The Truth Shall Free Us All wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:33 AM:Unlike Ron, I promise this will my only post of the day, and it will probably be shorter than most of Ron's!

However, someone had to honestly answer the bogus talking points appearing this morning.

Ann Nunes:

Nice try, but Obama only spends as much as Americans donate. If Americans felt as good about McCain, McCain would have as much money as Obama and would be spending it just as freely!

Bob Fisher:
I'm not so sure McCain agrees with Benito Mussilini, or what harm it would do, but I do know that McCain agrees to often with G.W. Bush, and look at all the damage that has caused!

Kim Oakley:

You say, "Protect America. Vote Republican. Protect marriage. Vote yes on Proposition 8."

It might be argued that the present GOP administration that Senator McCain has supported over 90% of the time has done more harm to American than a lot of our enemies.

And, while I know many hetrosexual married couple who have had their marriages ruined by infidelity, I know of no hetrosexuals who's marriages where threatened or destroyed by gays or lesbians.

Richard Cole:

I agree with your belief that "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."

However, who can be trusted with the American economy is a more pressing issue than a rogue preacher and a aging hippie.

I am more concerned with the company McCain has kept in the past, namely a fellow named Keating, who did such damage to the American economy, our grandchildren will be paying for it. I won't be burned again!

Jerry Soltys:

"Note the Democratic Congress' current approval rating of 14 percent by the American people."

You are correct, their approval rating is about 14%. I can't change the entire make up of the congress. The best I can do in any given election is vote for 2 senators and one member of the House.

However, I can vote for the President. And, I am not voting for a man who supported a President with an approval rating lower than any President since Nixon or Hoover, over 90% of the time.

... br />
Bruce Oja:

You warn voters, "Our overall standard of living will decline over time as service and manufacturing jobs migrate to more competitive, lower-tax countries," if Obama is elected.

Where have you been for the last 8 years, Bruce? What you describe is closer to the history of the current administration that McCain has supported over 90% of the time, rather than a prediction for the future if Obama is elected!

Jim Stuart:

While you lament that while everyone is trying to "place blame on our current financial crisis. Most offered only talking points of their respective party affiliations." And then, almost hypocritically, you lay it all at the feet of Democrat President Clinton.

The mantra of the GOP, in these days of financial and economic crisis is that the President is not to blame because it is the congress who controls the budget.

Well, well, well...if the economic crisis started in 1996, it would the fault of the congress, not the President.

Hmmm, who controlled congress then? Oh, yeah, the GOP!

George Kapani:

You warn us, "With Barack Hussein Obama, you will get millions of new illegals seeking the free life."

Funny that the Bush administration has done nothing about securing the border in the past 8 years, and has even proposed "amnesty". And, this proposal is just one of 90% of things McCain agrees with Bush on.

McCain's Immigration Policy is probably not a good topic to be throwing out to support your candidate!

To Kim Oakley wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:46 AM:It is astounding that such ignorance still exists. We can argue and debate semantics and laws but a higher power created us all. Please give yourself permission to crawl out of the dark ages. We are well beyond this Salem witch trial mentality. Your views depress me.

Bill wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:18 AM:Obama is scamming America by "paying off" the middle class with a tax cut to get votes so he can plunder the rich to finance liberal social enginerring projects.

How does the middle class benefit from that again?

The rude awakening comes when the fallout from that hits the middle class as the rich will cut back and jobs will be lost as a result. Its like that old story about the boat manufacturers employee that thought a luxury tax was a great idea until it cost him his job.

All Obamas tax plan will hurt is you.

The rich will still be rich and most will still work for a rich man too.

Obama wont be able to pay for his agenda either with what he is going to raise. Negative economic growth and lagging GDP chokes off the coffers and doesnt fill it up like it does when the rich are allowed to keep their money. The treasury will take in less tax revenue and not more.

Taxing the rich will do nothing to help this lagging economy.

The truth is that economics is cyclical and down cycles are part of the game. Thats what creates layoffs and not the Presidents policies. However, some Americans dont get that and credit and blame Washington for their financial success or problems.

Thats why I save for rainy days and live within my means.

What a concept.

I know I will survive the upcoming depression that Obama is going to create by raising taxes on those that can create jobs that are badly needed. Your measely tax cut will be enough to go to dinner with your family while the tax cut Bill Gates' would have gotten but now wont could have started another Microsoft.

The middle class dont benefit when the rich are taxed more.

Only liberal social engineers like Obama benefit when that happens.

Hes scammed some of you I see.

Do not adjust your set wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:05 AM:On the night of Nov. 4th Republicans across the country will be furiously playing with the color controls on their TVs. As the blue sweeps across the FOX News Electoral Map they’ll be screaming, “Those states are supposed to be red!”
No, nothing will be wrong with your TV, but there is something wrong with your Party when you go from complete control of Government to an almost third party status in two short years.
It’s called repudiation.
It’s called being marginalized.
It’s called justice.
Get used to it.
On the bright side, it only took 50 years to win control of Congress from the Democrats the last time. So you have that to look forward to.

Endangered species wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:18 AM:Since Neo-cons are nearing extinction should we start calling them Paleo-cons?

Bob wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:36 AM:Why, yes, Ann Nunes, I can explain why Obama is spending whole bunches of money to get elected: because he can.

The senile old influence peddler and Caribou Barbie would love to do the same, but they don't have it.

Wanda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:44 AM:Bob Fisher will doubtless be thrilled to learn that "...government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." is from the Gettysburg Address, not the U.S. Constitution and was written by Abraham Lincoln, not Thomas Jefferson (who also didn't write the Constitution).

Are you a victim of California public schools?

Good Enough for Me wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:48 AM:If Obama is good enough for General Powell, he's good enough for me.

Now, one of the most respected Americans alive notes that Obama is steady, competent, and honest and thinks McCain's campaign was off the mark with its negativity, and that Sarah Palin is not qualified.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:48 AM:I know, "Alf" {Oct 18}@3:25 PM,

I know that you are not the type of person who would limit, nor dispute my right to speak. And I also know, that while we may disagree, you would defend my right to free speech, just as I would defend your right to say whatever you want to say.
This is NOT true however, when your speaking about many Liberals. NOT ALL, but many, ascribe to this nutty politically correctness, because they have this silly Rodney King "Can't we all just get along" wishful utopian bent, who believe is they can restrict certain speech they view as hateful, then the world would be rosey, and all parties would then get along.
Again, I think this goes back to this inner most feeling by some Liberals that, they are THE smartest people in the room, and only they can determine what is hateful, and what is not.
You know, for a group of people who say... they do not want to interject their morality into the personal private lives of other citizens, I think limiting speech, put s astake thru the heart of that argument.
There is nothing more personal, or private than you right to speak your mind freely.
And quite frankly, some of their own brothern disagree with them. I seem to recall the ACLU defending the rights of the KKK, amid other disgusting groups to speak freely, even though we may find what they espouse personally hateful, and disgusting.
And finally, I've never said that the wrong Rev. Wright shouldn't have the right to say US of KKK-A, or white folks greed, a world in need.
I personally find those two statements, of many, really quite disturbing, and frankly, racist.
Nor would I ever dispute Barack NObama's right to repeat such statements in his book.
But I do find some, some Liberals, and not ALL Liberals who fundmentally believe that limiting my speech is perfectly normal, legal, and should be pursued for the benefit of the "collective." These are the same people who advocate limiting my contribution here, they advocate speech codes on college campus, they advocate crimes against what they have determined as hate speech.
And it is THESE people I reserve my right to refer to them, as Stalinists.
I think that term, fits.

Bob wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:00 AM:I support Jeff Brownlee's call for more respectable behavior at Caribou Barbie's cross burnings.

Greencinitan wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:07 AM:Obama "redistributionist" policies - I wouldn't mind if some of the wealth of the richest people, who are currently NOT paying much in taxes because W gave them all big breaks over the last 8 years, was redistributed to help those in need. I would not mind if the billions that are being spent in Iraq, inflaming rather than suppressing terrorism, were redistributed to improve public safety, food security, transportation, and other public services. I think it's good when we all contribute proportionately and the government gives us back things we need - locally I'm glad we have fire departments to respond to wildfires and lifeguards to work the beaches, etc. Nationally, I wish the FDA were better staffed to inspect food and drugs; I like having the Centers for Disease Control looking out for public health, etc. The rich who are not carrying their fair share enjoy these services as much as the struggling lower and middle classes. How about sharing the costs as well as the benefits. If we keep cutting taxes as McCain advocates, how will these vital public services be maintained?

To Ann Nunes wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:18 AM:To Ann Nunes (letter)

Republicans have historically bought (or plain ol' stolen) elections. And usually the elections are bought with their own money.
Obama raised this money from donors like me, and millions more like me. I am not wealthy - not even close. I am not sure I am even middle class. But I see in Obama something that rekindles my belief in democracy, and average citizens being a part of something transformational. He has my $5, and I am so happy to know he has plenty more $5 to stop the Republican lies.

Laurian wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:50 AM:Why is it that city council members (or presidential candidates, for that matter) are frequently accused of dividing a city or country? That makes no sense. We all have minds of our own and see with our own eyes the toll that over-population by foreigners illegally in our country has taken on our cities and state. It goes to our innate sense of fairness, structure, wanting people to observe and respect our laws. This is not a concept that we learned from Sam Abed, Ed Gallo, or Marie Waldron. For example, do the ones here who write about "accepting diversity" or label city leaders as being "filled with hate" actually live in one of Escondido's blighted areas? Would that be on their short list of places to which they would want to buy property? I'm sure not. Why is it OK to have a "close-knit Latino community" but when English-speaking people of European descent who have been here for many decades want to be near each other it's screamed that they're "raaaaaaacist?" It seems that it's perfectly ok that there is a Muslim community, a Latino community, a black community, a Vietnamese community, etc., but if you're "white," it's open season on you and you're constantly goaded into accepting "diverrrrrrrsity," yet the other self-named groups mentioned above are not held to the same standard. I, as law-abiding and civil as one can possibly be, have the right to choose with whom I'd like to associate just as the folks in the above-named groups do. You will never hear me putting them down for wanting to be around people of their own heritage with whom they're most comfortable; we're all creatures of that to some degree, yet only "white" Americans are taken to task to be accepting of every foreigner's "culture" no matter what. Tell me, exactly what does a Somali refugee have in common with me or with, say, someone here illegally from Mexico? Pretty much nothing, yet it's going to be the U.S. citizen who loves his or her country and who has pride in its own distinct culture, language, and traditions who is going to get hammered for not being accommodating enough (to people who have very little interest in America to begin with). So, sorry, no "white guilt" here. I refuse to be a hyphenated American; after all, those people who insist on putting another country before "American" when classifying themselves are the ones doing the dividing. Yes, my grandparents came from Europe in the early 1900's, but I'm an American citizen first and foremost and my ancestry is just that: ancestry. I abide by the laws of the United States and its states & cities. I don't "demand" special treatment and, like so many others, am pretty self-sufficient and am not interested in a government or leader who wants to "spread wealth around."

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:55 AM:Just some things to mull over in this discussion between opportunity vs. outcomes, based, of course...
on this post by "Outcomes" {Oct 18} @
2:13 PM.

A lot of semantical arguments going back & forth, but let me, as I always do cut to the chase here.

As he states "DD noted that while Socialism may aim to equalize OUTCOMES, Liberalism aims to equalize OPPORTUNITY."

Is giving free healthcare an opportunity? Or an outcome?
Well, it's actually both, depending on your point of view.
Just as offering free college to those who can't afford it is both an opportunity, and an outcome.

Taking wealth from one person and giving it to another, is an attempt by Liberals to equalize outcomes. And by that process, they naturally remove opportunity from those they took the wealth from. Just as offering free college or healthcare to some, by removing wealth from other's, so too is an attempt by imperfect people to equalize outcomes of those they do not know. This is what they mean by fairness. At it's essence, it is a view that perceives life has not been fair, too many on this side of life's column, and by manipulation, they attempt to place more in the success column.

And why is it then "fair" to redistribute based on this perception of "fairness?" In his next line, he encapsulates their thinking:

"IF that person {the worker} created it {the wealth} in the first place!"

In other words: They are not getting their fair share of the wealth. And again, it presupposes they are being stolen from.

He continues: "Mandating minimal standards for ensuring that everyone who creates wealth receives their fair share of it, and mandating that those born without opportunity are given some opportunity (such as education) is not equality of outcomes, it is fairness!
And if employees are compensated fairly, they might sock away enough that they can have the OPPORTUNITY to become employers themselves some day."

And notice, please... how the "minimum standards" by Liberals keep growing?
We offer basically free education up thru 12th grade. What lib's want now is thru college. We just had a whole economic boondoggle based mainly upon an old FDR idea of "affordable housing", or housing as a basic right in his 2nd Bill of rights.
Progressives, progression... it's something to be wary of.

This thought, presupposes that all citizens are equal in talent and potential. As we already know, not all humans are created equal. That's why there are sports players, and sports superstars. Some people struggle to get "A"'s in school, while other's make it look easy.
Under our Constitutional system, they are equal, before the law, politically; one man, one vote, and before God.

What Liberals attempt, and within the core of their thinking, attempt to equalize talent, motivation, and potential via money.
That is one BIG up-hill battle.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:58 AM:And let's all remember that j-o-b-s is a three letter word.

Where are all the apologises to Dan Quayle?

Roger wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:05 AM:Just curious if the NCT was short on letters to the editor and decided to recycle letters from:

Richard Cole
Fidel (Jay) Jiron
Bruce Oja
Jim Stuart
Georgeo Kerpani

all of which regurgitated the same old undigested talking points they had been spoon fed by Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Read all of this yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that...

bodecea wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:10 AM:"Obama buying..."

Obama is using his own money, not tax money...and he is pouring it into our economy at a time when people need it. But, I guess anti-Obamians would find anything to kevetch about....it's funny, really, to watch your desperation.

bodecea wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:15 AM:"Prop 8 preserves..."

I see that Segregation is alive and well in California. Separate but equal, eh? Didn't work out too well in the early 20th century did it? And as for 'preserving an ageless definition', you seem ignorant to the FACT that marriage has changed innumerable times since the dawn of history. It is only recently(when measuring history) that marriage was for love instead of for property and inheritance rights and only for the noble born/well to do. And if you want to serve tradition, I suppose you support one husband, many wives...older husband, barely into puberty wives, and arranged marriages.

Wanda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:25 AM:Cheer up!

Now that Colin Powell has endorsed Obama we can look forward to a whole day full of baseless ad hominem attacks on Colin Powell's character, a welcome relief from regurgitated talking points.

With any luck at all, sdraoul will even take a break from "Obama pals around with Bill Ayers", if only for a day.

Birds of a feather wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:32 AM:I suppose we'll start hearing real soon how Colin Powell is a member of Obama's al-Qaeda sleeper cell.

Bob wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:36 AM:Golly gee, Laura Hunter, don't you think McCain / Palin would like to take the "high road" too?

They're getting beat up pretty bad now (except in sdraoul's bogus polls). Immagine how bad it would be if they backed off on their sensless ad hominem attacks and ran on what they offer the nation:

100 more years of the ruinously expensive, counterproductive war in Iraq ("Stay the Course"?).

More deregulation (how's that working out for ya?).

Failed policies ad nauseam (more of the same?).

To Ann Nunes wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:39 AM:You have prompted me to make a $100 donation in your name to the Obama campaign.

Gotcha!

Just who are the socialists wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:44 AM:So Obama gets labeled a dangerous socialist over a comment about "spreading the wealth".

But when a move to spend 700 billion dollars for a governmental buy in of business is assisted by McCain who laughingly suspended his campaign to take care of is not a socialist?

Go figure!

I'll take my chances with Obama, because I like the thought of "what you see is what you get", and not the phoney pretenses McCain's campaign is trying to force down our throats.

jvc wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:45 AM:Called Paleo when Rush is gone!

The ick factor wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:55 AM:Or is it the ilk factor?
When Republicans feel they have nothing left to lose by calling their opponent anti-American and a terrorist sympathizer you know they’ve hit rock bottom.
Is that really all you’ve got?

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:59 AM:Do you know what you need,
"bodecea" {Oct 18} @3:44 PM?

You need to have a conversation with a cop. No kidding. Or a prosecutor with the county.
And they both would tell you, that although they would love to have a "motive", they don't need it to convict for a crime.

Hate is a motive, it is not a crime.

And since you want to talk about
"intent", sure.. let's discuss intent.
I'd love to discuss intent.

Did you know that Charles Manson never killed a single human being? And yet, he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders?
It is said by "his speech" that he was joint-responsible and was convicted of the murders themselves.
Also, Tom Metzger, founder of the White Aryan Resistance was found responsible for, and found civilly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability. In which, you can be liable for a tort committed by a subordinate or other person taking instructions. In other words, "his speech."

I'm guessing these cases, amid other's are what you are refering to, in your statement: "No more laws on conspiracies or differenciation between Murder one and Murder Two, and so on and so forth."

But in some weird sort of conjecture, your attributing Voting No on 8, as "hate speech?"
Is that what I hear you saying?
In my post, spoke very spedcifically about how political pressure & power was used to silence free expression.
Many do consider it hate speech. And they would just love the opportunity to silence these critics, which is exactly what LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson all have done, for political reasons.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that more speech, is perferable to limited speech, timed speech, or filtered speech. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to allow it, because if this tenet becomes law, it then will really just depend on who has the power to regulate it then.
In another vane of thought, I'm sittin here wondering if like Charles Manson, or Tom Metzger above, you might consider the prosecution of Rev. Wright, or Louis Farrakhan, or many other's, if it could be legally proven that by their speech, they caused other citizens to act on their behalf?
I can think of nothing more hateful than "white man's greed, runs a world in need", "US of KKK-A", or the "white interlopers" as described by Calypso Louie?

Fred wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:00 AM:Yes, "The ick factor" at 8:55 AM, that pretty much is all they've got. Kinda pathetic.

But, cheer up, they'll only be around for a couple more weeks.

Spell check is OFF wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:05 AM:Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:58AM:

"apologises"

Looks like three letter words are all he can handle on his own.

Joe Six Pack wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:17 AM:Who's this Joe the Plumber guy?

How come nobody pays me to go on the talk show circuit?

It's not fair.

Yadda Yadda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:19 AM:Ron[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:59 AM:Kinda funny. There is a host of crimes which are classified hate crimes.

Surfer wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:22 AM:The Truth Shall Free Us All; I was inclined to post a few comments today. You, however, have already said it all. Therefore, everyone have a great day. See Ya!

Vote Democrat wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:26 AM:Why should any of us have to take care of ourselves. I say lets all vote democrat. That way we can have the Government run our lives for us. Think about it, free housing, free healthcare, groceries, cars everything free provided by the Gov. Why should we have to work and save and do anything on our own. The Gov will take over all the money and distribute it equally among us all, but wait why would we need money. If the Gov is going to save us and take care of us then lets just give it up to them. Quit fighting it and vote Democrat we will have a utopia just like New Orleans before that evil President Bush sent that hurricane to destroy it. Come on America close your minds and vote Democrat after all they are smarter than all the rest of us. There is no chance at all that they will mess anything up, no dem has ever made a mistake ever just ask them and they are always right arent they. So lets get eveyone on board I am going to my part will you?

Just trying to help wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:27 AM:Maybe FOX News should change the Republican's color designation on their electoral map to blue. That way their viewers will think they're winning.
And if Rush doesn't say anything they won't figure it out for at least a couple weeks since those are the only two places they get their "news".

Apollo wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:34 AM:Submitted at 8:46 a.m. and skipped while later (and lengthier) posts got displayed.
Resubmitted at 9:34 a.m.

Re: Kim Oakley (letter)
Ho-hum, more boring ignorance. There are many peer-reviewed studies that now confirm that same-sex attraction is congenital, and we even understand the genetic mechanisms that cause this outcome. The statement by Oakley and others to the contrary is simply Dark Ages ignorance.
But so what if it were a choice?
THIS IS AMERICA. You have the right to make CHOICES that don't affect others.
You anti-FREEDOM terrorists who want the all-powerful GOVERNMENT intruding into our PERSONAL LIVES - STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM.
Same-sex marriage does not affect me AT ALL.
I don't care what anyone chooses, or how they were born.
Mind your own businesses.
When I stop seeing pastors and priests who molest children, and die-hard conservatives stop committing adultery, engaging in divorce and, yes, tapping their toes to meet MEN in airport restrooms, then maybe I might listen to what you have to say.
No, it is still people's private nature and/or choices.
...

Reardon wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:39 AM:bodecea: I'll bet you support segregation. I'll bet you support "separate but equal!"

For example, I'll bet you support a separate but equal, segregated 100 yard dash in the Olympics.

I'll bet you support a separate but equal Ladies Professional Golf Association, and a separate but equal segregated Women’s Basketball Association.

I'll even bet you support a separate but equal segregated toilets.

My wife and I each graduated from separate but equal segregated colleges -- hers all women and mine all men. Both are now open to both sexes -- mine long before hers, and I can tell you for a fact that her EXTREMELY liberal college wishes to be TODAY, all women!

Her college would be all female today if it could, but having demanded that my college accept women, her college had to be dragged kicking and screaming into letting men on campus (decades later) -- and today men must live off campus while all the campus dorms are women only.
\
There is just a whole lot of hypocrisy going on around here.

(Stand by to be "nuanced" to death, everyone!)

Chicagoland wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:39 AM:The Truth Shall Free Us All Thank you Ann Nunes. I just wrote another check for %100.00 for Barak Obama. Will send it in the morning.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:42 AM:Amazing, still cleaning up the mess's after yesterday, left over by the Lib's. Now, I'm going to correct this intentionally distorted view of my post by "tjefferson" {Oct 18} @6:33 PM.

Look Dude..
I never said that Father Coughlin was a paragon of virtue. And as wrong headed, and incendiary as the Father may have been, he does have the right, under the Constitution to speak his mind, and do so freely, without the interference by the government.

Now, what you obviously object to, IS his particular speech. I too, find it racist, and borderline "overthrow" speak, but still within his rights, under the Constitution.
And perhaps, I did not explain fully as to why it was done?
When FDR ran for the Presidency, Father Coughlin was an early supporter of FDR, and the New Deal, which he dubbed: "Christ's Deal." He was, afterall, a very heavy supporter of "social justice" as most fascists and socialists tend to be.
The main perk, turned problem for FDR was the Father's audience. It is estimated the some 40 million tuned into his weekly broadcasts. Good for FDR while they agreed, bad when the Father turned against FDR.
The FDR administration did everything they could to silence him, from appealing to the Vatican, to insisting CBS radio drop it's free sponsorship, to purposely creating a radio battle between Coughlin and a Unitarian minister, in another attempt to dilute his messge and popularity.
You know, it is said today that Rush Limbaugh has approx. 20 million listeners, Father Coughlin had 40.
Huge, huge problem political for FDR and his New Deal when 40 million Americans are hearing it's "Satan's Deal."
Anyways...
So FDR created, out of thin air, this idea of regulating the "airwaves", for precisely the "Father Coughlin problem."
Remember, FDr was trying to convince depression era Americans that his New Deal was the salvation, and did so by his own "Fire-side chats."
He was a direct competitor to Coughlin, and politically, he just couldn't have it. So, they began the process of radio broadcast license applications, Father Coughlin was purposely denied, he was, afterall, why they created licenses as a gate-way to control which speech they would allow, and that speech they would not.
Coughlin accepted his denial, he then went to serve his radio constituency by a news letter, Social Justice. He attempted to mail thru the United States Post Office. But, the Roosevelt administration stepped in again, this time revoking his mailing privileges and making it impossible for Coughlin to deliver the papers to his readers. According to them, he had the right to publish whatever he wanted, but not the right to use the United States Post Office Department to deliver it.

Just sittin here wondering whether any current books, magazines, or other "literature" would fit this same description? Can you think of any?
I can, all coming out of the wrong Rev. Wright's church.
But, unlike you, I think even stupid people should be allowed to speak.

Yadda Yadda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:43 AM:Purpose of Prop. 8 is to preserve marriage
The purpose of Prop 8 is not to preserve marriage. The purpose is to preserve marriage for heterosexual Christian couples who think that they and their religion can rule this state and this country.

TFB wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:01 AM:Resubmission of earlier omitted comment

Pete Peters' letter opposes parental notification on abortion. Hello, folks, we are not talking about an aspirin here to relieve temporary discomfort. We are talking about life-changing decisions that the GIRL will be responsible for for THE REST OF HER LIFE!
Girls from balanced, normal families turn FIRST to their parents.
If the girl can't voluntarily turn to her parents, there is a problem in her family, and she already has enough obstacles. She will bear the consequences and only she can make the choices.
If you think parents should have a say in it, even those who abuse or sexually molest their children, then you should have included a provision in the proposition that makes the parents completely responsible for all financial consequences, including lost educational and employment ramifications, if they obstruct the CHOICE the girl wants.
And if you think parents should be able to obstruct abortions, do you also think parents should be able to require them if they don't think it is in the girl's long-term interests? Even if, in her dreamy naivetee she thinks she really, really wants to keep the baby?

And Steven Holman's letter about Einstein being aborted is just absurd! Why do they always cite the example of Einstein? Why not Hitler? Or Charles Manson?
And guess what. ...
Using Holman's argument, we should never, ever allow any egg or sperm (human life) to die unfertilized, because any one of them could have become an Einstein (forget about Hitler and Manson).

And what is wrong with this picture?
"Pete" and "Steven," who will never be pregnant, thinking they should be making choices for females.
So paternalistic.
Just like parents deciding life-changing consequences for girls.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:24 AM:I think, in fact, I know that Ann Nunes has it right. Obama IS attempting to buy 95% of Americans votes.

In short, he is essentially saying:
"Hey, all 95% of you, we need to gang up on the 5%!"

Unfortunately, what NObama leaves out of this calculation is the simple fact that, the top 5% of all income earners pay more than half, in fact, they pay 60.14% of all income taxes in the country, and their income begins at $153,542.
This is why I do not know how NObama always talks about those who make $250K and above, when he quite purposely attacks those in the top 5%, or those who's income is $153,542.

And as I always say: Elections, nowdays, seem more to resemble a fencing operation, than they are the selection of qualified leadership.
NObama, in my mind, fits this bill,
Exactly.

And I see that our buddy "Bob" had time in his day to ring in, one correction to his 6:36 AM post.
Bob says: "Why, yes, Ann Nunes, I can explain why Obama is spending whole bunches of money to get elected: because he can."

The correction is, Bob he lied.
He first said he'd stay within the campaign finance reforms, then lied.
And he lied because he could.

And speaking of spending on the campaign, anyone wonder where he's gettin all his cash? Thus far, McCain has released all of his campaign disclosures, including those below the $200 dollar level.
Nobama has not.
And your not even a bit curious as to why? When he loves to talk about government transparency?
All this bloviating about hope & change based on the same old tactics.

Obama Dollars wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:30 AM:This is the first time I have contributed to a campaign. I know many more people who are just like me. So it is no wonder Obama has raised lots of money especially from us common folk. No one wants to contribute to that old guy and his soulmate. As a registerd Democrat I received a letter asking to donate to McCain. No wonder he doesn't have money since he spends it on sending requests to the wrong people.

Scamming the middle class wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:35 AM:Bill says Obama is scamming the middle class by buying their votes with promised tax cuts that will only hurt them in the long run. Hmm, seems to me we've had 8 years of the middle class being scammed by Bush, and McCain promises 4 more years of this scam. Bush/McCain's scam is to tell the middle class that voting for tax cuts for the rich and the corporations will trickle down and make their lives better. So let's look at what this has actually produced, shall we? Expanded numbers of Americans living in poverty. Middle class shrinking, and those still in it stagnant in their wealth, working more with less to show for it. A striking decrease in abject poverty...in India, China, Indonesia, Vietnam...that's where the wealth is trickling down, if you haven't noticed. Oh, and as our houses and lives are facing disclosure, the wealthiest few percent of Americans are wealthier than they've ever been. Talk about a scam! Maybe the GOP should lobby for giving Indians, Indonesians, Chinese, and Vietnamese a vote in American elections. That's who their actually pitching for, not us. The facts are in. They lie. They are utterly unpatriotic: their nation is the land of profit, period. That's the scam. And when we see through it (as we do now, according to the polls) they try plan B: terrify us of the opponent so that even their guy is better than the Muslim terrorist. Sorry: we're not buying that one either.

Vote Republican wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:13 AM:I think that we should all realize that corporate CEO's, using our taxes, know best for how we should live. They should be assisted in building as many weapons as possible so we can thank them for the jobs our kids will have if they return from phoney wars. They should be encouraged to save money by sending jobs overseas, while getting subsidies from us. And if they mess up, or cheat, or commit fraud, no problem, we taxpayers will be happy to toss them a few billion so they can continue to enjoy their lifestyle. And let's not forget how important it is to have big business people's closest ideological allies, the evangelical christians, decide what we adults should be allowed to do in our bedrooms and what we must teach our children. If you realize that wars, dead kids, corporate extravagance, economic disaster, and hatred of those who disagree with you is best for America, then you will vote for John McCain and his eminently capable VP. These policies and values have worked so well since 2000, or 1994, that all real Americans will realize that to do otherwise is downright evil.

Chris wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:17 AM:There are a number of reasons to vote yes on prop 8. Voting on this at the federal level is probably the most important. Have it recognized in all states, not just some. There are other legal issues if it is recognized in some states but not all. Medical benefits for one and also tax returns is another. Folks you're just not their yet. Vote yes on 8.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:44 AM:You know, it's really hard to un-do many years of bad training, education, and fraud. But, if anyone is equipped to reverse some of this trend, it is me, speaking truth to power, as my more liberals friends would say.

I think in light of "Scamming the middle class" @10:35 AM post, a little perspective would be good, and required to bring "tax cuts for the Rich" into some factual light here.

First of all, keeping more of my hard earned money does not seem like a scam to me. It certainly is preferable than having it spent on a Woodstock Museum, or a Rainforest in Iowa. I'm sure that some thought these were great expenditures of public monies, but in my mind, had they really wanted them, they'd have found people locally, or by internet to fund these desirable wants, not necessitites.
What the Left means by scam, is that someone, usually Rich gets a better tax break than you, a lower class person.
I really hate talking in these class terms, because, as individuals we choose which economic class we'll spend our lives working in.
But, leaving that aside for the moment,
once there, burdened by a mortgage, car payement, or payments, kid's attending college, whatever. That's where you find yourself presently.
Liberals & socialists main political theme over the decades has been class-warfare, battling between who get's a better deal from government.
It's interesting this year, viewing what NObama is saying, versus what John F. Kennedy actually did. He cut the top 1% tax rate some 20%. Later, Reagan cut that top rate to 28%. Was it class warfare when Kennedy did? Cause I was around when Reagan did it, and it was interpreted by the Left, as exactly that, "tax cuts for the Rich."

Anyways...
So eventually we get to Clinton, he and a Democrat Congress boosts tax rates, across the board, down the to $33K level, and retroactive, and then the Liberals tell us, it's patriotic.

Bush comes to office, based on phoney surplus numbers cooked up by Frank Raines during his tenure at Clinton's OMB office, Bush promises tax cuts across the board.
Everybody gets a piece.

Now comes NObama, promising to raise taxes on the upper incomes, in order to fund his "tax cuts" for lower & middle class people. And he tells us why he doing it too. He says: During the Bush years, the Rich got richer, and the poor got poorer, so now it's time to change who gettting some money.

Now, that's the history.

Thank you Obama nuts wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:46 AM:You just gave us mre McCain votes in my area. Gonna send him some $ too.

I love the way Obama supporters gloat. wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:49 AM:It will make November 4th so much sweeter when McCain wins the election. The hate on this board will reach unprecendented levels from the left.

Oh, by the way Marriage is a man and woman. God says it, I believe it.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:54 AM:Now, personally, I think NObama IS scamming the middle class, or any class for that matter. He IS attempting to
buy votes, just as Bill Clinton did this in 1992, with promised tax cuts to the lower & middle classes, but in order to fund ALL the things he wants to do, they will not materialize.

I also think John McCain is scaming people about "wanting to keep taxes low", when he's on record as backing a leftist Cap & trade mechanism along with Democrat Joe Liberman.
Further, given the fact that presently McCain will most likely have a Democrat Congress, whatever legislation that comes out, will slant left, and that will show up on his desk, not exactly what he wants. No politician has that luxury, and certainly no president in a divided government.

Third, given the fact that we will have a downturn for the foreseeable near future, I think both will find it difficult to enact exactly what they are not laying out.

However, what we can gleen from them now, is approximately how they would operate under such circumstances, and their general mindset as to this question of "fairness."

In my mind, NObama is quite clear, those above $250K will be treated unfairly, and those below, he intends to treat more fairly.
McCain, on the other hand, says he intends to treat all fairly, rich & poor.

Robert wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:06 PM:If proposition 8 gets shot down in defeat, which I hope never happens, but if it does could the gays stop their ridiculous gay pride events? Anytime you sent yourself apart from the mainstream, which they trully do, you set yourself up for all sorts of critisism. If you want to be a part of a mainstream traditional event you gotta stop pracing around in your underwear in these parades.

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:09 PM:So, either way, we actually do not know how these two men will really act once in office. We hope they will stick to their guns, but as history has always taught us, promises are one thing, keeping them is another.

But, there is a part of me that really is puzzled by this anger over Bush and his economic policies. As is often forgotten, in the beginning, and because the race in 2000 was so close, Bush intentionally reached across, and made many agreements with Liberals to bring unity. Out of that we got No Child written by Ted Kennedy, and also this new drug entitlement, also written by Ted Kennedy. I'd say that's reeeaaaalllllyyyy reaching across.

Also his tax cuts, what are we actually talking about? From 39.6% top rate, down to 35%. He basically reversed what Clinton had done. His lowest rate dropped from 15% under Clinton to 10%. But Bush nevr get's credit for this. Why?
I think a little more even handedness by many liberal commentators are in order, a little perspective, wouldn't help.
Some are angry about the captial gains tax cuts, when they don't even have the means to participate. And particularly, when those taxes on gains are excluded because of the tax bracket you find yourself. This is will never understand. It's downright, ignorant.

The other thing that Bush had to deal with was the collaspe of the Clinton tech bubble. See? That's why I keep talking about from one Congress to the next, from one President to the next. That's because it's the continuity that's important, and not the hard end of one administration, and the beginning of the next that needs to be viewed in the overall scheme of things.

Bush also had 9/11 to deal with. A re-structuring of intelligence services, and a beefed up Homeland Security agency, which he fought, at first. Remember, growing this agency was a Democrat idea, Bush came on board later.
So, we have some rather unrealistic assumptions going on out there.

Wanda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:18 PM:Thanks, Ron, I'd forgotten about the "beefed up Homeland Security agency".

"Heckuva job Brownie!"

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:22 PM:And I've got a little news for this blogger. He seems to have a gripe with
"...tax cuts for the rich and the corporations...", from what I'm reading, so does this Old Bull over at the House Ways and Means, Charlie Rangle. Now of course, he's talking about "closing loop-hole's" at the same time, but this also is a scam, because he understands, as most Democrats, even more liberal one's understand, that when Ireland has a corporate tax rate of 11%, we can not compete with a 35% rate. But, he & they will have to say it, because that's really what you want to hear, right? They are gonna punish people, and help you get even. Right?
So, they'll appeal to your emotions, while at the same time, they know the score, and they know why jobs are leaving the US. And it ain't "tax loop-hole's to send jobs overseas."
That's just gutter class-warfare talk to get you all primed up.
Now, how do I know this is true?
Simple. Take a look at the last time "job's were shipped overseas."
GE ran several American factories manufacturing incandescent light bulbs.
Oh, yes! Americans making light bulbs.
Under this guise, this scam known as "helping the enviroment", they discontinued incandescent light bulbs, and mandated CFL bulbs. You know, to be "green."
Well, the long and the short of this story, is this. These CFL factories are in China.
So, in order to "be green", Democrats, in cahoots with their partners in crime, the enviromentalists, along with Corporate Giants, scammed Americans.
And now the chinese have those jobs.

quetstion for gloat wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:27 PM:Can you give us the source of God saying marriage is a man and a woman? If "Bible" is your answer, please give us chapter and verse. Thanks in advance. I suspect that neither God nor the Bible said so. I suspect that perhaps your human pastor said so. Of maybe your own hatred of homosexuals says so. But God? Prove it to us. If you can't then have the courage and decency to tell the truth. "I am for prop 8, not because of any religion, but because I just think homosexuality is creepy and disgusting. I will vote against anything I hate."

Marlowe wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:32 PM:So McCain dismisses the Colin Powell endorsement of Obama by citing that his backers include Kissinger and Haig. Wowee! Let's have Kissinger and Haig do some speeches about the greatness of McCain and Palin. I'd pay to hear those two giving heart-stirring endorsements, wouldn't you? There's a couple of guys that are widely loved and respected! LOL

tjefferson wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:36 PM:Our resident authority on everthing has revised his post from yesterday on fascist Father Coughlin by making up new facts and rearranging the chronology of historic events. This, I'm sure, comes as no surprise to anyone.

Mr. Authority accuses the Roosevelt administration of "insisting CBS drop free sponsorship" of Coughlin's radio program. CBS dropped free sponsorship in 1931 during the Hoover administration. FDR wasn't elected until 1932. Mr. Authority continues making up facts by stating "so FDR created out of thin air this idea of regulating the 'airwaves' for precisely the Father Coughlin problem." Mr. Authority compounds his ignorance by stating that because Coughlin was in competition with FDR's fireside chats, there "began the process of radio station applications." KDKA, the first commercial radio station, was LICENSED in 1920 by the Federal Radio Commission. In 1934, in order to fine tune frequency allocations and transmitter power, the FCC took over from the FRC. The job of the FCC was much more complicated than the silencing of a fascist priest. When Poland was invaded by Germany and London was being bombed nightly by the fascists and her citizens dying or huttled in bomb shelters, the National Association of Broadcasters (a non-government industry financed entity) adopted rules to prevent Coughlin's hateful broadcasts. About this time the Post Office Department refused to deliver his anti-democratic, and anti-capitalistic, fascist Hitler loving propoganda.

Brushing against Mr. Authority's fantasy world is a bit creepy. I usually don't bother to correct his rambings because others do a very good job. But I am a son of a WWII vet who served in Europe. I am also the nephew of two WWII vets, and one lost his life in the Pacific. I will not sit idly by while a know-nothing elevates a fascist to poster boy for free speech.

Flummoxed wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:40 PM:I guess the yahoos are temporarily flummoxed about the Powell endorsement of, and eloquence about, Obama. And his trashing of McCain's campaign slime tactics. What's a poor yahoo to do? Will they attack Powell as unpatriotic? As not a "real" veteran? No, that'd never work. What will they say about this lifetime Republican and warrior not just endorsing Obama, but going on and on about WHY he is? I hate to say it, but I fear that all they'll come up with, and they will, maybe via innuendo, is that both Powell and Obama are black. Don't you think? Stay tuned! Will the key word be "solidarity"? Will they "understand" Powell's attraction to "making history"?

Ron wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:43 PM:But, finally, let me address for this unknown poster a bit of a conundrum between himself, and his messiah {small "m"}.

He complains about this shrinking middle class, and expanding poverty inside the United States.
He further complains about countries gaining those jobs, "our wealth", and a "striking decrease in abject poverty...in India, China, Indonesia, Vietnam...that's where the wealth is trickling down, if you haven't noticed."

Now, as i understand Barackous NObamous he has this Global Poverty plan, a huge global poverty initiative. To send even more money, and transfer our wealth directly to these other countries.
Now, I find you at odds with NObama.
He thinks more wealth transfer overseas is a good thing, while you do not.
Barackous obviously views this as "being his brother's keeper", than you do, although, his own half-brother lives on $12 bucks a year.
A minor inconsistency. Right?
I've said, that since the early 1960's John Kennedy recognised the world rising up all around us, and droped the tax rates to make us more competitive, in a world that was seeking to compete with us. This wealth transfer overseas was inevitable, in my mind. It simply was a matter of time. And it's really easy to understand as dollars and cents.
If labor overseas costs 1/20th that of the US, jobs are leaving. You could cut all corporate rates, and they would still leave. And it's because the other nations' standards of living are not equal to our's. It simply does not cost as much to live in Mexico, as it does to live in San Diego. That's just a fact. And not just that, but also working conditions, regulations, and any other number of things we impose on employers here. it simply is not competitive. It's no contest.
Democrats for years, have been trying to export working conditions, to other countries, but that Dog Just Won't Hunt.
It's another scam. Rises in living standards, and working conditions will NOT happen until those workers in those countries demand them, unionize, and collectively stop work.
I have mentioned in my past posts, this is the only way unions can survive outside of government, which is why they are presently going against a long held belief, of secret balloting.
Thsi card check thing is so bad, even George McGovern is saying it stinks.
But, union boss's think today, that's the only way they can still hold onto their houses, mistresses, limo's private jet's, and retirement's, even though... most of their members will find themselves gettin .45 cents on the dollar, in some sell-out, or at the underfunded Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
Yes, that same scam between union bosses and the Democrats.
Ya can't fight nature folks, only adjust to it's natural conditions.

Amerikan Pie wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:01 PM:The North (K)ounty Times Liberal DemObama censors are earning their pay today, What is it now guy's, $20.00 a day and a bag of nuts?

Bible verse is here wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:05 PM:Leviticus 18:20 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

NEXT?

Wrong answer wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:20 PM:Leviticus 18:20 says nothing about marriage, does it? (Society at the time ofLeviticus was polygamous: one man, many wives, arranged by the family. Why don't you support a Constitutional amendment banning monogamy?)The question was where the bible or "God" says Marriage is a man and a woman. Sorry, 1:05. As all good Republicans do, you changed the topic. (BTW, does your answer imply that lesbian marriage is ok? I am not aware of anything in the Bible abominating a woman sleeping with a woman. Are you?) But since you take Leviticus' use of the word "abomination" to justify your homophobia, please tell us all the other things condemned in the Old Testament. I am sure, if you have any religious integrity, you are as opposed to all of those as much as you are homosexuality. Looking forward to your answer.

3D wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:25 PM:Bible verse at 1:05 p.m. cites Leviticus 18:20 that refers to same-sex attraction, calling them an "abomination."

The following chapter (Lev 19) also prohibits cross breeding of cattle or grain, trimming one's beard, and tattoos.

Leviticus chapter 11 outlaws eating of shrimp, crab and pork.
It says such foods are an "abomination," the same word that was found to be so offensive in chapter 18.

Leviticus chapter 12 mandates ritualistic cleansing every woman must follow after menstruation, which I'm sure all the critics of gays follow, uhm, religiously.
And for those who believe Biblical marriage is "one man and one woman," actually for most of human history and as explicitly specified in the Bible, "traditional marriage" is one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe (no interracial marriage), in an arranged marriage, maintaining "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
Marriage continues to evolve.

Many people do not interpret the Bible with strict literalism, and many others do not believe it at all; it is not the basis for laws in a secular society and the Court decision allowing same-sex marriage explicitly stated that no enforcement could be taken against churches, as has been an exception to all Civil Rights legislation ever passed.
Blessings,
3D

To Bible Verse is here wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:28 PM:You may like Leviticus 18:20, but my favorite two verses are:

2nd Dalmations 47:5, and
Liliputians 14:26

May the Force be with you!

sdraoul wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:33 PM:GOLLY GEE, SERGEANT --SDRAOUL IS RIGHT AGAIN!

Since Thursday night Obama has lost 29.4 percent support in the national poll average of ten most recently conducted polls (from a 6.8 percent lead to a five percent lead).

Will that trenc continue? Only the Shadow knows, but if it does, Obama loses.

Blind Flumm oxed wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:37 PM:Flummoxed
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:40 PM: innuendo, is that both Powell and Obama are black.

innuendo hell!!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:39 PM:I love the way Obama supporters gloat. Who the heck are you and why should we care? And. the Democrats are projected to capture another 25 seats in the House.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:42 PM:Robert[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:06 PM:
The gays never said that they want to be part of the mainstream. Even if they did, they would not be accepted. Gay pride day will go on along with gay marriages guaranteed by the equal projection clause.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:44 PM:Thank you Obama nuts; Go for it. McCain needs the money and your votes.

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:48 PM:Well, "Bible verse is here" at 1:05PM,
1) We are a democratic republic, NOT a theocracy.
2) That's Old Testament.
3) We are a democratic republic, NOT a theocracy.
4) The "Christian" faith is based, primarily, on the teachings of Christ.
5) We are a democratic republic, NOT a theocracy.
When last I checked, the Constitution does not include the Bible.

Next?

Regards, Alf.

To wrong answer wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:50 PM:Those other laws were abolished in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. The New Testament still condemns homosexuality in Romans. And a man was supposed to bethe husband of one wife according to Paul.

Wonder Bread wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:56 PM:Gotta Wonder
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:39 PM: Ya Gotta wonder why Gotta Wonder thinks we care a rats butt about what Gotta Wonder thinks. Ya Gotta wonder.

TFB wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:08 PM:Edited Resubmission of prior skipped blog

OK, I see why the blog I submitted at 8:55 a.m. didn't get posted.
After I resubmitted at 10:01 a.m., the editor did post the blog, but inserted the [...] to show that some offensive material was deleted.

I beg to differ!

What was this "offensive" material?
Did I call someone names, like Ron repeatedly calling people "Stalinists" or SDRaoul frequently calling people "morons" or "idiots" and getting posted?
Nothing like that!

Did I use a naughty word?
Insult our beloved nation?

No!

I made a serious commentary on an adult subject, but Mommy or Daddy censor decided that the NCT readership is not adult enough to address a serious subject.

When I mentioned that those who oppose abortion always mention Einstein (Steven Holman's letter) and never mention Hitler or Manson, I included a comment about a serious issue of psychology and culture.
While many wonderful women overcome troubled or unwanted pregnancies to become wonderful mothers and their children grow up to be exemplary citizens, it is a FACT that the more obstacles you put in the way of families, the more you increase the chances of difficulties later in life.
The point I made, which is thoughtful and serious, is that Hitler and Manson were unwanted children who grew up in homes where they were treated abusively. When moralists try to cite the example of Einstein but never Hitler or Manson, they need to remember that requiring women to carry pregnancies against their can breed the resentment that leads to greater difficulties and, while many families do overcome these obstacles, it does increase the percentage chances of raising that Hitler/Manson rather than that Einstein.
This is a serious point and relevant to the issue.
I do not believe this is the kind of comment that the North County Times intends to have censored out while allowing people to be called "Stalinists," "morons" or "idiots."

3D wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:29 PM:To the person responding to Wrong Answer at 1:50 p.m. -
If you say those other laws were "abolished" in the New Coveneant, then why did you cite Leviticus.
Chapter 11 of Leviticus does not merely forbid shrimp and pork as a point of LAW, but uses the same word "abomination" that you found so troubling regarding same-sex relationships (outside of marriage).
And it does not matter what the renegade "apostle" Paul said in Romans. In Romans alone he repeatedly contradicts evertying Jesus said or stood for.
In Matt 5:17-18 Jesus himself said that not one dot or one iota of the LAW OF MOSES would be changed in the slightest until ALL THINGS ARE FULFILLED and "heaven and earth shall pass away." Have heaven and earth passed away? Have ALL THINGS - all prophecies, all the end times - ALL THINGS been fulfilled? Then if not, pork and shrimp are in the same boat as unwed same-sex intimacy.
Paul merely contradicts Jesus, as he does on so many points of religion, including:
-the basis for salvation (Jesus said it is by universal compassionate love expressed in DEEDS, Paul says it is by faith WITHOUT DEEDS).
-the role of women (Jesus raised them up; Paul forbade them from speaking in the churches, ordered them to submit to their husbands, and even told them to stay home and raise the kids, like Sarah Palin?).
-the role of slaves (Jesus said the servants should be the masters of all; Paul commanded slaves to "obey their masters).
-And of course the Law of Moses (Jesus said it was inviolate until the end of time; Paul said it was abolished or "fulfilled" under conditions that do not at all meet the criteria Jesus established).
And again, as so many others noted, why does it matter what the Bible says when it comes to secular laws?
Blessings,
3D

Be Careful my Friend wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:30 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:48 PM: Every knee will bow, No exceptions Alf.

To alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:45 PM:The Constitution and the Bible worked fine together from 1776 to 1962. then the liberals attacked, and our nation has spiraled downwards.

William wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:51 PM:If we are to be accountable to the state constitution with equal rights to all without prejudice how then can we have the likes of the BET (black entertainment television) or "BLACK awards shows. Isnt that in itself prejudice. What if a TV executive wanted to create WET (white entertainment television) or have an awards show strictly geared for whites, you know youd have AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson tripping over themselves crying foul. Thats why I dont get the whole gay issue. They are trying to infiltrate a ceremonay that has been traditionally between a man and a women,and now all of a sudden they want to join the club because it fits their agenda. I dont see this as being predjudiced or hateful by any means. I remember someone saying that 2 out of three marriages end in divorce, so why would the gays want any part of this. I say call it a cival union with all the rights as a marriage and be done with it.

Wanda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:55 PM:sdraoul, at 1:33 PM, reports Obama's lead has lessened by 29.4% and predicts that if this trend continues "Obama loses".

Raoul's bogus statistics aside, if Obama's lead is lessened by whatever percent, for an infinite period of time, he would still win (albeit by a smaller margin than originally).
...

bodecea wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:57 PM:To Ron,

You just described "intent" and how people are convicted for "intent". Funny how you have no problem with "intent" unless it involves "hate crime" intent. Try to be consistent next time.

And btw, I have several close family members in law enforcement...thanks for asking.

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:11 PM:I'm not a Bible expert, far from it. But, I have been told that Paul was an ugly, miserable little man given to having some kind of fits. I've also heard that he felt the only SURE way to heaven was celibacy. He allowed for marriage, only for those who couldn't "control" themselves -- you know -- "that way." Paul wasn't born until after Jesus died; therefore the two were hardly what you might call friends. So, to "To the Wrong Answer" - what difference does it make what Paul said?

William wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:28 PM:To be careful my friend

I dont see anything wrong with what Alf said.

CANOBAMA wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:30 PM:Can Obama buy an election? Yes, absolutely.

Sign Stealers wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:40 PM:I noticed that many Yes on Prop 8 signs have been taken down and stolen from the main streets in east Oceanside. Coincidentally, there are a few No on Prop. 8 signs up now in their place (not very smart guys). How sad that with signs that say "Equality for all" they cannot even respect the right of others to free speech, not to mention their blatant disregard for the law. Don't worry, we won't take your "No on Prop 8" signs - we'll just replace the ones you took. Please restore marriage as between a man and a woman. Vote yes on Prop 8!

3D wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:42 PM:To the person responding to Alf at 2:45 p.m.
You are mistaken.
The Constitution and the Bible have never worked together.
They have always been kept strictly separate.
If you disagree, please explain exactly what you are referring to. Please be specific. Cite specific references to the Bible in the Constitution or in any enabling legislation.

As for our nation having "spiraled downwards" since 1962, what I have seen is a nation that has given greater equality of opportunity for minorities and women and greater attention to the poor, the outcast, the helpless (children and the disabled) and the neglected, more in keeping with what Jesus taught when he described the final judgment in Matt 25:31-46, where he said those who would be saved were those who did compassionate DEEDS for "the least" among us.

Though, of course, such improvements in our national morality were based on secular consideration, NOT THE BIBLE, which was not cited in any of the enacting legislation.
Blessings,
3D

Okay wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:47 PM:As long as we are using religion in discussing Prop 8, Goddess says all acts of love and pleasure are Hers and She told me everybody gets equal rights. No on 8.

Richard wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:55 PM:GOP Pat Buchanan just claimed Colin Powell is voting for Obama partly because of being an African American, but I disagree. He's voting against McCain's Iraq war theories. Powell was also accused of betraying and leaving the GOP, but I disagree again. He is still a registered Republican but wants to vote for a candidate he prefers in another party. So what? Remember he was fired by Bush. Powell corrected his false UN statements and still refuses to take it back. Bush hated him correcting the falsehoods and fired him. This does not mean he's no longer a Republican, but instead that Bush left his party in the dust with his surge into the wrong country.
Now I see that Christians in Iraq are demonstrating with Shiites, requesting our forces to honor the U.N. timeline to leave Iraq. Too bad neither Bush nor McCain listen to or believe in polls, so this is pretty exasperating.

Gary in Murrieta wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:02 PM:Fox News went all over America looking for plumbers named Joe.

Guess what, they all said the same thing. They do NOT like Obamas tax plans.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:03 PM:Colin Powell has been a stealth socialist for many years. He tricked us into thinking he wasn't by supporting Bush in 2000 and '04 but now we know he is really a socialist because he joins other notorious socialist like Warren Buffet in supporting socialist Barak Obama. I think they are all Muslims too.

to to all wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:08 PM:To all promotes the great myth of conservatism, that from the birth of the nation until the hippies came along, we were a smooth-running, God and country-loving, nation. As to all says, things were ducky. Well, for some people this was certainly true. If you were black, though, you were lynched if you got uppity. If you were a woman, you were barred from many activities and were given a fraction of a dollar for the same work a man did. If you were raped, it was your fault. If you got pregnant, you got shipped away or else had a quack use a coat hanger in a back alley. If you were a Jew, there were many clubs and organizations that barred you from membership. The list goes on and on. "To all" also assumes that for that entire period everyone was happy with his or her place. S/he forgets the civil war, race riots, the massacre of workers who wanted to be paid a decent wage. S/he also forgets the genocide of the Indians and many other things. "To all" needs desperately to get an education and wake up from the fairy tale world.

Yadda Yadda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:21 PM:To wrong answer[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:50 PM: Paul is not Jesus Christ. Neither are mentioned in our Constitution.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:26 PM:Wonder Bread[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:56 PM: I gotta wonder why yu reacted if you do not care what I think. tell that to your mouse in your pocket as well.

truth wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:29 PM:to Gotcha, Keep sending Obama money now and when and if he gets in you will pay again, again, again, again, and again until you have nothing left, you will deserve the president you get. NOBAMA

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:31 PM:William[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:51 PM: Get real. The black shows were created as black performers were not given due reorganization in write dominated award shows. It was a response to discrimination. We had a Black baseball league because blacks were not permitted t play on white teams. Now was their black league discrimination. I do not think so. Marriage is per the state. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion eso not define it for the populace but only for their congregations. Then, also, my friend, the priest, rabbi or minister must see and sign a state marriage license for the ceremony or sacrament to be recognized by the state.

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:46 PM:Well, "Be Careful my Friend" at 2:30PM,
My days of bowing to anyone ended long ago.
For that matter, over 7 months 3 weeks and 1 day ago was the last time I bowed to anything.
Never again will I bow to anyone or anything.
Yes, I said NEVER.
Regards, Alf.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:47 PM:Fidel Jiron: Obama worked with Ayers when he was "citizen of the year" for the city of Chicago. He never worked with Ayers when the man was weather ground or an active terrorist. Obama plans to raise taxes on Americans making $250.000 or more per year and the wealthy. Obama plans to lower the taxes on the middle call and the poor. I think it only appropriate that since Bush has robbed them to give more wealth to the opulent as it is. I prefer socialism to slavery. Focal Point, Col. USMC (Ret)

Surfer wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:49 PM:To alf[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:45 PM:
You betcha. That is how the Rebels justified slavery with the Bible.

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:23 PM:Well, "To alf" at 2:45PM,
actually, they did not and never have.
The Constitution is designed to prohibit this country from becoming or being a theocracy. The Church of England is part of what inspired the First Amendment which states, in part, -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The First Amendment does NOT say "Christian Religion" , it says "an establishment of religion".
We are not a Christian nation, we are a nation that has a majority of religions based on Christianity,
there is a vast difference.
Engel v Vitale made clear that government-directed prayer in public schools was an un-Constitutional violation of the Establishment Clause, whether compelled or not,
and cut the metastasizing tendrils of those who would insinuate religion on others against their will, thus reinforcing the "or the free exercise thereof" Clause because the People should be free FROM religion as well, be free to exercise their non-religion.
Regards, Alf.

NO NO NO WaterBoy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:39 PM:Well Surfart at 4:49PM: I don't agree.

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:39 PM:Well, "William" at 2:51PM,
I posed the same thing some time ago.
I guess they would say that we were all wet. Pun intended.
There seems still to be double-standards, the interesting thing is that it used to be the other way around.
White-only used to be the rule of the day.
As with many things, the pendulum, by its very nature, must swing in both directions until it stops where it should be, centered, neither too far one way nor too far the other.
The rhetoric of the Sharptons and the Jacksons is, by far, much less obnoxious than that of the Black Panthers and like the Black Panthers, Sharpton and Jackson will fade away as their need, real or not, perceived or not, also fades.
Unfortunately, even as the pendulum comes to a stop at the center, there will always be somebody making much ado about, essentially, nothing.
Regards, Alf

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:53 PM:Well, "3D" at 2:29PM,
the pro 8 folks hope that you don't notice their inconsistancies.
They pick and choose whatever verse suits their purpose at the time, even if they contradict themselves.
Their motivations are hatred, bigotry and disgust, but they shroud them with the Biblical passages because
being honest would expose how ugly their reasons really are.
Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:06 PM:When I heard General Powell say that it was not about race, my immediate thought was the same as when someone says: "It's not about the money."

That's when you know, it's about the money.

Now I suspect that General Powell , who is what is called a "Moderate Republican" in the most thoughtful analysis, he has always been a switch-hitter in political terms. He is certainly not part of the Bible-thumpers Union, and has not cottoned much to the Wall Street Boys either -- he is sort of a Party of One in Republican circles.

Nothing wrong with that! Both Republicans and Democrats need a few people who are less than doctrinaire.

hardtack wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:27 PM:Hey, Ann Nunes, simmer down! Buying votes is as close to free market economics as Obama (or McCain) is going to get.

As Will Rogers said: “ A fool and his money are soon elected.”

People must want what Obama is “selling” – or they would not buy it.

Lenin referred to “consumers” like that as “useful idiots.”

What you are going to get, Ann, is inevitable – so relax and try to enjoy it.

Alf its not to late to reconsider wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:28 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:23 PM:

Forced prayer in school was the great lie Alf, The truth is that no one was ever forced to pray in school at anytime, government-directed or otherwise. If you did not want to pray in silent to "Your God?" you just rested with your head on the desk for a few minutes before class work started. What kid did not like that? and what's worse Alf is that you are old enough to know that. So unless I misunderstand all of your past bloggs, Then just like Bill Maher and others who don't believe in Jehoveh God, Prayer is just one more reminder of a God you don't want to deal with in this Country. Now I could be wrong about you, but I don't think so. The other great lie is that Jesus was and is tolerant. Wrong, Compassionate yes, tolerant no. He came to buy a parden for us with his life, and it's youre for free! just ask him for it. That was the ONLY reason for his birth and resurrection, there was no other. Good night Alf.

Wanda wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:30 PM:Just wanted to thank tjefferson for the 4:03 PM post.

Made my whole day.

Plumbers in Murrieta wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:30 PM:Maybe plumbers in Murrieta all make more than a quarter of a million bucks, taxable, a year, but my guess is that most plumbers in the US do not make that kind of dough. Therefore, most plumbers would be better off with Obama than McCain. Let's think this through further, though. McCain and his guru, Gramm, are the cheerleaders for deregulation. They and their ilk have brought you the housing disaster. With new home building sales at a new low, how much work are all those Joe the plumbers getting? How much work are all of those neighbors in the construction business getting? This is Bush/McCain/Gramm economic policy in action. If you think most Joes benefit from this, then the Joes you know are sure different from those that I know. Mine actually are licensed, owe no taxes, and are actually named Joe. Yours and McCain's, well, who the heck knows. They all make more than a quarter million a year and don't want to give up a penny of it. Man, those pipes in Murrieta must be gold-plated!

William wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:36 PM:Thanks Alf that actually makes alot of sense.

To Gotta wonder;I guess the point I was trying to make is that blatant predjudice still exists and the point is how long does it have to last. A black man could potentially have the most powerful job in the world. I just dont see blacks as being an oppressed race anymore at least in California, so they need to stop setting themselves apart or rasism will never go away.

Equality wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:41 PM:It is time to say ENOUGH to the fringe elements in society.
1]When parents have no right to interfere with the teaching of same sex marriage in Massachusetts - this will spread unless we take a stand
2]when businesses, organizations and churches get sued by same sex couples for standing for what they believe in
3]when the opposing side violates the laws by stealing signs on private property
4]when it is forbidden in the bible (see Mark 10:6-9, 1 Corinthians 11:11)
Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?

Please for the sake of families and morality, vote YES on Prop 8!

Roger wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:48 PM:To alf, at 2:45 PM, may be on to something. Not the ignorant Bible thumping nonsense, but the "liberals attacked" part.

We all used to laugh at Chuck who saw liberals under his bed, lurking in the closet, and such. Chuck warned us that the evil liberals were out to get him, but we just laughed.

Where is Chuck now?

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:52 PM:Well, "NO NO NO WaterBoy" at 5:39PM, aside from disagreeing and being insulting,
do you have anything useful to add from that one remaining neuron that is severely misfiring and now on the brink of death?
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:17 PM:"Equality"

Kindly show us the list of churches that have been sued because they refuse to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages....thanks in advance.

jvc wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:22 PM:What are people talking about to accuse candidates of being candidates of higher taxes? To vote for candidates on pocket book issues is superfluous now since we have a bailout society of the rich! Case you have not noticed, a 700 billion plus bailout is a tax!

3D wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:22 PM:To the person responding yet again at 6:28 p.m. to Alf and begging his reconsideration:

The Constitution prohibits any "establishment of religion." When a PUBLIC institution writes a prayer and sets aside time to recite it, yes, that is a governmental ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION and is Constitutionally prohibited.
Beyond that, the social pressure to comply is enormous and, even if someone who is really determined can resist, it really is forced prayer.
Further, it follows the renegade "apostle" Paul and OPPOSES JESUS.
Don't you remember what Jesus taught, right there in the Sermon on the Mount?
Look again at Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus COMMANDS: "when thou prayest, THOU SHALT NOT be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets ... when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy father which is in secret...." (emphasis added). This same Jesus who elsewhere (Matt 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25) made it clear that we should render separately that which is God's or Caesar's respectively (separation of church and state).
If you disagree, take up your argument with Jesus, whose reported words I'm merely citing.
But also note, this is not a suggestion, it is a COMMANDMENT that so-called "Christians" routinely reject.

You say that Jesus "came to buy a parden for us with his life, and it's youre for free! just ask him for it. That was the ONLY reason for his birth and resurrection, there was no other."
But the doctrine of salvation through blood atonement is a figment of Paul's imagination, that first surfaced from Paul years after Jesus' death.
Jesus never taught anything remotely similar to the doctrine of dying for our sins. Yes, he gave himself as a sacrifice, by risking his life to openly teach doctrines that made both the Roman government and the established religious orthodoxy uncomfortable, but that had nothing more to do with taking upon himself the sins of anyone else than does a military hero who jumps on a land mine to save his buddies transfer their sins to himself. Sacrifice? Yes. Blood offering for sin? Paul's imagination.
Jesus taught ONLY that salvation was through compassion-based DEEDS (Matt. 25:31-46; Matt 22:36-40; Luke 10:25-37). Faith is only important to motivate such deeds; Jesus never teaches faith without mentioning deeds at the same time.

You have misstated both the law and the teaching of Jesus, though there should be no relation between the two.
Blessings,
3D

Ms M wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:28 PM:William
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:36 PM:...YOU may not SEE it...trust me it's there!

Alf wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:29 PM:Well, "Alf its not to late to reconsider" at 6:28PM,
I guess that you missed the part I wrote in my 5:23PM post where I said
"whether compelled or not".
Whether someone likes the time "you just rested with your head on the desk for a few minutes before class work started" or not, it forced them to take a stand or a sit, as it were. Such a thing at that time was certain to cause peer ridicule simply because of their faith, or lack thereof.
I remember the sort of antagonism between the Protestants, Catholics and Jewish folks back then.
My religion, or lack of religion, or belief system is, quite frankly, none of your business and not germain to this issue.
Regards, Alf.

hardtack wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:29 PM:Hey, Ann Nunes, relax and savor the moment. Buying votes is as close to “choice” and free market economics as you are going to get from Obama.

As Will Rogers said: “ A fool and his money are soon elected.”

Once Obama (or McCain) is in the White House, there won’t be any choice – policy will be crammed down your throat.

Seller (voter) beware!

Dr Zorders wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:35 PM:Bill @ 4:18 AM --

You're right!

But Roger wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:37 PM:I think that either Chuck is either sick, on vacation or operating under other names. As always, he likes to keep us on our toes.
Good night, Chuck, wherever and whoever you are.

Apollo wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:45 PM:Re: Jerry Soltys (letter)
I can finally see why so many Republicans support continuing the Bush-McCain policies!
They have been fooled by radio propagandists who have told them a lie about the government.
They look at the terrible mess in our country - invading the wrong country that didn't invade us, torture, loss of international prestige, domestic spying and warrantless wiretapping, the breakdown of a once-vaunted emergency system and, of course, ECONOMIC MELTDOWN, and the hate radio liars are saying:
The Democrats did this to you since they took over the government in 2007.

No, the Democrats did not "take over" in 2007.
They have a simple majority in the House of Representatives, but not enough to override a veto from the Republican president.
In the Senate, it is a 49-49-2 tie (with two independents). One of the Democrats, Tom Johnson of South Dakota, is out on a long term illness, giving the Republicans a voting majority on most issues.
The Republicans control the presidency and Supreme Court.
This is just another Republican trying blame someone else for his own party's failures.

So you think things are a mess?
THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN CHARGE AND THEY DID THIS TO YOU.

hardtack wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:54 PM:I heard Gen. Colin Powell (ret) express his support for Barack Obama on network TV this morning. He made his rationale clear:
1) The General likes Obama’s looks, style and demeanor;
2) The general didn’t take any more courses in economics at VMI that Obama took at Harvard.

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:01 PM:I think Chuck got fed up with the liberal slant of this blog (or so he says, I think it's balanced) and decided to do something else.

Intelligence wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:07 PM:The letter from Georgeo Kerpani asks, are you intelligent?
Then he lists a litany of lies and exaggerations that very deceptive, malicious radio hate-mongers have convinced him are true, but which intelligent people have not found convincing.
So the writer must answer his own consdescending question about his own intelligence with a resounding NO.

Surfer wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:15 PM:Roger[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:48 PM: Chuck takes Sundays off. See ya!

No on 8 wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:15 PM:For the sake of family and morality, vote No on 8.
Freedom and equality is what we should be upholding. I am straight and married, but why should I get to decide what others do in their lives, as long as there is no harm to others? A married couple, gay or straight, shouldn't affect me and my life, and shouldn't affect you and your life.
People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.
Love thy neighbor.
That is Jesus' true teaching.

Commander in Chief wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:23 PM:Hard for conservatives to say Obama isn't qualified to be Commander-in-Chief when the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State and a REPUBLICAN says otherwise.
Oh, I know, Ron and SDRaoul have that "secret insider knowledge" so they know more than Powell.

And the nice thing? Did you watch Powell's endorsement? He talked of how close he was to McCain, how much he respected McCain, how much he agonized over the choice - yadda, yadda, yadda, but Obama was simply BETTER QUALIFIED - Powell gave permission to moderates and undecideds to follow him and his reasoning and SUPPORT OBAMA.

And the whining from those who complain that Obama is "buying the election"?
From the same people who have all fought against meaningful campaign finance reform?
Spare me!
In past elections, it has been the Republicans who had more money and whose spending ran circles around the Democrat to BUY THEIR ELECTIONS and, when that didn't work, they just stole them.
Before you whine about Obama's spending, show us exactly where you complained when the shoe was on the other foot, and make an unambiguous commitment to meaningful campaign finance reform.

Spin this, Raoul:
Karl Rove's own vote count, which has consistently underrated Democrats over the years, today gives Obama enough electoral votes to earn the title: PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Dont Think So wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:24 PM:Bill: We have already lost missions of jobs. I believe we lsot 159,000 just last month. Has nothing to do with Obama. And by the way, the rich do not provide jobs. They quite industrial capitalism years ago. The rich make and take their profit in financial capitalism.

Lost in Translation wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:32 PM:I watched the endorsement of Obama by Colin Powell
I read the "summary" by Hardtack at 7:54pm.
Something seems to have gotten lost in the translation.
Obama did say those things.
He also said a lot of additional things that don't make Hardtack's point and which Hardtack left out.

Misleading misrepresentation by omission.

NO NO NO WaterBoy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:39 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:52 PM:Well, "NO NO NO WaterBoy" at 5:39PM, aside from disagreeing and being insulting,do you have anything useful to add from that one remaining neuron that is severely misfiring and now on the brink of death?
Regards, Alf.

No! That about covers it. See ya!

Chris wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:54 PM:I see that someone is using my name again and I am refering to that someone who wrote in yesterday's blog today about the gay's. Knock it off. Is that Ms Chris again?

Chris wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:58 PM:I see that that someone that is using my name is saying to support prop. 8. I say no to prop. 8.

Alf its not to late to reconsider wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:08 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:29 PM:

As you wish. Good evening.

NO NO NO WaterBoy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:24 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:52 PM:Well, "NO NO NO WaterBoy" at 5:39PM, aside from disagreeing and being insulting,do you have anything useful to add from that one remaining neuron that is severely misfiring and now on the brink of death?
Regards, Alf.

No! That about covers it. See ya!

I take that back Al f, I do have one more neuron, it must have been faking it's own death.
Anyways now I see why you and waterboy are so in to gay rights, Gotta wonder, Does Ms.Alf know?

Its not to late to reconsider wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:39 PM:3D
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:22 PM:

Very well 3D, Believe as you wish. I don't force myself on anyone. You have been posting your views for a long time, Far to long for me to think anything I say could ever cause you to pause and wonder.

Have good Night.

Leroy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:58 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 6:52 PM:Well, "NO NO NO WaterBoy" at 5:39PM, aside from disagreeing and being insulting,


Disagreeing and insulting, I have never read such erreverence toward another person as I have this evening from NO NO NO WaterBoy. Everyone here is always so agreeable, polite and respectful of each others feelings, Isn't that right Alf? (Rhetorical)

Obama sounds like a smooth talking swindler. wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:07 PM:And the public is gullible and follows him. Come back in 2009 if Obama is elected and see what you say then.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:14 PM:16 days before the election and Obama is losing support.

Colin Powell is a nice man but though he is black he did donate $2300 to McCain and not a nickel to Obama.

Powell supported another black candidate for federal office, a Democrat.

If you listened to Powell today he hinted strongly that hsi support foir Obama is stirctly because he is black.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:23 PM:Why is it when I refer to the realclearpolitics... poll averages someone at the NC Times delets that reference from my post.

For your information, realclearpolitcs... is quoted by all national political consultants in both parties. By deleting that reference you make me sound like I am making up numbers and that allows idiots like wanda, DD, Gotta Wonder and others to so write.

Get it right Monday or I will call Kent Davy on the phone and bring it up to him.

Hey Alf wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:26 AM:DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view . it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

FINALLY DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

Roberto1 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:04 AM:I'm disappointed in Colin Powells (republican?) endorsement of Obama (socialist) I guess race overrides philisophical differences IMHO

Gary in Murrieta wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:31 AM:RE: Plumbers in Murrieta >>>

After we bought our new house in Murrieta, everytime the builder sent a plumber to our house to fix discrepancies, the plumber did not speak English.

Go Figure ..........

I agree that these people probably do not make over 250 thousand dollars (or even close), but if you own a plumbing bussiness and employ workers, I would hope you would make at least this much.

Joe the plumber represents a business, not an individual.

Wanda wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:23 AM:I'm at the top of sdraoul's idiot list!

To raoul wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:39 AM:"sdraoul
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:14 PM
If you listened to Powell today he hinted strongly that hsi support foir Obama is stirctly because he is black."

Thank goodness I don't have to rely on your viewpoint because you are completely delusional.

Wanda wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:58 AM:The 7:39 AM poster is obviously not aware of the adage:

"Believing is seeing"

Very Interesting wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:02 AM:Hey Alf[-] wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:26 AM:
Kinda funny isn't it? Not one mention of Jesus Christ.

Bob wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:04 AM:How come I didn't make sdraoul's idiot list (Oct 19, 2008 11:23 PM)?

I'm offended!

Color Blind wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:04 AM:Roberto1[-] wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:04 AM:
I guess all those Republicans like Lindsey Ghram of Georgia are for John McCain because he is white.

Rules are Rules wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:07 AM:Editor: It is not respectful for you to permit a blogger to state or to infer that another blogger is homosexual for supporting NO on Prop 8.

3D wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:21 AM:The comment from "Hey Alf" at 1:26 a.m. is incorrect.
The text of the Ten Commandments is NOT DISPLAYED anywhere in the building of the United States Supreme Court.
There are bas-relief etchings on which are depicted a panorama of great moments in the development of Law, including the Hammurabi Code, Roman Law (pagan) and many other systems from Ancient times from all parts of the world. Of course the Ten Commandments are included, but it is just two tablets in the familiar profile, WITHOUT THE WORDS OR TEXT.
It is a salute to the complex, rich diversity of traditions of lawgiving that led up to our own, but it does not at all imply that our Laws or Constitution are based specifically on them any more than the Hammurabi code.

As for quotes from James Madison and Patrick Henry, I am not sure what your point is.
Individuals in a free country are allowed to express their individual beliefs, and these men did.
It is no secret that some of the Founders were quite religious.
Others, such as Jefferson, Franklin and Monroe were not.
But those who were religious kept those views as private matters.
They are not in our Laws or Constitution and you still have not found any reference that they are.
Blessings,
3D

Roger wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:22 AM:I didn't make sdraoul's idiot list, either. What's up with this?

Boat wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:14 AM:hardtack
[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:54 PM: Colin Powell did not go to VMI. He graduated form City College of New York with a Bachelor's Degree in Geology. You should read his auobiography - it is well worth the investment of time.

Alf wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:21 AM:Well, "Bob" at 9:04AM and "Roger" at 9:22AM,
since I am also not specified,
maybe we are part of the "and others".
Regards, Alf.

Surfer wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:41 AM:Sign Stealers[-] wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:40 PM: Restore marriage for man and woman? No one has taken heterosexual rights away. I have not seen any signs pro or con for Prop 8 in Encinitas. Whats up with that? Are you supper evangelicals discriminating against Encinitas? See ya!

Fairy Tales wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:02 PM:Not all fairy tales end with "happily ever after" Many end with "If I am elected"

Janet wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:50 PM:To answer the guy who asked about Bible verses and marriage: " For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh...therefore what God has joined together let not man separate." Matthew 19 1-12. Of course, once the pro-gays read this, they villify the bible. Oh, it' can't be true. Yep, that's right, I"m going to pick up a National Enquirer to get the facts.

Litl Bits wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:29 PM:To 3D:
G.Washington:“No compact among men … can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. …[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. … The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. …[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths…? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”******************
T. Jefferson: "No nation has ever yet existed or
been governed without religion. Nor
can be. The Christian religion is the
best religion that has ever been
given to man, and I, as chief
Magistrate of this nation, am bound
to give it the sanction of my
example."
1800 Allegedly said to a friend when asked why
he was attending church, as per an handwritten
history in possession of the Library of Congress*****************
John Adams: "Is it not that the
Declaration of Independence first
organized the social compact on the
foundation of the Redeemer's
mission upon earth? That it laid the
corner stone of human government
upon the first precepts of
Christianity..?"
July 4th, 1837, Oration delivered before the inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at their request, on the sixty-first anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence

Alf wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:30 PM:Well, "Janet" at 12:50PM,
the fact is that the state is not an extension of the church and the U.S. Constitution prohibits that from ever being.
Your definition of marriage is only that - your definition.
Since the California Constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and since the state issues marriage licenses, the state can not discriminate by refusing to issue a marriage license to TWO adult citizens of the same gender.
Prop 8 is attempting to legalize discrimination based on sexual orientation by declaring that the state does not recognize any marriage other than that of a man and a woman.
Rationalize it all you want, quote hte Old or New Testament of the Bible until you are blue on the face,
Prop 8 advocates un-Constitutional discrimination.
Vote NO on Prop. 8.
Regards, Alf.

Litl Bits wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:33 PM:to The Truth Shall Free Us All:
Hey! if you want to vote for someone who is SUPPORTED AND ENDORSED by EVERY Muslim terror-related organization in the world...go ahead!
I think too many people have forgotten 9/11 already! what short memories! Read over everything Obama says...he says whatever he needs to in order to get your votes...and he LIES outright - did so at the last debate! - provable lies!
Even his own buddy, J. Wright said that Obama 'rejected' him only because he had to to get votes!
YOU BETTER LEARN HOW TO TELL LIES FROM THE TRUTH!

Roberto1 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:07 PM:Maybe so colour blind and since there are more white, there are more racist whites...but sharing my wealth with those who didn't earn it should be my choice, not Obama and bunch of unknown liberals

Frank wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:29 PM:To reply to Ann Nunes, "Obama Buying Votes". He is spending mine and 80 million other Americans' donations, just the way we asked him to spend it.

You are a typical Republican in your accusation that something is amiss. The Republican hate machine has already begun claiming everything is wrong. In reality, America will return to its glory days it had during the Clinton Administration. Balanced budgets, full employment, peace and adherance to the desires of the democratic majority.
Good riddance to the republican lies.