Presidency as he did that obviously poor woman at his rally?

Karl wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:54 PM:Focal Point @ 2:43 PM:

Bingo

oh joe wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:56 PM:Joe bemoans the fact that we liberals disagree with people with whom we disagree. He finds this wrong somehow. I guess conservatives don't do that. LOL

Ms M wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:57 PM:joe4473
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:44 PM:Ah Joe, in her governership she is up on ethics violations (troopergate has been expanded), has lied about the "bridge to know where", built a $25,000,000 road to the bridge to no where, lied about earmarks just to name a few things. Let's talk about her mayorship: built an ice rink that was millions over budget, left the town with millions of dollars of debt. Oh, did I mention that she may have problems about her house that was built by the same folks that got awarded the contract to build the ice rink AFTER the house was built. Let's not forget her church and it seems that the "first dude" will not be able to pass security clearances because of his past associations. But it's okay - she's a typical con just par for the course. It seems that the con standards are so low she's overqualified

Reardon speeks the truth wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:01 PM:Reardon, Check out 12:15PM post if you missed it.

Karl wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:03 PM:Ms M did you say "par for the course"? Oops I forgot to get the golf in today but I've got plenty of light left. Thanks for the reminder.

Peace

Surfer wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:08 PM:joe4473[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:44 PM:Your blog is just a regurgitation of the pro Palin people. The subject has already been discussed ad nuasem on this blog. But, I will tell you one thing. I do not want a person for my President or my Vice President whose husband was or is a member of an organization demanding that Alaska secede from the United States. See ya!

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:09 PM:Well, "Backcountry" at 2:33PM,
We also cannot turn our government over to the likes of McGWB, Palin who is a heartbeat away from the presidency and "the first dude".
We need warmongers, she who sees Iraq as a mission from God as well as abuses the power of her position as governor and her husband who used her office in an inappropriate ways like we need a dozen more holes in our collective heads.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:16 PM:Well, "Ms M" at 3:57PM,
you took out the birdshot and put rock salt in that post.
Regards, Alf.

Bob wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:20 PM:tjefferson's 3:38 PM post was a lie!

The ACORN rally was February 23, 2006, not on the 20th. Look it up.

Other than this, it was an accurate post. Perhaps Short Bus Raoul can spin this for us.

Anybody else want to give it a try?

oh Backcountry wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:26 PM:Your logic is strange. Farrakhan's views have been publicly denounced by Obama. If Farrakhan said Obama was the messiah, that's exactly as meaningful as Rush Limbaugh saying so. It's Obama's rejection of Farrakhan that's the point. Also, I cannot imagine where you get the notion that Obama is a "pure Marxist". I don't even know what that means, exactly, but I sure as heck don't think Obama is one. Do you have any evidence for this wild statement? Where do you get this weird stuff?

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:26 PM:To The Truth: I assume you were referring to the 12:10 pm. and I caught that. It is getting more and more difficult to catch postings that are "inserted" into earlier time groups, and it also causes those of us who post to repost believing that our first post was not posted, when it was simply delayed and inserted well before the present time.

I am still not sure if the problem is a software problem, a hardware problem, or an Operator Error problem with these Blogs.

Many thanks.

Nuance requested by Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:29 PM:This is not coming from a Democrat as you requested, but here's the only nuance I can offer:

Ayers doesn't matter to me.

I have no fear of Obama being a socialist.

His middle name does not bother me.

I don't care if he takes the oath of office on a comic book instead of a Bible.

I could go on, but here is the essence of any nuance you might be looking for:

I want change. I'll take my chances. Things can't get any worse.

I wanted change when I voted for Reagan, and it didn't end up so bad.

I wanted change when I voted for Clinton, and again, it didn't end up so bad.

I want change now, and Obama is more likely than McCain to bring it, and I don't think it will end up so bad.

Thats my humble thoughts, Reardon, and as disconcerting as it might be for you, I fear my thoughts are pretty close to those of "Joe Six Pack" and "Hockey Moms" everywhere.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:35 PM:Thanks for correcting the date on my post about the ACORN rally. I'm just a few years younger than McCain so I guess I had a senior moment, or as we seniors call them now, John McCain moments.

Pathetic wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:35 PM:"Backcountry
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 2:33 PM: We must realize before the election that Obama is merely a talking figurehead whose administration will be influenced, overrun and operated by extremist powers tthat really don't care about our constitution or our laws."

This is a load of crap. I dare you to prove your statements are true. Obama already denounced LK during the primaries and it's too bad if you don't accept that.

In fact, LF, Rezco, Wright, Ayers, et all was brought up in the primaries. We didn't care then and Obama was running against a candidate a lot more popular than John McCain.

I call you a liar, backcountry. And in three weeks you will be a sore loser as well.

Sucks to be you.

jvc wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:42 PM:Gibson doesn't get it...the days of the Christian right influencing elections is over or should be over!Where is the
Christian Left, the REAL ministry of Jesus?

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:49 PM:Deregulation vs. Failed Regulation
The post from "Reardon" (2:53 p.m.) says he supports pure deregulation. Like socialism, there is no example where this has ever been successful in a complex, urban, technological high-population, high-density population with extensive complex high-tech infrastructure.
There are consumer protection issues that are beyond individual consumers abilities to manage.
Without public administration, we could not have massive complex interestate highways, communications systems to administer the limited publicly-owned airwaves or transportation through common airspace. We have a shared environment that needs to managed as a PUBLIC resource.
We have issues of crime and justice - and these are best managed proactively through education and social development than reactively through police, courts and prisons.
Reardon bemoans "social engineering" as if it were a bad thing.
Why is making our society better a bad thing?
Reardon is critical of failed regulation, and that is valid.
But the problem is failed regulation, not regulation itself. When those who don't believe in governtment try to run government, of course it will fail.
In contrast, when liberal Democrats have been in charge, government worked and we got things done successfully, as under FDR, Truman, LBJ (domestic, not international) and Clinton.
Why would you trust the ones who do not believe in something, and keep destroying it, to be the ones to fix it and make it work?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 4:53 PM:Wouldn't it be a hoot, "Reardon",
if we got rid of the electoral college altogether and had a "one person - one vote" system - the greatest number of votes determined the President.
Hell, have open primaries as well.
That would bring "third party candidates" back into contention and possibly effect REAL change.
I realize it will not happen in my lifetime, but what a dream!!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:00 PM:Well, "tjefferson" at 4:35PM,
Mrs. Alf and I call them "brain-farts" or "brain flatulence" depending on who else is around.
We both qualified to be AARP members a few years ago, but I won't cop to "senior moments" for another decade or two, doggonit!
Regards, Alf.

Bob wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:03 PM:Still waiting for somebody to spin McCain's appearence at ACORN rally on February 23, 2006.

Faux News is going on and on about ACORN being bad (and, by association, anybody with any ties to them being bad).

Perhaps Ron can treat us to a 5,000 word explanation.

This is a limited time offer. You've only got three weeks until McCain slinks off to obscurity.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:04 PM:O.k. Bob, I’ll take it on.

The post is true as far as it goes – and that is a problem on both sides.

McCain did say what is accused of saying, and that needs to be weighed against Obama acting as an ACORN attorney; sending $800,000 in political funds to an ACORN front-group ("Citizen Services, Inc." for "advance work" but amended when the Federal Election Committee challenged the entry to now read “voter registration”): lecturing at Acorn seminars (“leadership trainer”) on voter registration, and sitting on the Boards of two philanthropic organization (Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation) when they funded ACORN.

So, ain’t nobody got clean hands, but on balance, some hands are dirtier than others. That is why "None of the above" is the correct vote.

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:10 PM:Well Alf, at 4:53 PM, it's not going to happen (too many small states like it this way). What might work is going back to the electorial college as it was intended, where we elect some folks (ie. You and Reardon) to travel to Washington D.C. (on horseback) and negotiate a president for us.

Poppy wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:11 PM:Michelle at 3:05

Oh GOOD ONE! Brava!

Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:25 PM:Ouch!!, "Wanda" at 5:10PM,
my back (with its smashed L2, L4 and T9) and my behind hurt just contemplating the possibility!
May I use our Accord instead?
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:27 PM:Sometimes I think DD just likes to argue.

Yes, pure deregulation has worked in a “complex, urban, technological high-population, high-density population with extensive complex high-tech infrastructure” – and I was there are saw it up close and personal many times. It was called Hong Kong, before China took back over. You may remember it. It was as close to pure capitalism as you will ever find and WOW was it a success! (You would have hated it! No child-labor laws, no welfare, no minimum wage – but no unemployment either.)

I understand your claim, and have seen it before. “Government is good, socialism works, it just has been run by imperfect people.” WRONG!

It was not oversight by people who did not want to govern – if that was true how could you possibly explain Chris Dodd and Barney Frank?

I just heard a great analogy – several years ago the US Government seized the Mustang Ranch in Nevada for failure to pay income taxes. It was probably the world’s best known whore house. They had to close it because the Mustang Ranch FAILED under US Government management. The US Government could not profitably run a small business that featured booze and sex!

(What chance do you think it has running a major banking system?)

I probably missed some obscure point in your post but I must take a friend to the doctor.

hardtack wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:39 PM:ALF : What is it they say?

“Penny wise, pound foolish.”

“A cynic knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”

In occurs to me that if we had those 7,000 members of Congress a $700 billion bailout would not have been necessary – along with a WAR, etc., etc., etc.

Regards, hardtack.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:09 PM:Deregulation -- a Balance Between Extremes of Anarchy and Socialism
The post from "Reardon" (5:27 p.m.) says he has seen my "claim" before and then completely misstates it as, "Socialism good."
I have repeatedly stated that neither of the extremes, total government (socialism) or no government (lassiez faire deregulation), work, including in the post "Reardon" is responding to, so I am not sure why he felt the need to misrepresent my long-time views unless he just wants to stir up an argument.
And his model of pre-China Hong Kong is bogus. Hong Kong is not a self-contained economy. It produces nothing. It is an administrative center managing wealth created by others in regulated economies. It does not deal with freeways, manufacturing issues, environmental issues, and things like communication WERE centrally administered.
It has and uses automobiles, computers, processed foods, medicines, all of which were produced in places and under conditions that were regulated. And yes, the lack of child welfare laws is child abuse and is not justified by "low unemployment."
Hong Kong was NOT a self-sufficient economy nor a large-scope geographical nation with extensive transportation needs. It was an island of economic anarchy wholly dependent on regulated economies to produce what it uses.

"Reardon's" example of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being failures is laughable, considering they have been in the minority party for 8 years.

As for the failure of the Mustang Ranch, again, we agree that government running business does not work. Mustang Ranch was profitable while HEAVILY REGULATED under Nevada state law and only failed under the socialistic takeover of the kind I have always decried but which Republicans represent.

And no, "Reardon," you did not miss an "obscure point" in my post; you misrepresented what I said and missed the whole point. No wonder you object to my views; you haven't even gotten the concept of what they are!

Regulation is what makes things possible. Rules and regulations make it possible to have an infinite range of strategies in sports or destinations in rules of the road. Excessive deregulation removes the structure and causes the house of cards to collapse, resulting in chaos that leaves a vacuum then filled by those who want total government control -- witness what is now happening under Republican control.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

To Richard wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:14 PM:"Richard
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 3:36 PM:Two things came to my attention today. On is that in Vietnam they don't call the Vietnam war what we do; their textbooks call it the American War. Quite sad."

It took me a minute to figure out what you were saying here. Do you actually think that other countries around the world view everything from the American viewpoint? Or are you being ironic?

Please wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:15 PM:Bob[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 5:03 PM: Wait to hell freezes over. Obviously, the subject does not tickle anyone's fancy. I do not care if John McCain addressed ACORN or Joe Six Pack. So what! Knock off the hostility.

Ron wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:44 PM:Well, "Bob" @5:03 PM,

It has become very, very obvious that these "charactor issues" are coming to the fore about Barackous NObamous.

Ok, Ok,.. I'll accept what you say, and that John McCain made one, made one appearance where ACORN was present.

Can you point to a communist mentor that John McCain spent his youth, smoking cigarettes, drinking beer, and listening to commie poetry?
Can ya name just one?

Ok, maybe that's a little to hard for you. Let me toss up another softball for ya.

Can you name for us, one person, ... just one, that John McCain worked with, for more than 6 years, who bombed this country, killed police officers, and told people to kill their parents?
Just one. That's all I'm looking for.

Ok, maybe that's a stretch, let's try another.

Can you name for me just one church that John McCain was a member of for 20 years, who's pastor routinuely talked about "white folks greed", US of KKKA, or said that this country is run by rich white people, and the government attempted to exterminate people of color by an AIDs virus?
Just one pastor, that he was a member, for 20 years, and heard these sermons, and then claimed he never did, then changed his mind, and confessed that he did.
Just one.

But finally, let me ask you this Bob.
How many socialists, communists, America haters have you known in your life? Do ya think that is is odd, just a bit, that NObama spent nearly his entire adult life, and some of his teen life, within the circles of extermists?
And not just leftists, extreme Leftists. America haters who say pubically they wish they could tear this country down?
And if you do have the same number of friends like this, then I'd say...
No wonder your voting for Nobama.

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 15, 2008 6:57 PM:"ACORN is under investigation in 12 states for voter fraud. In Indiana, of the 5000 names they submitted, 2100 were deemed to be fake." If I were McCain or Obama, I would distance myself from this organization unless I wanted to get burned politically.

Chicagoland wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:06 PM:Ron: Enough of this garbage. Obama worked with the "man of the year" in Chicago. Obama did not work with Ayers, the terrorist. By the way. Ayers has never been convicted of any bombing or for that matter any crime. by the bye, the prosecutor of Ayers supports Obama for President. This constant conservative attempt to link Obama with terrorism is puerile and just an example of outright stupidity.. But like President Bush asked once, "does he think we are all idiots. John McCain's terrorism? I wonder how many civilians were killed in his bombings?

Chicagoland wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:15 PM:Ron: Wright is not a candidate for President. Obama has repudiated him.
Name all these Marxists, Communists, leftists even Muslims that Obama hung out with by his own choice. Please provide the dates and places. Let's have a look at each and every one shall we. Let's see the real evidence-not extrapolated manure.
None of this connect the dots crayola. Let us see real heard documentary evidence.

No game changer wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:22 PM:McCain didn't do it. I wanted him to, but he didn't. No passion.

Congratulations President-Elect Obama, you weren't the guy I wanted, but evidently my candidate didn't really care.

Chicagoland wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:23 PM:Ron: I would like to see any video or hear any audio in which Obama goddamn this country? I would like to see the evidence that Obama supported, planned or executed any terrorist plot or action again the United States? I would like to see any warrant for his arrest or conviction for any misdemeanor or crime for Sen. Obama? I would like to seee any evidence written, video or audo where Sen Obama directed ACORN or any of its affiliated to exercise false voting records of any type? Show us any evidence where Obama planned any type of bombing or where he killed a police officer?

Obama Comes wrote on Oct 15, 2008 7:30 PM:OMG, he's KILLIN IT!

BEST DEBATE EVER

Wanda wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:04 PM:The 7:22 PM poster nailed it. McCain lost.

But then, we haven't heard the definitive word from Short Bus Raoul, and the prestigious Raul Sinvergurnza Institute.

Joe The Plumber wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:07 PM:Write me in.

ACORN this and ACORN that wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:12 PM:I'm disappointed that the exchange of ACORN didn't include one single mention of John McCain being their KEYNOTE speaker at a rally TWO YEARS ago. Not an association more than decade plus ago, but so much a supporter of ACORN that MCCAIN was a KEYNOTE SPEAKER at an ACORN immigration rally.
Hello, anyone listening?

hardtack wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:23 PM:I watched the debate. At least it eliminated another candidate from consideration, with one caveat – I still might vote for McCain on the remote possibility that someone, between now and Nov 4, convinces me that my non-McCain vote would decide the election in Obama’s favor. I couldn’t allow that – I’d have to blow my brains out.

So, in reality, my choice comes down to Barr/Root, or write in “Ron Paul” or “non of the above.” It’s going to come right down to the wire.

Stay tuned.

Short Bus Raoul wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:25 PM:John McCain with his rapier sharp wit and passion devestated Obama.

A poll taken by the prestigious Raoul Sinverguenza Institute showed:

110% thought McCain won the debate
-10% thought the other guy won the debate.

McCain rules!

That's the truth!

Because I said it is!

Bob wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:29 PM:Regarding the 8:12 PM post, ask Ron.

OBSERVATON wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:38 PM:HEMPSTEAD, New York (CNN) — A majority of debate watchers thought that Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate, according to a national poll conducted at the end of the debate.

Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers questioned in the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll said Obama did the best job in the debate, with 31 percent saying John McCain performed best.

Ms M wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:54 PM:ACORN this and ACORN that
[-] wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:12 PM:...you know Acorn, there were many opportunities for Obama to shoot McCain in the knees - but he didn't have to. He's winning and he won over more independent voters with his outstanding performance.

Ms M wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:58 PM:Turn out the lights the party is over:

....The results over at CBS show Obama to have scored the biggest victory to date: "Fifty-three percent of the uncommitted voters surveyed identified Democratic nominee Barack Obama as the winner of tonight's debate. Twenty-two percent said Republican rival John McCain won. Twenty-four percent saw the debate as a draw."

It is, the site writes, "a clean sweep" for the Illinois Democrat.

Over at CNN, a separate poll of several hundred debate watchers again favored the Democrat by large margins: 58 percent for Obama to McCain's 31 percent. Perhaps more importantly, McCain's favorable rating dropped 51 to 49 while his unfavorable rating increased from 45 percent to 49 percent. Obama ended up with 66 percent favorable rating.

Digging into the details the news is even worse for the Arizona Republican.

Asked who "expressed his views more clearly" 66 percent said Obama, 25 percent said McCain.
"Who spent their time attacking his opponent:" 80 percent said McCain, seven percent said Obama. "Who seemed to be the stronger leader:" 56 percent for Obama, 39 percent for McCain. And who was "more likeable:" 70 percent for Obama to McCain's 22 percent.

CNN also conducted a smaller focus group of 25 undecided likely voters in Ohio, and Obama won that too, 15-10.

Before the debate:

McCain: 54 favorable / 34 unfavorable

Obama: 42 favorable / 42 unfavorable

After the debate:

McCain: 50 favorable / 48 unfavorable

Obama: 72 favorable / 22 unfavorable

Meanwhile, virtually the entire Frank Luntz focus group on Fox News, which was staged tonight in Miami, said that Barack Obama won the debate. Luntz termed it a "clear majority," but not one person raised their hand when asked if they thought McCain won.

Said Luntz: "None had made a decision to support Sen. Obama before the debate, but more than half supported him after the debate. It was a good night for Barack Obama."...

How sweet it is!

Ms M wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:00 PM:Later in CNN's broadcast, after Campbell Brown ran down CNN's poll results (an overall Obama win, a win for Obama among independents, Obama wins on questions about healthcare, and even taxes), Anderson Cooper asked Gergen what he would say to McCain about what the message should be going forward, in light of these results. Gergen replied, "Beats the hell out of me," adding later, "See if you can leave this with your honor in tact."...Oh my!

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:11 PM:A debate with DD is always on his terms: Note the ground rules: ““complex, urban, technological high-population, high-density population with extensive complex high-tech infrastructure.”

Then whatever the reply, DD says: “your answer did not meet my requirements. You lose. Game over!’

Sorry, DD, but I write for others to read and see if I meet the requirements, not the person who set the rules.

Political opponent, rule maker, and umpire all in one person just doesn’t cut it for me.

Take the Frank, Dodd question, you declare that the Republicans have been in charge for six of the past eight years, but do not acknowledge that it was during the last two years that the problem came to a boil, and as recently as three months ago Frank and Dodd, who were “in charge” said there was no problem.

But once again, you say, “You lose. Game over.”

I reject your triple role.

Just as an aside, I would be interested in how many times and for how long you spent in Hong Kong, because when I was there, long and often, mot of the electronics were made in Taiwan which was almost as unregulated as Hong Kong.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:29 PM:Reardon Ducks His Own Questions
The post from "Reardon" (9:11pm) completely ducks the issues he originally raised. Evasion, Avoidance, Aversion.
Again, he disputes my comment about Republcans being in charge, but again, he changes my words to distort my meaning. The dishonesty here is simply beyond amazing. Again, "Alf," you keep telling me that "Reardon" is a good guy (even if misguided), but all I see is misrepresentations and distortions of the comments from me that he is completely tongue-tied in trying to respond to.
Correction, "Reardon," and PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME:
I did not say that Republicans were in charge for "six of the past eight years."
The Republicans have been in charge FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.
As others (especially "Apollo") have repeatedly noted, the Republicans have controlled the Presidency, a TIE in the Senate (well, a majority when you add in Independent Joe Libermann), and lack of enough numbers in either the House or Senate to override the Republican president's vetos.
Your repeated misrepresentation of my statements today alone shows that you have completely conceded all the issues we have discussed, from deregulation vs. responsible regulation and to the responsibility for the collapsed economy that your "conservatives" have caused, even as you now distance yourself from the failed policies and politicians that YOU and your cronies have so long supported.
The incredible dishonesty and distortion of liberals' views is the best argument to prove the utter failure of everything you stand for.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:05 PM:DD: I will avoid accusing you of distortion, but the oversight committees in both the House (CHIARMAN BARNEY FRANK) and the Senate (CHAIRMAN CHRIS DODD)have been under Democratic leadership FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS.

MORE IN THE MORNING -- and without name-calling.

Chris to Alf wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:20 PM:If sdraoul is what you say he is then why is he so far off base? You know I would think that a loan officer and banker would be one who studies and researches things before they make comments about it. Well maybe this is why our economey is trashed because that is not true.

Chris to Karl wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:29 PM:You know the problem I have with the holier than thou club is that they tell us a bunch of stuff as to what is right and wrong and what we should do but they themselves don't practice any part of it. Now I have made my oppinions known and you can't show me where I fit the holier than thou profile. For instance the holier than thou bunch are quick to condem others for doing what they, we, do. The Iraq war is a good example. Now people don't like what I say because I am willing to put the same standards on the U.S. military and this country that I would put on others whereas the holier than thou bunch has standards based on who is doing what and not on what is being done. So for you to say that I am a hypocrite because I fit the profile of a holier than thou person just show that you don't get it.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:32 PM:Regarding the debate:
Once again, Obama missed chance after chance after chance!

He didn't NAIL McCain on the taxes, where he supports the middle class who provide the conumer base that allows the business owners to have someone to sell to, and McCain has lied repeatedly about the net tax effects, as documented by numerous independent analyses.

He didn't NAIL McCain on earmarks, especially when asked directly about Vice Presidential selections, after McCain selected as his VP running mate the governor who had the highest per capita rate of earmarks in the entire United States (20 times those of Obama's state) and then lied about it.

Over and over Obama missed chance after chance!
It was so frustrating for an Obama supporter to sit through this and see him blow chance after chance....

But then....

After this dismal failure, the dark clouds gathering on the horizon, the debate ends.
The clouds depart.
The sun shines through.
Birds sing.
Everyone is saying that our guy won the debate?

What?

HE MISSED CHANCE AFTER CHANCE TO NAIL McCAIN WITH HIS LIES!

But over and over, the pundits, the analysts and, most important, the undecided voters decide...
OBAMA WON THE DEBATE?

What?!
Are you crazy?
He mised CHANCE AFTER CHANCE.

But maybe Obama knows something that his most devoted supporters do not.
Better to miss a few chances and remain calm, cool and - PRESIDENTIAL.
Better to lose a few debate points, and let Americans (the undecided middle who don't think like those of us who have strong opinions) see someone who is genuine, likeable and PRESIDENTIAL.

Maybe Obama is a better guy to be sitting in that debate seat than his supporters who could have ansered all his questions better than he did.

Obama won the debate.
Supporters like me want to win battles.
Obama wins the war.

Get used to saying it: PRESIDENT OBAMA.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:39 PM:Reardon's Committee Chairs
The post from "Reardon" (10:05pm) continues to show either disappointing political ignorance or more disingenuous misrepresentation.
Frank and Dood ave had committee chairs for two years. That does not translate to committeee VOTES.
If "Reardon" really does not understand this, then I am amazingly disappointed.
If "Reardon" does understand this, then I want "Alf" to explain to me again why "Reardon" is such a good guy.

As for "name-calling," please grow up.
It is not "name-calling" to point out when you have misquoted me and misrepresented the substance of my statements. If you disagree, please don't make a blanket generalization like this. Cite the specific instance, as I did.
Oh, OK, that's why.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Chris to Reardon wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:42 PM:I am what I am and I don't answer to anybody. So if you are trying to make me feel bad because some people don't like what I am about then you are wasting your time.

a grandfather wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:53 AM:I have witnessed hundreds of prop 8 signs being destroyed, stolen and vandalized. Those that cry loudest for tolerance are the least tolerant of others sincere beliefs, especially where the belief has anything to do with religion.

ACORN wrote on Oct 16, 2008 5:17 AM:Vote Early !

Vote Often !

Roger wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:42 AM:OBAMACAN, at 10:32 PM, is probably right. I too was hoping for Obama to really rip into that pathetic old ex-maverick.

Voters would have perceived this as elder abuse.

Another update wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:59 AM:Joe the plumber isn't registered to vote. But he stated before the debate he was already going to vote for McCain. This plumber is full of what he works in when fixing a toilet.

Bob wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:31 AM:The 6:15 PM (yesterday) poster doesn't care that John McCain was the keynote speaker at an ACORN rally on February 23, 2006. I wouldn't care either, except that Faux News has been covering ACORN 24/7 in a pathetic attempt to slander Obama by association.

Alf wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:34 AM:Well, "Chris to Alf" at 10:20PM,
neither the reference nor I made any comment about his job performance, only that he did hold that job at one point.
Rather than speculate, I am simply noting that he did tell the truth on that one issue.
Regards, Alf.

Richard wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:08 AM:No I don't think that other countries view the world with America on their minds. That wasn't the point. But I again think it's sad that they refer to the Vietnam War as the "American War" because this means that they still don't understand why we were there. Our goal was to free South Vietnamese from oppression from North Vietnamese communists. The invasion was mistaken and I have learned since that there were lies and coverups as to the reasons why we went in, so it is sad that I can't denounce outright their textbooks that imply that we started the war with "evil intentions". I refer to it as the Vietnam War because I hold on to the belief that it was North Vietnam's fault for not understanding our position. That's why I said it is sad that they call it the "American War." Yes, we intentionally picked up where the French left off on a war we shouldn't have, but at least we were doing it thinking it was for our own protection. When they refer to it as the "American War", as though all the balme lies on us, it gives the impression that we started it just for spite. And again, that's why I think it's sad. Still no communication with that culture and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do or say to help fix it. What, do you think it's not sad that they call it the "American War"?

TOVR wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:25 AM:Joe the Plumber is Joe the Liar. A true republican. He isn't even a registered voter.

TOVR wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:35 AM:Sad. The last survivor on the Titanic has to sell her momentos to pay for her healthcare. Once again the last 8 years have diminished her ability to pay for this healthcare. She should send a thank you to Bush and McCain. But of course they don't care because she isn't a fetus.

Bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:36 AM:I have seen plenty of Prop 8 signs....apparently belief in civil discrimination for religious reasons is alive and well in San Diego County. Be proud....I'm sure the overt Segregationist of the 50s and 60s were.

Amber wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:41 AM:Kathleen,

You obviously do not understand the issues when you make the following comments:

"Like so many Californians, I have both friends and family members who are gay. It is beyond understanding to me that any of us would choose to deny equal protections under the law to our loved ones. I find it especially disturbing when some of us say we're doing so based on religious beliefs."

They have all the rights privileges and protections afforded to married people, it's all included in the Domestic Partnership law. Prop 8 has nothing to do with denying rights to those with homosexual traits and tendencies. They already have all those rights. What it is about is desecrating the foundation of society and families.

If you don't believe not passing this proposition will change life as we know take a look where this is already a reality.

Your comment shows how woefully ignorant you are of the reality where same sex marriage has been sanctioned, I recommend that you read up on the realities. Already in Colorado there is a law against hate speech that make the bible illegal, sounds to me like same sex marriage affects churches:

"Our churches are not threatened by gay marriage. Churches have always had and will continue to have the right to set the terms for any couple wanting to be sanctioned at their altars. Gay marriage is no threat to us or to our religious freedoms. Our vote, however, will have great power to protect the rights of our gay friends and family, or to deny them. By voting "no" on 8, we can seize this opportunity to practice compassion, tolerance and love."

What you are preaching is nothing more than a Tyranny of Tolerance where a small group is forcing the majority to tolerate behavior that is not consistent with their values and morals. Tolerance is a balance where two people or groups can agree to disagree and still coexist peacefully. What the majority of people in this country are being asked to do is to accept unconditionally the choices of a few people that go against everything they believe and hold dear. This is no more Christian than what you described.

Please carefully examine the issues before you vote carte blanche. The rights for domestic partners are all there now, Prop 8 will not deny any rights to anyone it simply states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The rights afforded to such marriages already are given all who register their partnerships, and if you look at the law in order to get out of that relationship they have to go through a divorce just like married people.

TOVR wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:47 AM:Joe the Plumber is such a great American. He doesn't even pay his taxes. Check out ABC News. He isn't even smart enough to know that he would, yes would, get a tax cut under Obama. Not to bright so he must be voting (if he is really registered) for McCain.

Floyds Follies wrote on Oct 16, 2008 10:08 AM:Floyd at 1:34 a.m. asks if Sarah Palin's foibles are worse than those of Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy or Bill "Lied Under Oath" Clinton.
Well, Floyd Ol' Boy, Teddy and Billy were held accountable for their misdeeds, which happened long, long ago and far, far away.
And both involved personal imperfections NOT PUBLIC POLICY.
In contrast, the foibles of Sarah Palin, which reflect badly on the guy who picked her without vetting her, involve PUBLIC POLICY:
- Abuse of Power as determined by a committee of TEN Republicans and only 4 Democrats
- Seeking the blessing of a pastor to drive out WITCHCRAFT after the "pastor" had actually persecuted women in Africa of being withces
- As Mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska, requested some of the most ourtrageous EARMARKS in history, including the BRIDGE TO NOWHERE (which she LIED about - but hasn't said much about since the videos have been circulated) and the MOST EARMARKS per capita of any state in the Union - TWENTY TIMES more than Obama's state!
- And speaking of the Union, addressed via video an organization committed to SECEDING from the UNION kinda like the South wanted to do that precipitated the Civil War.
By golly, gee whiz, you betcha.
Give me another SIX PACK (from Cindy's beer company, of course) so I can drive my kids to their next hockey game.

Alf wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:11 AM:Well, "Amber" at 9:41AM,
please do not lie.
The Domestic Partnership Act does not convey ALL THE SAME rights and responsibilities as marriage.
You would know that if you had done any research at all other than through your Yes on 8 approved websites.
Prop. 8 has EVERYTHING to do with discrimination.
I suggest that you and anyone else look at what is happening and more importantly what is NOT happening in Massachusetts.
What is NOT happening is all the stuff that the Yes people make dire warnings about.
The Yes people don't want you to see for yourself that their hysteric hyperbole is just a bunch of hot air, worth nothing.
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:02 PM:amber,

It is a shame that you and others supporting discrimination of their fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens thru support of Prop 8 feel the need to lie about things to gain support.

I refer to this:

"Your comment shows how woefully ignorant you are of the reality where same sex marriage has been sanctioned, I recommend that you read up on the realities. Already in Colorado there is a law against hate speech that make the bible illegal, sounds to me like same sex marriage affects churches: "

There is no such law in Colorado, and if any foolish legislator tried to pass such a law, the 1st amendment would go into play so fast, it would make their heads swim.

Stop lying, Prop 8 supporters. Bearing false witness against your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...shows your hypocrisy.

Amber wrote on Oct 16, 2008 1:14 PM:Bodecea at 12:02

Please check out Colorado SB 200 which was signed into law on June 3 2008, with little fanfare at the end of the day when there was no media coverage, it is now the subject of several lawsuits aimed at getting it reversed.

Skip wrote on Oct 16, 2008 1:37 PM:Why all of the Hysteria over Joe the Plummer. We already know that Obama wants to raise taxes and redistribute the wealth.

How about those immortal words of another famous Democrat Senate pro Tem Don Perata, who said in March 2008, "the only way to close our $16 billion budget deficit is to: "Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes."

bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:19 PM:Amber,

Have YOU read SB 200? It seems that you have not. I recommend that anyone google it....Section 1 says it all.....and then continue to read the rest of it rather than just taking the word of right wing, ultra religious, homophobic sites.

Amber wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:20 PM:Alf: 11:11

Why is it ok for you to call our concerns hysteric hyperbole, when we can look at countries like Sweden, England and others to see what same sex marriage has done for their cultures? These aren't baseless concerns, there is precedent.

I have noticed that you are a prolific writer out here, and for the most part your comments are respectful, opinionated but respectful. I would hope that we can continue in that vein. Tolerance does not mean that I have to forsake the values and morals I hold dear just to appease those who do not agree with them. It means that we can have divergent opinions and still respect the person that holds the opinions.

bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:25 PM:To Amber,

It is interesting to really get into reading Colorado SB 200. Did you know that it ONLY affords the same protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation that is ALREADY afforded Coloradans based on religion and other catagories such as race, gender, etc.

So....do you have the same complaint about Colorado's legal protection of people because of their religion? Somehow I think not.

Now we are back to you Prop 8 people bearing false witness in order to get people to buy into your legal discrimination amendment to the CA constitution. You SHOULD be ashamed of yourselves. I'm guessing you are not, tho.

No........ Don wrote on Oct 16, 2008 2:28 PM:Maybe, Just Maybe, California could stop spending so much.

Alf wrote on Oct 16, 2008 4:04 PM:Well, "Skip" at 1:37PM,
the concept of lowering taxes, especially lowering taxes to the "rich" (the tinkle-on theory), in order to RAISE MORE revenue is unsound at best.
It might actually work in the short term, maybe, possibly, but it fails miserably in the medium and long term.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:45 PM:Moderator, I know this is long, please post anyway.
Well, "Amber" at 2:20PM, this is long, but quite civil and thorough.

First, I read the text of Colorado SB 200, it does not "make the bible illegal" at all. It does prohibit Bible-quoting people as well as anyone else from harassing people or discriminating against them in all matters public based on their sexual orientation.

Second, there is no assault on your or any religion.
Any assault is in your religions mind.
There is an assault on the idea of and practice of discrimination.
As of right now, the United Church of Christ both accepts homosexuals for who they are, not their sexuality, and many of their churches will also perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals just as they do for heterosexuals.

Third, while homosexuals and/or their physical relationships may offend you,
your attempts to rationalize discrimination are both transparent and exceedingly offensive to me as well as many other heterosexuals on many levels.

Fourth, yes hysteria is a completely appropriate word in this case, the same for hyperbolic.
You say that Colorado has banned the Bible (I note that YOU didn't use the upper case "B", you are insulting your own religion) when, in point of fact, no, the law does not.
Your words more accurately reflect those who would use false words to instill fear to arouse defensiveness rather than seek the truth.

Fifth, I suggest that you attempt to filter out the overstatements, read the words of SB 200 again, this time without adding any words in your mind. The law is a bunch of words that have to be read and enforced just as they are, just as they are written.
AND NO MORE.

Sixth, the few words that comprise Prop. 8 are plain, it would add a new section, Section 7.5, to Article I of the California Constitution, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions - "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
Prop. 8 would, therefore, have California declare any marriage between two people of the same gender invalid and not be recognized.
That is interjecting religious and discriminatory values into law and a Constitution, something that neither I nor anyone who respects either the Law or the California or the United States Constitution can or will tolerate.

Seventh, I have a friend from high school (not quite 40 years ago) who cannot marry her female partner, she can not have ALL the same exact rights as my wife and I have. They are just as committed as we are, yet they are placed into, at best, second class citizenship.
"Domestic Partnership", "Civil Union", whatever you call it or them, they are less than equal to marriage, legally.

Second-to-Lastly, I do wonder which Christ you believe in, the one who goes about being judgmental and condemning people or the one who accepted people, forgave them their "sins" and died on the cross for their sins, the one that was exclusive or the one who was inclusive. Which version of marriage do you accept, the real Biblical one with one man and several pre-pubescent girls of the same tribe (ethnicity), the one with one man and several adult wives, or the one that discriminates based on whether they are the same or opposite genders?

Lastly, California was the first state to "legalize" inter-racial marriages. When that was being debated many of the same fear tactics and ploys were used.
What do the fear and hatred of another race and fear and hatred of another sexual orientation have in common?
Fear and hatred.
If I am not mistaken, fear and hatred are the antithesis of the teachings of Christ.

Regards, Alf.

Amber wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:05 PM:Bodecea at 2:25 PM

I guess you missed:


SECTION 8. 24-34-701 Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden.

or

SECTION 9. 2-4-401, Definitions. The following definitions apply to every
statute, unless the context otherwise requires:
(13.5) "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" MEANS A PERSON'S ORIENTATION
TOWARD HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY, OR
TRANSGENDER STATUS OR ANOTHER PERSON'S PERCEPTION THEREOF.

Last time I checked the bible is very clear on it's stance on same sex relations, according to this law is it illegal to have a bible in any public gathering place Section 8!!!!

Colorado's legal protection of a person's religion comes in direct conflict with this law. Even you have to agree that banning the publication of discriminative matter is pretty gray and open to all kinds of interpretation. One only has to object to anything printed in public and the consequences are pretty far reaching. Thankfully at this time there is this language

"PLACE OF PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATION" SHALL NOT INCLUDE A CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE, MOSQUE,
OR OTHER PLACE THAT IS PRINCIPALLY USED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. "


I guess as a Christian you need to bone up on bearing false witness because you are just as guilty of it as those of us you are accusing.

Amber wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:08 PM:Bodecea at 2:25 PM

For the sake of discussion, what is your definition of tolerance?

bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:51 PM:Amber,

I love it when the very words you quote prove MY point. Perhaps you should take a class in reading comprehension? No? BTW, who said I was a Christian? Aren't you making some interesting assumptions that all Californians are the same faith as you? As if religious faith has ANYTHING to do with civic law.....be careful what you wish for in that regard.

bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:57 PM:My definition of tolerance is in agreement with the Constitutional definition of tolerance...that anything that does not interfer or risks interfering in the rights of others should not be legally restricted. That if the government provides privileges to one segment of the population...it should provide it to all segments of the population UNLESS the government can provide a valid legal reason to withhold such privileges.

It IS tolerance to accept others equally even tho they may be different than you.

It is NOT tolerance to accept things or people that hurt others....for example, no one should tolerate thieves. You are attempting to STEAL the civic rights of your fellow Californians...thru lies and unwarrented fearmongering.

Say s who bodecea wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:45 PM:bodecea
[-] wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:57 PM: "It is NOT tolerance to accept things or people that hurt others...."

So tolerance is fine unless someone gets hurt. What a sissy idea. You can not place a boundary on a liberal thought like tolerance, Besides, your idea of hurt may be someone else's pleasure. Liberals.

Amber wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:52 PM:Bodecea at 8:51 and 8:57

I can tell from the way that these posts are going that we are not going to agree on anything it doesn't matter what I say you are going to accuse me of bearing false witness, intolerance and attempted theft.

My church has made it clear to all of its members that we are to love everyone but to also stand up for what is right and moral. I respect your right to have your own opinions and to disagree with mine.

I know you are going to call this a cop out and use it to reinforce your position. That is your right. I respectfully decline to fight with you because I respect you as a human being with the right to think and believe how you choose, isn't it great that we live in a country that allows us the freedom to express our opinions without fear of being killed for them.

Alf wrote on Oct 17, 2008 1:08 PM:Well, "Amber" at 8:05PM on the 16th,
You forgot to look at the qualifier in "SECTION 8. 24-34-701" "Publishing of Discriminative Matter Forbidden" which deals with anyone involved with "any place of PUBLIC accommodation, resort or amusement" (emphasis mine).
Private places are NOT effected.
I could go on, but I really don't have to.
You see the word Forbidden and don't look to see who or where or what, your mind hangs up on that word.
Your PRIVATE religion can discriminate any way it wants, so can your church.
No PUBLIC facility can.
Since there is already an exemption for churches WRITTEN INTO THE LAW, there is NO conflict between CO SB 200 and your right to your religion.
You simply do not have the right to force your religious beliefs into an un-Constitutional law.
Regards, Alf.