The Truth Shall Free Us All wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:32 AM:Hobie Fletcher,

You ask whether brave men and women who volunteer for military service will continue if Obama is elected, and you answer, "I do not think so."

I'm saddened that you would think that our brave young people would put party politics ahead of their country.

Fortunately, the majority will not!


Buddie Gran,

You list the never ending, "throw everything at the wall and hopefully something will stick" desperation talking points of the Sean Hannitys of the world and then ask, "Where is the press?"

The press has covered all, Buddie. The problem is strategy has clearly proven to be "a dog that won't hunt."

Patricia Rejniak,

I fully agree with your feelings that, "Sen. John McCain must have acutely missed the comforts of home while existing in a small cell in Vietnam for 5 1/2 years. In my thinking, he deserves the most elegant and beautiful of homes.

I know its hard for him to keep track, but he has 7 or 8 homes to chose from. So, I'm not gonna feel bad about not offering him a 4 year stay at the White House!

Marie Rench,

Everytime I hear someone singing the tired mantra of "You, America, don't know who Obama is. If you did, I do not think you would be singing his praises," I take a minute to consider what is really being stated.

What you really are saying is, "I don't like Obama, and if you don't like Obama, its because I really know him and you don't!"

I don't like either John McCain or Sarah Palin, and you probably do. Using your logic, is the fact that you like them because you don't "really know them" and I do?

Keshava Prasad,

You warn, "Beware of the change when it comes out of a Democrat's mouth! This is nothing compared to what we will get if Obama ... ascends to presidency, assisted by the Democrat Congress."

Thank you very much, but I'll take my chances on change. If I've learned anything sense 2000, its that John McCain is not the maverick he once was, but has been pretty much in lockstep with President Bush while he just waited around for his time to take over the party leadership.

The last thing we need is a continuance of Bush policies.

With McCain-Palin, only the lyrics will change; the music will stay the same!

jvc wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:35 AM:Prop 2 proves that the electorate has gone crazy and the special interest forces are at work! Chickens have living space requirements but humans that live in mobile home parks do not?
A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT,INDEED
THE ONLY GOOD CHICKEN IS A DEAD CHICKEN
LET US NOT LAY AN EGG ON THIS ONE
LET US CHICKEN OUT ON PROP 2

Another Good Reason To Vote McCain wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:12 AM:Vote for John McCain, he deserves a nice house. Oh, ANOTHER nice house. Thank you.

To Patricia Rejniak wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:28 AM:We are fully aware of your double standard regarding respect for military service..Max Clelland, John Kerry, John McCain in 2000, Colin Powell today..'nuff said for that red herring.

Hey Hobie wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:36 AM:The only thing that won't continue under an Obama presidency is that the brave men and women who volunteer won't be sent to risk life and limb in a war of choice..and the military will no longer have to continue lowering its standards of acceptability to try and meet their quotas.

More Bull wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:46 AM:How much longer must we be subjected to the canard about the so-called do nothing Democratic Congress?..you have to have been living on another planet not to know that the Democrat's efforts have been stymied by the Republican opposition and the presedential veto.

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:58 AM:Excellent point Jeanne Session.

What we have in California is an imposed structural deficit.
We did not get here by chance, it was purposely designed this way.
It is a ready-made campaign issue each & every year for the liberal democrat socialists inside the State legislature in Sacramento to lament the lack of money for "needed priorities", when the fact of the matter is, it's a designed shortfall.

You see, the way this works is this,
even in good economics times, when you should be setting aside a reserve for the bad times, they don't. They increase the size, and they start new welfare programs. People then get hooked on these programs, and when the shortfalls comes, as they naturally do, then they cry about throwing old people out in the streets.
You enviromentalist types have heard or "peak oil", I'm giving you another phrase "peak government."

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:24 AM:The letter from Hobie Fletcher misses a critical point -
Obama is much less likely to keep getting us into war after war with other wars still going on.
The "need" for military conscription would not be there if we got the hell out of Iraq, focused on the REAL terrorists responsible for 9/11 and stopped trying to be the "deciding", "shoot from the hip" rogue policeman of the world that GWB has been and that McGWB/Palin would continue with, if it is possible, even more callous disregard for our Constitution, our American Troops, the American People and the sovereignty of the nations of the rest of the world.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:33 AM:The letter from Kim Itzaina, apparently No on 8, states the truth with a fact or three without resorting to the hyperbolic hysterical rhetoric that is the stock and trade of the Yes on 8 folks.
Vote NO on Prop. 8
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:42 AM:The letter from Jim Dougherty sounds nice, but it is wrong.
"Trickle-down" economics has been tried over and over.
While it may produce short-term benefits, each time it is tried in earnest, the economy crashes worse than the last time.
I may hear the words "trickle-down", but after a few years I see that we have been "tinkled-upon".
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:45 AM:Ya know... I'm gettin really concerned about these so-called "progressives" like Kristina Martin, when they can't stay current.

According to the British journal Nature, "Global warming" could take a break in the next decade thanks to a natural shift in ocean circulations, although they still claim the Earth's temperature will rise as previously expected over the longer term, according to a study they published on Thursday.

Now, as my friends on the other side of "The Pond" would say, that's one sticky wicket.

This whole opinion hinges upon one word, and one word only... "Could."
It could go one way, or it could go the other. How's that for some really good peer reviewed science?
And then they say that global warming "could" take a break...?
Huh? How do they know that, when they've said in the same breath, "the break" is due to "natural shift" in ocean circulations? Huh?
In short folks. Their guessing.
They don't know. They have their little theory: "Global Warming", which they can't back off because they've gone so far into the political tank on this, so they gotta, at least for now, maintain the appearance it's still happening, but this downturn in global temperatures has really got them flumuxed.
It reminds me of an old man set in his ways, and still questioning why we need cars, when his horse is just fine. LOL
And now you know why I snicker whenever I get ribbed by my more liberal friends about the virtues or "peer-reviewed" science. Cause, this is it folks.
Flip a coin.. heads, flip it again.. tails.
And what exactly is puzzling them most?
"...a natural shift..."
Think about it. Aren't these people "supposed" to be "experts?"
And this "natural shift" has them all puzzled? It's because they have sold their scientific souls, their life's work on "a theory" that when the CO2 levels rise, global temperatures will with that increase.
I'm telling ya, this is just the first exposure of this massive fraud called "global warming."
Stay tuned for more flummoxing.

Rosalie Parkinson Letter wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:49 AM:To answer her questions/comments:

1. His support of the same belligerent policies that have bled this nation economically.
Same as Obama

2. His support of deregulation and privatization of Social Security.
Not necessarily. The SS was robbed by both parties and thrown into the general fund.

3. His involvement in the Keating savings and loan scandal.
He was absolved another democrat trick.

4. His lack of understanding of the bread-and-butter issues of the American worker.
How do you fully understand his hard work ethics?

5. His opposition to universal health care and gun control.
We do not live in a socialist nation, health care, as Obama says is a right, show me in where it is such. Gun control on the other hand is controlled and is afforded by the Constitution.

6. His health is compromised by his age and the four melanomas he's had.
He is still is great health and seems to be plowing ahead. The Melanomas are cured.

7. His lack of judgment in the choice of an unqualified and uninformed running mate. Once again another Democrat trick and lie. She is qualified as to the Constitution. She my not be in your little brain. She is more informed than Obama. She is also a commander-in-chief, if you don’t know, look it up. She runs a small nation. That is what our country is made up of, thus a REPUBLIC.

8. His lack of composure under stress.
Like we all don’t have any. Gee I remember Clinton’s rants and tantrums during his presidency.

9. His infidelities to his first wife.
May be true, however, what about Clinton’s infidelities to his wife? Only the fine military personnel are held accountable to adultery according to the UCMJ, not our beloved politicians.
10. His status at West Point ��“��“ sixth from bottom of his class!
At least he graduated, what were your standings? Someone has to be on top, in-between, and at the bottom. What was Obama’s standings? OH that’s right, no one knows because the information was not released.

Who do you want as a president, someone raised by militants, has spent most of his votes as present, little or not time on the senate floor because he was out mesmerizing people like you for your vote for president or someone raised by professional career military admirals, full of experience in foreign and domestic affairs and the list goes on?

GOV GOV GOV GOV wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:50 AM: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?

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:58 AM:The letter from Patricia Rejniak says about McGWB, "The senator will bring honor, justice and integrity to America. Give him both your respect and your vote.".
I disagree.
The lack of judgment shown by choosing Palin as a running mate is beyond belief.
Honor? What honor? Maybe at some time in the past, but McGWB has allowed his "campaign" and Palin to run the dirtiest, most mud-slinging campaign I have ever seen.
Is this the way you want the Executive Office to act?
McGWB has given me virtually no reason to respect his CURRENT behavior, and that's what counts, not something 40 years ago.
Regards, Alf.

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:00 AM:Well, Jim Dougherty is poking my favorite topic with a sharp stick. Unfortunately for Jim, he's long on theory and short on evidence.

At first glance, it seems like a no-brainer that more factories creates more jobs, which gives people more money to buy things made in factories, which creates the need for more factories. It's a positive feedback loop of economic goodness. I think we can all agree so far.

But how do you get those factories to be built? This is where Trickle Down theory diverges from reality.

Anyone who's taken basic economics knows the Supply/Demand curve. Trickle Down creates more Supply (in theory, anyway), but without increased Demand those factories will lie idle.

But what if you create Demand first? People will buy existing products in greater numbers, it becomes economically feasible to build new factories. Just as with any new business venture, loans are available if one doesn't have the capital on hand for the startup costs.

But don't accept my theory uncritically either. We have direct evidence of Trickle Down economics in practice. One of GWB's first and foremost priorities was huge tax cuts, with the bulk of the cuts going to the investor class. He said this would stimulate the economy. His rubber-stamp Congress gleefully complied.

The result, 8 years later, is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now, Trickle Down is not the only culprit. But the fact remains that Trickle Down economics did not create economic growth.

Jobs and middle class incomes have not even kept pace with inflation in the last 8 years. Look around you. You are living the dream of Trickle Down theory in action.

Contrast this with Clintonomics, which raised taxes on the wealthy (without a single Republican supporting him) and created the incredible boom of the 90's. So obviously, even if the investor class has a little less money in their bank accounts, the factories still get built to handle the increased demand.

Trickle Down is a nice sounding theory, sure. But look past what you want to be true. We have direct evidence that Trickle Down economics is an Epic Failure.

Veritas ad nauseum.

Wanda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:01 AM:Hobie Fletcher's letter implies that without the incentive of perpetual deployment nobody will volunteer for the military.

Won't have to worry about that with that senile old influence peddler and Caribou Barbie.

With McCain's economic genius, military may have the only jobs out there.

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:04 AM:That's some great insight from Jim Dougherty. In his explanation, I can clearly visualize in my mind's eye a series of electrical wiring, beginning with the very larger supply lines from the grid, dispursing downstream to ever smaller lines, and right into your home.

I've often thought of our economy as "the life's blood" of the nation.
In concert with that thought, I like to think of the economy, and the function of the economy like the circulatory system in our own body's.

The key difference between Jim Dougherty's description, and mine is that, in mine I think our system works more like "a loop", just like your body does.
And this is where I get the idea of Synergy. All parts are needed to function correctly, each doing their particular task on time, and also in conjunction with other parts. A Cooperation, if you will.
But, as we know, larger vascular structures supply smaller, and smaller structures then return the blood back to the larger structures, to then be recirculated.

Bob wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:06 AM:Jim Dougherty touts the wisdom of trickle down economics. I think not.

I've been trickled on quite enough, thank you.

Wanda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:12 AM:Buddie Gran's letter was a real hoot!

Gotta worry about you, Buddie. Can't imagine how the press could give your non-issues more coverage than the 24/7 they're already getting.

NO on prop 2 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:39 AM:Prop 2 does not get us safer better foods or drinks.

We are eating drinking foods / drinks from China and many other parts of the world.

The foreign health / quality standards for these products leave much to be desired.

California state growers, farmers, meat providers etc. producing foods / drinks for us, do not need more government regulations.

We need the fresh Calif products.

We need jobs.

Water is a problem for AG.

More regulations mean less fresh food products for us as small and large agricultural business close.

We need to buy American products.
Country First.

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:54 AM:More Bull (@5:46am),

I completely agree, and shame on Harry Reid for letting the Republicans quietly filibuster everything the Democratic majority tries to do.

The filibuster is a useful rule to avoid the tyranny of the majority, and unlike some Republicans I wouldn't invoke "the nuclear option" to take it away from them.

But when Reid lets everything come up as a 60-vote supermajority because the Republicans say "boo", he allows them to obstruct without any penalty. Why he does this I do not understand.

Republicans have a right to obstruct the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, for example, if they choose. But there should be a price to pay in public opinion if what you are obstructing is popular with the citizenry.

Wouldn't it be nice for Senator Clinton to take over as Majority Leader until there's an opening on the Supreme Court?

(Sorry, Ron and sdraoul and others, if that thought gives you a stabbing headache behind your eyes. Now you know how I've felt for the last 8 years.)

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:01 AM:Trickle Down
The published letter from Jim Dougherty epitomizes the worst of myopic economic conservatism. I find it beyond credibility that anyone could still believe in the discredited "theory" of "trickle down."
He gives the usual refrain: "The rich invest their money. ... They also spend the money for goods and services."
The first part shows a complete lack of understanding of how investment works or how jobs are created. People who are "rich" do not create jobs or investments out of the goodness of their heart. Employment is not a welfare project or charitable offering. Those with means do need to invest their money, but they look for a solid business opportunity where they can respond to DEMAND from consumers. That is where the second part comes in -- except that the bottom 95% of earners may earn a teensy sliver of earnings, but because of sheer numbers, since they are spending on survival needs and NOT just saving or investing, far greater volumes of consumption spending (DEMAND) comes from this segment of the population. So when you concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, you squeeze the broad base of demand that also generates broad-based prosperity.
And if there are no good investment options because the middle class and working class have been beaten down by years of economic class warfare by the rich, as we see today, the rich put their money in other places -- precious metals, cash, or if things are bad enough, their mattress (or freezer).
On the other hand, even if they do not have money, if investors have a great idea or see an opportunity to respond to (or create) demand, they will invest. If they don't have money themselves, they will partner with other investors or get a loan. Most small businesses are created by those who don't have capital of their own, but borrow it because they can show the ability to respond to consumer demand.
And when you have strong regulatory protections for consumer confidence, as well as to ensure that all those who create wealth enjoy an equitable share of what they create, you broaden the base of demand and thus the base of prosperity.
Real economic prosperity is based on "bubble up," not "trickle down."
I for one am tired of being trickled on.
Frankly, I don't even think serious conservatives economists actually believe the theory of "trickle down" has any merit; it is simply a theoretical smokescreen to try to justify to working people why they should work hard and then have the wealth they create redistributed to those who are already richest.

Ooops, I see that my good friend "Caro Cogitatus" (7:00am) has made the same point, probably more articulately and eloquently than myself, and I endorse his comment completely. That makes mine redundant, but I wrote it before I saw his post so I'm gonna go ahead and post it anyway :-)

In contrast, I am not at all surprised to se "Ron" (7:04am) confirm his utter economic illiteray by describing Dougherty's letter as "great insight."
All my points above, and those of "Caro," apply even more to "Ron," who is badly in need of basic instruction in elementary economics.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Kevin wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:02 AM:The poster at 6:49 AM did a fine job of exposing all those sneaky democrats' tricks and lies. Did miss a minor problem on #10: McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, and it was at Annapolis not West Point.

Didn't mention that he wouldn't have graduated at all without the influence of his father and grandfather, which was refreshing.

Roger wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:08 AM:Hobie Fletcher will be happy to learn that Fox has added the 'Bill Ayers Network' featuring 24/7 coverage of Obama's association with this 1960's radical.

Questions for Obama wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:19 AM:Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration --Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published-- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

13.Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'

14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'notavailable'

Just asking

Paul wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:28 AM:what's your reasoning here, or should we just take your word for it? Military families are donating to Obama over McCain about 6 to 1, so apparently you are wrong

Obama draft?
Will the brave men and women who volunteer for military service continue under an Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid administration? I do not think so; therefore I think an Obama draft will be instituted.
Hobie

Wanda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:28 AM:Well, Roger at 8:08 AM, while we're all happy to learn of the new all Bill Ayers all the time network, it was Buddie Gran, not Hobie Fletcher, who was worried about the lack of coverage.

Hobie was the one who suspected that without the neo-Owellian's perpetual war nobody would want to join the millitary.

Re Kevin and McCain wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:31 AM:Kevin
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:02 AM:The poster at 6:49 AM did a fine job of exposing all those sneaky democrats' tricks and lies. Did miss a minor problem on #10: McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class, and it was at Annapolis not West Point.

Didn't mention that he wouldn't have graduated at all without the influence of his father and grandfather, which was refreshing.

You are right I did miss about West Point. However,(From Wikipedia) McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899), despite a high IQ (NOTICE).[10][12] He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics.[5][13] McCain graduated in 1958.

Nothing out there, except Daily KOOKS, etc, of the so called influences in his dad getting him graduated. If you have the evidence, please share. ONCE AGAIN, WHERE IS OBAMA'S Standings???!!

Asteroid wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:38 AM:You bed-wetters that couldn’t grasp what I was trying to point out yesterday regarding the Sarah Palin interview with Drew Griffin of CNN. No troubles, forget about it, CNN fested up and apologized. However Drew, being a true liberal insists he didn’t intentionally skew anything.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:46 AM:Oh Boy! The masters of innuendo, exaggeration and outright fabrication and falsehood are out in force today! Must be a sign of how desperate the McCain/Palin extremists are getting.

Hobie Fletcher waves the specter of a draft. No basis, he is just desperately clinging to some kind of charge he can invent that might frighten Obama's peace-loving supporters. Pure propaganda.

Buddie Gran repeats the worn out McArthyesque witch hunt mentality of guilt by association, though the associations involved are remote and tenuous. Of course, Gran doesn't mention McCain's direct involvement in the Keating scandal which caused the collapse of financial institutons (haven't we learned ANYTHING in 20 years?) - and no, Raoul, it was not "constituent service" the same as any other constituent. Keating was a close pal (yes, palling around), travel companion and McCain's largest single donor. Nor does Gran mention McCain's ties to domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, more recent than Obama's brief encounter with Ayers long before that. Gran does mention ACORN, echoed by Marie Rench, but both of them "forget" to tell us that Obama's connection was as an attorney 12 years ago in conjunction with the Justice Department, while McCain was the KEYNOTE SPEAKER at their conference barely two years ago.

Questions for Obama at 8:19 a.m. lists a litany of questions that are predicated on false assumptions. Virtually all of the information that this propagandist says is "not released" or "not available" are available and have been released. Obviously, someone is listening to right wing hate radio propagandists, and not doing the research for themselves, where this info is easily found by anyone who can sign onto the Internet (of course, this would rule out McCain himself, although he invented the Blackberry).
When confronted with the actual documents, a McCain supporter simply questioned the authenticity of the official documents, but didn't explain their basis for discrediting official sources.

Marky Marx wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:48 AM:Wanda
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:12 AM:Buddie Gran's letter was a real hoot


Right on Wanda (cool name) I’m like totally sick of seeing news crews ambush and harass our hero of the left Bill Ayers at his home and college. And for the love of ghonga, when will they stop heckling the ever so pious Rev. Right and his associate Father Flager? I can’t wait for Obama to get selected so he can get the Fairness Dotrine rolling and crush the right wing media. Keep on with intelligent disscorse Wanda. Power to the peeps!

Patricia Rejniak What a beautiful theory wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:50 AM:Listen here Patricia, I was 12 years old when I went with my Mom and Dad to pickup my brother and some his fellow soldiers at the airport. Some of their flights to home did not leave for a couple of days so they stayed with us. When we arrived at the San Francisco Airport there were protestors there who spit at my brother and the other soldiers walking through the airport. They called them baby killers and other horrible names. I remember that day very well and the look on my brothers' face. You say in your letter "we as American citizens do not treat past and present military heroes with full appreciation and respect" You are right we don't but we should not elect a man to be president just because he was a POW. I don't agree with you when you say "In my thinking, he deserves the most elegant and beautiful of homes." Why only him!!! What about all of our unemployed, wounded, and homeless vets? I don't think McCain is qualified to be President just because he served his country. Many people have and they are not running for President on that platform.

OMG wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:52 AM:Questions for Obama [-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:19 AM:

We all know you are not intersted in the actual answers to these questions.

Like the Republican distortion machine, more fear is created by posing a question repeatedly than addressing or disputing the answer.

That is why after Obama firmly answered McCains Ayers question during the debate that Mccain went right back to asking the same question again?

An answer was never the point of asking the question and Republicans are not interested in and will not accept a credible answer, they are only trying to instill fear by posing the question.

Enlightend voters have already seen through this tactic, the ignoratn voter has already been polarized by it.

Time to move on to real issues, OK?

Board Watcher wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:54 AM:I know that it has been a few years since Cindy Lyon's husband, Dick, was on the OUSD school board, and Mike Blessing's wife, Sandi, served on the school board; but they seem to have forgotten that the job of the school board is to hire the superintendent and adopt policies by which a professional staff runs the school district.

The job of the school board is not to micromanage the day-to-day operation of the school district.

Maybe the reason that the city of Oceanside has so many problems is that the city council runs the city, and does not have a professional staff that does that task.

If you want our schools to be the same as our city, then vote for Mike Blessing.

Marky Marx wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:59 AM:Hey did you guys see Bill O on The View the other day. Keith Olbermann spent most of his show last night breaking it down for the peeps, so did Retchid Medows. I’m sure glad we (Leftys) have some really fair and balanced intelligent news sources for our endoctrinations. Anyway, go to Utube or Keiths site and watch Joyce Bayhard chew up Bill O.

To Alf well said wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:08 AM:Regarding the letter from Patricia Rejniak. I agree!!

Let Them Eat Cake Revisited wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:12 AM:This week's Palin news has inspired some haiku at my office. So far, the favorite:

As autumn leaves fall

A lone hockey mom stands at

Neiman's returns desk..

OBSERVATION wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:20 AM:WASHINGTON – The United States is taking another step toward getting formerly communist Albania and Croatia folded into the NATO alliance.

President Bush planned to meet Friday with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and sign so-called accession protocols paving the way for the two Balkan countries' final membership in the military alliance..

Bed Wetter wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:22 AM:"Asteroid
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:38 AM:
You bed-wetters that couldn’t grasp what I was trying to point out yesterday..."

Karl does not like name calling. Can't we all just get along?

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:37 AM:Kevin: My experience with Annapolis at the very same time as McCain, tells me that having an Admiral as a father did one absolutely no good.

As I have noted before on this Blog, my roommate had a VERY influential Admiral father and was failed out on a single academic subject without the available option of a re-exam or being turned back one complete year. Just a bus ticket.

I have already voted and it was NOT for either of the two major candidates, but making claims about Annapolis by people who have no clue, and no experience with Annapolis, is a real pain. There are few paces in the world that can tell anyone what the experience at either West point or Annapolis is like.

It is another planet, unexplored. I had six years in military schools, Navy boot camp, two years service as an enlisted man and a year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School – and was completely unprepared.

Outsiders have no clue. None. Everyone should quit guessing or surmising about McCain and his fathers' influence, because it is simply guessing.

And bad guessing at that!

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:41 AM:I'm sittin' here in utter amazement at this reponse by my good buddy "The Wizzer" @8:01 AM.

Now, I'm going to take one more stab at it, and attempt to put it as precisely as I can. Trickle Down does work, has worked, and IS working right now.
It's just that the "trickling" ain't happening inside the US.
It's happening, Globally.
Now you liberals ought to be able to grasp this, you.. Citizens of the World.
As your messiah {small "m"} likes to say, "We are Citizens of the World."
In his mind, and because he's telling you how you should think, you should be on board with this thought.

The Economic pie is always growing, it expands. The main problem Americans have is, we are not the cheapest, nor the best anymore in making stuff.
Other countries can and do make stuff equal, and cheaper than we do.
Their main edge, Labor costs.
And the dirty little secret in all this, is simply this.
If you cut all the business taxes, and still the cost of labor in that other country is cheaper, guess where that product is going to be made? Anyone?

Hence while the rest of the developing world is now growing, because business's are investing there, our's is shrinking because they are being crushed. In order to re-expand our economy will will have to invent newer technologies, products, or services the rest of the world can not produce, and will buy from us. Or, we will have to reduce the burdens we now place upon all business's, to reinvigorate them.
Hey, look at Ireland, they have an 11% corporate tax. Virtually every ex-soviet bloc country, and they could really tell us a few things about "central-planning", wink-wink, have flat taxes.
So while the rest of the world is adjusting to the economic realities, we are going to be saddled with some very old political ideology, i.e. "spreading the wealth". Well, whatever ever wealth we got left, that is.
The bad news for those who's jobs have left the US is, they ain't coming back.
You'll have to re-educate yourself, or if your unwilling to do so, you'll simply be stuck with whatever job you can get with the skills you currently have.
This is not, and will never again be "Your Daddy's World", as many of my more liberal friends love to mythologize about. Redistribution of wealth inside the US is all they got left in the kitty, folks. And the more they play that card, the more money will move offshore. Its really that simple. There are no laws holding jobs here. And whatever opportunities there might have been, will be sucked up by closing of all tax advantages we have left.
But let me leave my closest liberals friends with this thought. If you truly.. Truly are Citizens of the World, then you should be happy and celebrating this wealth transfer overseas. It is doing what the messiah {small "m"} has said he wants to do. That is. Reduce Global Poverty. By handing over those jobs, we are alieviating global poverty.
And you shoulld happy for all those around the world who, "by the sweat of their brow's" work hard to provide everyday for their families to get ahead.
But, sadly.. your only thinking of yourselves.. again.
Shame on you.

OMG wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:42 AM:Asteroid [-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:38 AM:

Its not that the bed-wetters didn't grasp it, they ignored it.

Two of us nail it wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:51 AM:OBAMACAN and OMG have hit the nail on the head regarding the campaign tactics of the GOP and their supporters here. I'm shocked at the degree to which these people put party and winning above country and morality. They will say anything, use any tactic, to instill doubt and fear in the public. They have almost nothing to offer as far as positive claims about their candidates so they promote terror of the other candidates to win by default. Behind this is something very obvious: if McCain/Palin are elected (as was the case for Bush), the nation will actually be run by their "handlers" and their "donors", whoever these unelected people are. They are the people that picked Palin, that wrote the Republican platform and got McCain to run on it even though his record and personal views have differed strongly with many parts of it. McCain/Palin, like Bush, are faces, images used to attract votes, and because, unlike Bush, they are not even attractive, the need to smear Obama/Biden becomes all the stronger. For me, this is all the more reason to vote for Obama. The GOP is against democracy. They want to run their secret government from their secret chambers and attend to actual American only enough to get "support" for their wars and their disastrous economic policies. They completely rely on promoting hatred and fear. I would reject them for this even if I agreed with some of their issue-stances. We who are patriotic and believers in democratic institutions should all reject them for this.

Karl wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:54 AM:I have to disagree somewhat with you 6:33 AM. Both sides of Proposition 8 use "hyperbolic hysterical rhetoric". Your staunch support of "No on 8" is admirable but in MHO a lot of the "No on 8" crowd is just as obnoxious and hate filled as their opposition. Regardless of what they are fighting for their tactics repulse me.

Craig wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:55 AM:to OMG:

I, for one, am interested in the answers to the questions posed to Obama. If you have them please post them for all of us to see.

Fred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:00 AM:OMG, at 8:52 AM, quips: "Time to move on to real issues, OK"

It's about time! Let's get back to Sarah Palin's wardrobe expenses.

Inquiring minds need to know!

TO OMG and Marky Marx wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:01 AM:OMG
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:52 AM:Questions for Obama [-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:19 AM Talking about concerns and questions

Ah yes, another lefty that if another lefty is questioned you are seen as part of the distortion machine. Shoot if you are not a lefty you can't use the word "socialist" or you are considered a racists. Webster needs to update his book. LOL

Hey Mark; Bill O'Reilly did not get beat up by that woman Joy on the chicken coop show the View. Her and her pal Bawbwa, got so smug and PO'd that they had no comeback. Hurts when they are wrong and cannot "yell" back nothing but foolish diatribe.

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:03 AM:Hey, and one more thought about this "green job" scam these leftists are playing.
Awhile ago, our own government banned the Edison incandescent light bulb, and then forced us to use these "green" bulbs, these compact fluorescent lamp, or CFL's.
Anyways...
We were told about how good it was for us, and how good it was for the enviroment, and how good it would be cause we could save so much money, and blah, blah, blah.. Right?

The SCAM, as it were, is this.
Those incandescent light bulb's were being made here, inside the United States, by Americans.
We banned the incandescent light bulbs, so that the manufacturer's of the CFL's could make them in China.
We offshored green jobs to the chinese for some stupid global warming scam.
Plus.... now we have the chinese, under some very questionable regulatory scheme, filling these CFL's with mercury, and then shiping them back here.
So, don't break the bulb's in your house. If you break one on your carpet, your probably better off gettin rid of the whole thing.
Where, in the past... you could vacuum up the glass, the tungsten, and be cool.
Oh, and a couple of "other" things to consider before you convert over to CFL's. Plan on at least $2,000 in environmental cleanup cost, if you break one. Also, these bulbs do not fit into all lighting fixtures, you might need to buy some new lamps.
Then think about those Americans YOU sacrificed, for no..good..reason.

Karl wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:07 AM:This Marky Marx character has the same sense of humor as Chuck. Hmmmmmmmm.

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:08 AM:There has been much comment on the Blogs about the $700 Billion bailout being ‘welfare for the rich” – and it many ways, it is, although finally some of it is being redirected to foreclosed homes – which is where the problem exists.

And the blame for the welfare for the rich is given to Bush – but that is a bit unfair. The ONLY local vote for that plan was from Congresswoman Susan ‘No Clue: Davis, while ALL of the Republican Congressmen and even one Democrat (Bob “Stopped Clock” Filner) managed to get one right.

But I would be interested in getting a feeling as to the individuals on this Blog, and if they would support a requirement of a minimum of 20% downpayment for the purchase of a home?

CANOBAMA wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:09 AM:C'mon DNC and Obama, produce the documents in court so the Berg v. Obama case can be closed. Refusal to do so only makes it appear like you are trying to hide something and provides fuel to rumors and suspicions that Obama isn't legally qualified to run. Posting document images online doesn't prove anything. Any of us could do that. Show the documents to the judge!

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:14 AM:DD Wiz, I'd be a happy man if my posts were half as insightful as yours.

OTOH, if my posts were twice as long and lacking any insight whatsoever, well, then I'd be Ron.

Bob wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:25 AM:The 8:50 AM poster is right. McCain gave up on his "I used to be a POW" platform. Now he's into the "Slander Obama" platform.

to Kim Itzaina wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:26 AM:Nice try, but you were wrong on items one and three. On item two, start being a parent and listen when you children aren't around.

On item one, there is already documented cases of homosexual lifestyles being promoted in the schools.

On item three, do yourself a favor and look up section 297.5 of the California Family Code.

Pretending you know things is no way to live your life.

Mary Lou wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:32 AM:TO Paul Cavanaugh:
Excellent. That's what I want to see for the future, too. One can always hope and do our best today.
Mary Lou

Roger wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:36 AM:Patricia Rejniak's letter has left me confused. Military service now seems to be a prerequisite for being comander and chief.

Is this something new?

Too bad we didn't have this four years ago.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:44 AM:Democrats and their media allies are crying Sara Palin's clothes and the $150K they cost. They don't say at peep about how much Obama's trip to Hawaii to see his grandmother is costing.

He is using his campaign plane to make the trip at what cost.

How much is it costing the campaign to send him in a Boeing 767 rather than a commercial flight? How much is it costing the taxpayer to pay for his "protection?"

Will Obama claim the cost as income on next year's income tax as the money involved is for his personal benefit?

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:49 AM:It would appear that the Yes on 8 crowd is not above "ALLEGED" attempted extortion or blackmail.
An AP article "Calif. gay marriage ban backers target businesses" appears in the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate).
The pertinent quote is -

"ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.
"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."
"The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published."

I do believe that this goes way below the level of those criminals who steal or vandalize the "Yes on 8" signs.
Regards, Alf.

grj wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:16 AM:One of the biggest dissapointments in the u.s.a. we buy way too much junk from china, we help support a country with little human rights, poor health standards, not to mention the people dying from some of their dairy products(milk). We have the ability to make better goods in americas, we have the knowledge and resources. Shame on american bussiness owners for going overseas, just to make more money, greed greed greed. Quality needs to come back to america.Boycott walmart.Bussiness needs to come back toamerica for us to survive.Sure we might pay more but in the long haul it would help our economy.What a farce those olympics were, aphony glossy picture potrayed by those human rights violators and murderers of innocent people.

jvc wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:18 AM:Hurrah BOARD WATCHER, tell it like it is!

tjefferson wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:20 AM:Reaganomics and laisez faire capitalism became a religion to neo-cons so it's no surprise to see them continue to argue for trickle-down economics. Dispite all evidence to the contrary, they will not admit they were wrong. They are trying to revive a corpse. Unlike Alan Greenspan, they don't understand it was a mistake to believe that the private sector could regulate itself and be the beneficiary of huge tax breaks without disasterous economic consequences. Reaganomics, trickle-down ecomonics, laisez faire capitalism is kaput, done, finished, dead. A year from now these "vote rich, live poor" capitalists will be unemployed or will out of business because Reagan was not their savior, as they thought, but the architect of the destruction of the American middle class. Hopefully, come election day, we will have elected an administration which will focus on middle class American workers and small businessman instead of the ultra rich, and provide broad federal intervention the way FDR did the last time laisez faire capitalism colapsed. The neo-cons can call it socialism, Marxism, communism or any ism they please. It's the only thing that will save the American middle class.

hardtack wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:32 AM:Excellent letter by Jim Dougherty. “Trickle down” is not a government plan or program, it’s economic law, like gravity is physical law. It’s “The Incredible Bread Machine”; it’s the “Invisible Hand.”

It’s what Adam Smith was talking about when he wrote: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:37 AM:Good news! I guess, depending on which side of the spectrum you are...

The New York Times continues its downward spiral to oblivion.

The New York Times Co. reported a steep drop in third-quarter profits on Thursday, the latest gloomy earnings report in an industry battered by online competition and falling print advertising revenue.

The New York Times Co. said net profit fell by 51.4 percent in the third quarter to 6.5 million dollars, or five cents per share, from 13.4 million dollars, or nine cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

Shortly after the release of its results, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status, while Moody's Investors Service said it was placing it on review for possible downgrade.

Moody's changed the rating outlook for the company to negative from stable in July. A further downgrade would reduce it to junk status.

Yep, the very best news, Nbama can buy.

hardtack wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:38 AM:I see that the price of oil is down to $63 /bbl from the July high of $147/bbl.

Doesn’t it infuriate you that greedy market speculators are making millions by selling short and driving the price down?

Congress should pass a law! Email your representative at once.

Conservative Trickle wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:44 AM:Asteroid addresses his blog to at 8:38 a.m. to "You bed-wetters...."
Wow, now there is an exercise in conservative intellectual, respectful dialogue.
Actually, of course, what he was really referring to was the conservative theory of "trickle down."

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:47 AM:Boardwatcher: Sorry, but the game is rigged.

Let me give you an example. The Board approves the budget – but the budget is prepared by the professional school district staff, and then the detailed budget is hidden and ONLY the "Summary Budget" is presented to the Board.

Q. Who does the school Board ask questions of about the budget?
A. The very same people who prepared the budget!

(Q: Good evening, Mr. Golfer, on page 27 of the Summary Budget, you say that the cost of widgets is $7 million. Is that correct? A. Yes, Mrs. Baffled, we have examined the physical and metaphysical qualitative measures of that heuristic, and the gross indicators are within normal range. Q. Thank you, Mr. Golfer, I think I can confidently vote for the budget.)

As I have previously noted, EVERY School Board should have a separate Budget Analyst (preferably an economics Ph. D candidate from UCSD with libertarian leanings) who can only be fired if he/she is ever seen having coffee with a staff member!

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:47 AM:Oh, NO... don't be sorry there...
"Caro Cogitatus" @7:54 AM,


>>>(Sorry, Ron and sdraoul and others, if that thought gives you a stabbing headache behind your eyes. Now you know how I've felt for the last 8 years.)>>>

It will be fun to watch of of you squirm as all the promises the messiah {small "m"} fall away...
and your wondering why your wallet seems lighter. LOL
And the worst part of all that, will be...
You wanted it. LOL

Bill wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:05 PM:The Bill Clinton.com boom was what drove Clintons economy.

Not the tax increases on the wealthy.

Clinton didnt give us a middle class tax cut remember?

Talk about not getting your facts right.

To suggest that trickle UP economics would work is absurd.

Name one person who got a job from a poor man during the Clinton years.

Just one will do.

The dot com boom was trickle down economics also.

DUH!

All economics is trickle down.

Even during the Clinton years, thw wealth flowed DOWNWARD.

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:08 PM:Revised submission -
It would appear that the Yes on 8 crowd has no limit to how low they will stoop.
An AP article "Calif. gay marriage ban backers target businesses" appears in the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate).
The pertinent quote is -

"ProtectMarriage[....], the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.
"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage[....] which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage[....] but have given to Equality California will be published."
"The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.... A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published."

I do believe that this goes way below the level of those criminals who steal or vandalize the "Yes on 8" signs.
An interesting thing that was brought to my attention is that Equality California lists their contributers on their website, so this not-so-veiled attempt at intimidation (give to us as well or we'll publish your name) is yet another scare tactic by the yes on 8 group.
Vote NO on 8!
Regards, Alf.

McCain Keating Liddy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:13 PM:Can we please get this straight for once, without a different double standard for Obama than for McCain?
"Rosalie Parkinson Letter" at 6:49 a.m. joins the chorus of those who keep noting that McCain was never found guilty.
Note that, out of the Keating FIVE, only TWO were exonerated by the SENATE PANEL (not a criminal investigation).
Exonerated?
In a bipartisan compromise to placate both Democrats and Republicans, one Democratic astronaut hero (John Glenn) and one Republican POW hero (John McCain) were exonerated, only because it would be politically suicidal for senators of either party to vote otherwise, not because the evidence was not there.
This was a POLITICAL compromise.
But the record is still clear: the report did note that McCain was the ONLY Senator to have a "close personal relationship" with Keating, who was his largest donor and long time friend with whom he "palled around." McCain was the only Senator to actually represent Keating's home state.
McCain was directly involved in Keating's wrongdoing, writing letters on his behalf while he was under investigation. And even though SDRaoul keeps saying this was routine "constituent service," the close personal and financial entanglements suggest otherwise.
I have no doubt that SDRaoul is fully conversant with all of these FACTS, but cherry-picks them selectively to present a distorted, misleading impression.

And the point about not being convicted is irrelevant when you talk about Bill Ayers, since Bill Ayers was NEVER CONVICTED OF ANYTHING either, so what on earth is your point?
In contrast, G. Gordon Liddy was a far more active DOMESTIC TERRORIST than Bill Ayers, and his ties to McCain are far deeper and more recent.
Ayers hosted one "meet and greet" (one of hundreds who did so) and gave one campaign contribution for $200 back in 1995. G. Gordon Liddy hosted fund raisers for McCain in 1998. UNLIKE AYERS, G. Gordon Liddy WAS CONVICTED and served time. G. Gordon Liddy hosts a radio show, on which McCain has appeared many times.

Stop the double standard.
If Obama had anything remotely similar to the level of direct, repeated involvement with Ayers that McCain had with Keating and Liddy, the right wing "Swif Boat" spin machine would be screaming non stop!

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:16 PM:A combination of Renault and Nissan may buy a large share of Chrysler, and that is good news for the economy.

If GM buys Chrysler, that would entail tens of thousand of layoffs during consolidation, while that would largely be avoided by Renault-Nissan.

Renault brings its diesel knowledge – its diesels challenge Audi Diesels for world sport car supremacy, and in short races Renault diesels are the fastest sports cars in the world, and Nissan brings better quality construction.

But the underlying problem remains, and no company can bring a solution – the work rules required by the UAW that make all American cars uncompetitive. The parasites have taken over the host and will continue to eat until the host dies.

Parasites have no other choice, once established.

Bill wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:18 PM:Hey Caro

Trickle down wasnt intended to mean you had your hand out.

A lot of people in here have depended on Washington far too long for their prosperity.

I didnt make that mistake.

Thats why Im prospering right now and most arent.

Why didnt trickle down economics have a negative effect on me?

Maybe I was just smarter than most of you who depended on Washington for your prosperity. Had you saved your money during good times, you would be just like me. I am buying up 2 homes a month right now and accumulating assets at a higher rate than I was during the boom.

My guess is that you didnt do this.

How did trickle down economics stop you from prospering like me?

Lack of marketable job skills?

Poor spending habits?

Not wanting to make sacrifices?

Keeping up with the Jones?

$4.00 lattes daily?

These are the reasons why trickle down doesnt work.

Youre supposed to help yourself instead of having your hand out waiting for a politician to help you.

Had you done that, you wouldnt feel that way.

Why has trickle down worked for me and not you?

I dont need to know you to see you made mistakes that you would rather blame on Washingtons policies.

Thats why Trickle down gored your ox.

Thats your own fault because we are all responsible for our own decisions and choices.

Blaming some policy is skirting personal; responsibility which is exactly what got you into your mess.

I dont need to know you to know that so too bad if youre offended.

You know its true.

Wanda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:36 PM:Any updates on Caribou Barbie's wardrobe?

Trickle-up economics wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:52 PM:This idea should appeal to many of you:

1) Raise the minimum wage to $125/hr. Over a 2000 hr work year, that wage would yield $250,000 annual earnings;

2) Presto! Under the Obama plan, everyone pays taxes;

3) Tax revenue would fill the treasury and support a vast welfare state;

4) And, best of all, it sticks it to rich employers who will be forced to pay the $125 /hr wage.

See how simple it is when you have the votes in Congress.

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:56 PM:Hello! Hello! Anyone there at NCTimes?

Hello! Hello!

(Please turn out the lights...)

Heyyyy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:05 PM:Anyone home there at the Times. 4 hours since a post. Ridiculous!

Deer Wonda s Wardrobe wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:25 PM:Wanda
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:36 PM:Any updates on Caribou Barbie's wardrobe?

Grow up Wanda Deer!
(No dear, deer was not misspelled)

Loon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:41 PM:God Silva, your a bit looney!

ToMary Lou St. Lucas wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:43 PM:Ah another the world is free to everyone Tinkerbelle.

To Deer Wonda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:44 PM:From the NY Times QUOTE Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staffer. It was Amy Strozzi, Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?”, was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone, according to the records. The campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi’s payment as “Personnel Svc/Equipment.” ENDQUOTE Imagine if Obama spent $23K for two weeks' makeup! But in the GOP, everyone understands that their candidates are nothing but images, so they have to go the extra mile. McCain opposes many positions he was once famous for holding. But he belongs to others now, and does what he's told. Palin never blinked when they picked her, nor when she lied about the bridge to nowhere and many other things. These two are the mere faces of the people who run the GOP, people we don't elect or know, but who hold the reins of power. A vote for McCain and gorgeously made up Palin are a vote for them, whoever they are.

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:49 PM:Hardtack: Thanks for the reminder of "The Incredible Bread Machine" -- I once had a movie version and went from service club to service club with it! Loaned it out and it never returned.

I quoted from it many moons ago on this Blog -- it is really "Economics in One Easy Lesson" but Henry Hazlitt already has the title copyrighted.

That poem will be banned if Obama wins, but it is online if anyone cares to read it!

Brilliant short and punchy writing.

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:58 PM:(Resubmitted)

On Blog after Blog, I read of McCain having an influential father, whose influence helped him graduate.

My experience with Annapolis at the very same time as McCain, tells me that having an Admiral as a father did one absolutely no good.

As I have noted before on this Blog, my roommate had a VERY influential Admiral father and was failed out on a single academic subject without the available option of a re-exam or being turned back one complete year. Just a bus ticket.

I have already voted and it was NOT for either of the two major candidates, but making claims about Annapolis by people who have no clue, and no experience with Annapolis, is a real pain. There are few places in the world that can tell anyone what the experience at either West point or Annapolis is like.

It is another planet, unexplored. I had six years in military schools, Navy boot camp, two years service as an enlisted man and a year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School – and was completely unprepared.

Outsiders have no clue. None. Everyone should quit guessing or surmising about McCain and his fathers' influence, because it is simply guessing.

And bad guessing at that!

TOVR wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:03 PM:These repugs can't figure out that Obama can't take a commercial flight. First the plane would need to handle all the secret service people. Then the security aspects are huge. This would bump other people trying to get to Hawaii for vacation...you know to spend money...helping the economy. By the way, just heard Bush voted today for McCain...the best endorsement that campaign has gotten today.

Amazing wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:09 PM:I find it incredible that so many bloggers here oppose a tax cut for the bottom 95% and a small increase in taxes for the $250K+ people. Don't you find it strange that giving a tax break to almost all of us is called "spreading the wealth", "socialism", and thievery? That a small increase in taxing the wealthy is met with such outright hostility? That the consequences of this are portrayed in such an outrageous, doomsday manner? Is it not fascinating to watch the wealthy in action, going to such extremes of lying and fabricating a hell on earth scenario just to save themselves a few dollars? Wow! I hope like the other heartless Scrooge, they have an awakening before it's too late! Maybe Marley's ghost will pay them a visit before election day. Then they might realize that they are not the victims of a heartless world, they are the creators of the world's heartlessness. (And this situation is not changed by putting in a couple of hours on the soup line, much as one might wish it were so. Scrooge needed an awakening of his whole heart, not the addition of a feel-good, patting-self-on-the-back activity.)

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:18 PM:“I believe the court has no power to add or subtract from the procedures set forth by the founders...I shall not at any time surrender my belief that the document itself should be our guide, not our own concept of what is fair, decent, and right.”

Justice Hugo Black

OMG wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:29 PM:Craig [-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:55 AM:

My comment was about the use of this age old Republican tactic, not to answer the questions.

Like I said, there you go again.

Deer Wonda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:29 PM:To Deer Wonda
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:44 PM:From the NY Times.

You lost me from the start with, "From the NY Times" (as liberal of a paper as it gets), It's a wast of Doe, yes doe, every Buck you spend on it is a wast, and not worth the time to read. But that's just my conservative opinion and perhaps maybe several hundreds of thousands of others around the country as well. The wordrobe story is at best a fun diversion for you libs. Enjoy.

How Much Did Joe Owe wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:32 PM:USA Today breaking News:

Charles O'Byrne, New York Gov. David Patterson's top aide, is now unemployed for not paying five years of taxes that totaled more than $300,000 with penalties, new outlets are reporting.

As noted yesterday, he tried to blame his tax lapse on the non-existent "non-filer syndrome," the result of clinical depression.

The New York Post, which broke the story a week ago, says Patterson fired O'Byrne. The New York Times writes that It was not immediately clear if Mr. O’Byrne had resigned of his own accord or was being pushed out by the Paterson administration. Both paper cite unnamed sources.

So, once again, what was this kerfuffle about Joe the Plumber owing taxes amounting to about what I spill, annually at the bar -- and I don't drink?

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:33 PM:Bill (@12:48pm),

Good for you that you're doing well. You make a lot of assumptions about my lifestyle without knowing me, and...let me check again...nope, not one is valid. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The only time I've depended on the government for a handout was the time my family was on Food Stamps for a few months during a rough patch in my early teens. Additionally, they helped me afford college with Pell grants and student loans (paid back ahead of schedule, thank you), and I've been gainfully employed in the private sector ever since.

I'm not concerned with me. I'm doing okay. I want everyone to succeed (including you), and it seems that that's the difference between conservatives and liberals.

So take you "I got mine" mentality and...must resist urge to be snarky...be happy that you're so fortunate. There's a lot who aren't.

Just wondering Bill wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:43 PM:Many corporations are the beneficiaries of government subsidies, governmental policies that work in their favor, and many other things provided by the taxpayer. I'm wondering what your position is on all of that. Should our tax money go to the benefit of these folks, on the premise that it all turns into economic good? What do you think about the treaties, land deals, tarrifs, loopholes and all the rest of the benefits we the governed dole out to industry and other interests via our government? Are you against socialism or only against socialism that helps regular and poor people (because they, unlike the wealthy, don't deserve it)?

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:44 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 12:16PM,
parasitic and symbiotic.
The question for the UAW is do they want to survive or not.
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:56 PM:The following is about McCain and taxes:

...But McCain has not always been such a vocal champion of discount tax rates for wealthier Americans.

It’s well documented that McCain’s full support of cuts for those in the top tax brackets represents something of a reversal since 2001, when he voted against Bush-backed tax slashes for top earners. “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief,” he wrote in a statement at the time.

But archived MSNBC videotape from 2000 further demonstrates how McCain’s tone has shifted on taxes and what constitutes socialism since the end of his last presidential race. Answering questions during a Hardball College Tour show in October 2000, McCain defended the progressive tax system when questioned by a town hall participant who warned that the high tax bracket of her father – a doctor – smacked of an inching towards “socialism and stuff.” McCain said that progressive tax systems are based on the fact that “we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.” He spelled out this response: “Here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

McCain then added a caveat, saying that benefits that are too high can certainly hurt productivity....

...MCCAIN: I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous.

But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view...

The following from a 2000 townhall meeting:

But I think the debate in this country is more about tax cuts rather than anything else. And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first....

My what a defference a couple of election can make. He supported tax breaks for the average folk - just who is John McCain and just what does he stand for?

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:00 PM:The New York Times

(QUOTE)On Oct. 6, community organizing group ACORN and an affiliated charity, Project Vote, announced they had registered 1.3 million new voters. But Project Vote's executive director said that the real number of newly registered voters nationwide is closer to 450,000.

The remainder are made up of registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 who were rejected by election officials for several reasons, including duplicate registrations and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors, Michael Slater said.

Officials with ACORN, the subject of voter registration fraud inquiries in several states, have rejected the allegations. (UNQUOTE)

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:06 PM:Alf: Do unions want to suvive?

Gosh, I don't know.

I'll would ask Eastern Airlines, the largest airlines in the world until "labor problems" forced them into bankruptcy, so I can't. They ain't no mo'.

Parasites don't know when to stop eating. Eating is what they do.

MarkyMarx to Wanda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:10 PM:Yo Wanda, check out the great info posted at 1:44. Stay tuned in to MSNBC tonight. I think when Keith Olberman is finished whining about Bill O he’ll probably have a report. If not, I’m sure Retchid Meddows will, she hates successful attractive women, especially straight ones. Get the word out chick, your cool with me! Power to the peeps!

Looking Glass wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:11 PM:Why is the average American carrying $10,000 of credit card debt? Why are some Americans using credit cards to pay off other credit card bills? Why do some Americans have to keep up with their neighbors? If more people lived within their means and didn't spend like reckless lotto winners, our economy would not be in the shape it's in now. So shameful.

Bob wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:17 PM:Reardon, at 9:37 AM and again at 1:58 PM, berates Kevin for claiming McCains graduating from Annapolis was due to his father's and granfather's influence. All Kevin, at 8:02 AM, had mentioned was they had omitted this "which was refreshing".

PoBoy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:18 PM:Amazing
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:09 PM:

Sure is amazing….that you’re able to ascertain that from submittals at this site. This is a “liberal” cess pool.Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich! They stole it. Give back to us little guys. Waaaaaaaaah!

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:20 PM:Bob: Please show the berating.

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:28 PM:Remember that old line from Democrats who used to say: "We need to get "the money" out of politics?"

So, John McCain reached across the isle, and made a deal with a liberal Democrat, and that bill we now know as "McCain-Feingold?"

Well, that ain't the template this year, baby!

And remember back in the beginning of this election cycle when candidate NObama said he'd remain within the campaign spending limits because,
"He was a new style of candidate, and bringing a new breath of fresh air to Washington?"
Anyone remember that?

Well, it ain't thata way this year, baby... NO Way!

According to NBC: NObama is spending $293,000 an hour in October.

In just his Oct 1-15 spending he's set to spend $105,599,963.76
That’s more than $293,000 an hour.
And, it's just 49% of EVERYTHING McCain has spent the entire time he has been running for president ($216,769,840).

By contrast, McCain’s Oct. 1-15 spending was $9,246,618.70 (or $26,000/hr).

Now, by now we've all become aware of some of the no-good-nik's raping the campaign spending laws. Why everyone from GoodWill, to Mickey Mouse has donated to this breath of fresh air.

Of late, we're finding out that it don't take much to donate to the good senator's campaign by credit card either.
Why some people have said, they have actually gone to the NObama website and entered the following, and got an Approved message:

Name: Nodda Realperson
Address: 1000 This Is a Bogus Street
City/State: Neighborhood of Makebelieve, CA
Email: if.a.live.person.is.vetting.this.donation@its.fake.dont.process.it.com
Employer: Barack Obama
Occupation: Cow-Eyed Disciple

Yep, like most socialists, all that "equal" stuff is just for the peasants.

hardtack wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:30 PM:Reardon @ 10:08 AM asks “[who] would support a requirement of a minimum of 20% down payment for the purchase of a home?”

“Required” by whom? If it is required by the banker, or person risking the loan, I say okay. In fact if they want 0% or 50% down payment, I say okay. If it is required by Congress, I say “mind your own business.” And if the bank goes broke making bad loans, then they go broke because they made bad loans.

Karl wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:33 PM:Alf, we all know your position on Proposition 8. For you to lower yourself by justifying sign stealing (10:49 AM) is a major disappointment to this fan. You and I both know that the political PACS resort to dirty tricks to get something passed. To Pshaw and justify what this women did because what a PAC did is way below you my friend. Please rethink and get back on the straight and narrow.

Peace

Trickler wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:47 PM:Ronnie "Trickle Boy" at 9:41 and Hardtack at 11:32 a.m. still try to spin their brown stuff into gold.
And the operative word there is "spin."
No Ronnie Boy, Trickle Down does not work and never has, except for a very few elites who love it very much. It does not result in broad-based prosperity.
And no, Hardtack, "Trickle Down" is not a law of economics, and (at least as modern deregulatory neo-cons have repacked it) has little resemblance to Adam Smith.
As the Wiz has explained so simply and articulately so many times, Adam Smith did write about enlightened self-interest as the mechanism that most successfully drives markets. But it was not UNREGULATED economic chaos. It functioned within the structural protection of guidelines, like sports or traffic rules.
Hey Hardtack, Adam Smith support consumer protections, rent control and progressive taxes.
Do you?
Who's the real capitalist?

tjefferson wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:48 PM:First Joe the bogus plumber, now Ashley Todd the bogus assult victim. Where does the Republican party find these nut jobs? And Hannity ran with Ashley's story. heh heh

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:57 PM:Trickled On Again
The post from "Trickle-up economics" (12:52pm) shows why conservatives always fail.
They cannot find optimal middle levels.
Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 91% as the top millionaire layer out of 13 brackets (back when a million really meant something).
Kennedy proposed lowering it to 70% (which LBJ passed in February 1964, after his death) and we had the greatest broad-based economy in history. Taxes at the highest marginal levels were lowered, not to a ridiculous extreme, but OPTIMALLY.
With Kennedy's tax policy, we had high revenues such that, even with the Vietnam War, Apollo moon landing program and trying to establish a "War on Poverty," LBJ was able to leave office with a balanced budget and budget SURPLUS.

When Reagan came along, he took these levels out of the optimal range and slashed them to extremes.
We incurred massive deficits which have continued unabated. Well, except for all four years of Clinton's second term when we had SURPLUSES each of those years.

The point is that you don't just jump from one extreme to its polar extreme opposite, like going from total lassiez faire deregulation to complete socialistic corporate takeovers.

You don't go from a minimum wage that keeps working people in poverty to one that is unsustainable at actual economic realities. Just the typical conservative need to cling to the extremes, ever unable to swim in the moderate middle.

And appreciation to "Reardon" (3:00pm) for citing the nefarious acts of that shady organization, ACORN. I suppose anyone who was the KEYNOTE SPEAKER at their February 2006 convention and praised them effusively should be automatically disqualified from the presidency.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:57 PM:Yes, It is amazing...
"Amazing" @2:09 PM.

Amazing you don't get it, but only repeat the talking points.

Ok, ok, we've heard the 95% number a thousand times, and it's wrong.
The top 5% of taxpayers begins at $153K a year, and NOT, let me repeat this.. I know you love talking points, so just to hammer this one thought thru all those talking points....
The top 5% of taxpayers does not.. begin at $250K a year. It begins at $153K a year, so that logically means, if he's going to raise the taxes on those who make more than $250K, and lower the taxes on those who make less than $153K, we have a gap.
Somewhere between $152,999 to about $249,999...
He's just gonna et them sit there?
And that particular income group, pays about 60% of all the income taxes in this country now.
I'm sure the Nobamaman feels they gots more, way more than they need. Don't you? I know you think they gots more than they need, cause.. it ain't in your pocket.

AS to his Other tax increases, this same group will also be hit with a jump in the capital gains rate, social security being uncapped, and many other taxes he has in store.

The main problem with all of this is, that's it's NObama math. And we all know how good his word is on anything, now don't we? Worthless.
It's intentional fudging for political sake, because like Clinton, he needs room to manuver. You following this?
At all?

So, when your boss gets smacked around, I will grant you, it will make you feel better emotionally, knowing that the NObamaman is really taking your mean old boss to task, on your behalf.
But I think your fogetting a thing or two here.
If your boss gets less, you'll get less.
You see, that's how trickle down works.
But, hey... you'll figuire it out, eventually.

jvc wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:08 PM:Let me add to BOARD WATCHER remarks:
no special interest endorsements of
running school board members!

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:10 PM:I agree, DD: "And appreciation to "Reardon" (3:00pm) for citing the nefarious acts of that shady organization, ACORN. I suppose anyone who was the KEYNOTE SPEAKER at their February 2006 convention and praised them effusively should be automatically disqualified from the presidency."

But ONLY if everyone running for the presidency whose ties are even closer, and for much longer is also disqualified.

Deal?

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:14 PM:Oh... and one more thing about my
3:28 PM post.

If you care to do the math on that kind of spending orgy by the NObama campaign...

In order to achieve the $105,599,963.76,
and the $293,000 an hour.

That means, NObama would have to take in three $25 donations every second.

Vetting?
We don't need no stinky vetting...

Hey!? Didn't some other politician say? "You don't need papers for voting."
I think were see'in a pattern here...

MarkyMarx wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:15 PM:News Flash! A McCain campaign worker faked an attack by a “black” Obama supporter. No…. No, conservatives aren’t racists. And speaking of racism, Crystal Magnum, ( conservatives say that’s a made-up name of a prostitute or porn star…….she’s not) the young African-American “lady” raipped by the Duke lacross team has just released her memwaws. Finally we’ll get the truth. Hey Wanda will you read it and let me no what she says.

reardon and annapolis wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:15 PM:Sorry, Reardon, but when you say, in effect, "I went to Annapolis and therefore know how the place works", I can't just accept that. I know how much college students really learn about how their institution works, and it usually ain't much. Rumors? You bet. The real scoop? Not in the least. I am not talking about how demanding it was, how tough the courses were, and all of the actual students' experience. I completely respect your having graduated from the Naval Academy and completely respect the quality of the education they give their students. But for a student to "know" that no son of admirals got breaks? Sorry, you know, I'd guess, exactly as much as I do on that score. And it's mainly besides the point anyhow. First, I believe that getting letters of support from people like local legislators is a common part of applications to the academies. So to say that pull means nothing there when it is so common a part of applying makes no sense. Second, regardless of how he got in, McCain behaved in college much like W did, squandering much of what was offered to him by his faculty. This is in dramatic contrast to Obama's college career (I mean his factual career, not raoul's racist distortion of it). If hard work, dedication, competitive drive at the college age mean anything about a candidate's charcter, Obama's shines in comparison to McCain's.

gerold wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:15 PM:Reardon apparently doesn't see any contradiction between Prop 8 and libertarianism. Shows what kind of "libertarian" he is.

A "libertarian" who wants government to interfere with the most basic, private, personal affair in our lives: marriage.

Gay marriage does not create any kind of threat to the welfare or safety of society at large. The only reason it is opposed by social dinosaurs like Reardon is because it conflicts with their narrowly parochial prejudices.

A real libertarian defends liberty, even for people who have different views. That is a fundamental foundation of our political system, as seen in the Bill of Rights.

Anyone who supports Prop 8 while also claiming to care about freedom is suffering from a truth deficit.

Dumb wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:21 PM:That most of the talk in this election is about Ayers, Keating, ACORN, Wright, Hagee, and all the similar "suspicious associations" in the candidates' lives is living, breathing proof to me that a whole lot of American voters are idiots. The stuff that in other countries pass as jokes about their candidates are, for so many of us, and our "fair and balanced" media, the core issues in a national election of enormous consequence. We deserve what we get. We've been doing nothing but watching tv for about 40 years, our whole concept of politics is based on the model of a football game (or a soap opera) and, before our eyes and by our very hands and minds the great reputation and meaning of this country has been squandered. If it makes you feel better, the American idea is taking a whole lot of people, foreign and domestic, down with it. RIP. A wondrous and noble idea, passed over in favor of being entertained.

Bob wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:21 PM:Reardon, at 3:20 PM, requests: "Please show berating".

Look at final two paragraphs starting with: "Outsiders have no clue..."

At any rate, the point of Kevin's post would seem to be that Rosalie Parkinson's letter, and the 6:49 AM poster, had McCain graduating 6th from the bottom of his class at West Point. As we are all reminded daily on this board, it was 5th from the bottom at Annapolis, and he only graduated due to...

After reading this sensless ad hominem attack daily, for months, it's amazing anybody could get it wrong and then leave out the influence part.

Political Green wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:30 PM:Waaah, waaah Ronnie Boy at 3:28 p.m.
Whine, whine, boo hoo about the Democrats wanting to clean up the rules for political fundraising but, when the Republicans obstruct any real change, a Deomocrat comes along, plays by the Republican rules, and beats them at their own game!

Waaah, whine, boo hoo.
Before you say another word, Ronnie Boy, come clean with us:
Do you or do you not support the comprehensive campaign finance reforms that Democrats have been supporting for years?

Bob wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:31 PM:Well, gerold, at 4:15 PM, Reardon isn't the first (or last) Libertarian to not toe the line. They tend to be an unruly bunch.

Cindy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:31 PM:Rosalie is correct about John McCain's 4 melanomas being an issue. Melanoma is notorious for hiding out in the body for years before the metastasis comes out. Our father had melanoma which was "cured", only to have the metastasis come out 2 years later. Once melanoma metastasises there is likely no cure and a patient's health can deteriorate very rapidly. This is a concern considering McCain has had not one but four melanomas removed. By the way, I am Rosalie's daughter, so she does have first hand experience and a lot of knowledge on this subject.

WoW wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:36 PM:Dumb
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:21 PM:

DUMB? Stupid, insipid, vacuous, vapid, imbecilic, moronic, shallow. Just in case you can’t think of a moniker next time you post. But take solace that you’re in like company.

Obama Comes wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:36 PM:The news is reporting: "It had drawn wide local and national -- even political attention, with the McCain and Obama campaigns weighing in -- but now the Ashley Todd story has fallen apart. Police in Pittsburgh have now declared the tale a hoax and the woman, who has confessed, now faces charges for her deed.

Earlier today, John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News, commented on his blog there that "this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

"If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."

He titled his posting: "Moment of Truth." Indeed.

To PoBoy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:38 PM:"Sure is amazing….that you’re able to ascertain that from submittals at this site. This is a “liberal” cess pool.Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich! They stole it. Give back to us little guys. Waaaaaaaaah!"

Can't we all just get along?

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:40 PM:I extended to gerold yesterday the opportunity to give his c.v. in libertarian matters, but he passed.

Libertarians favor open communication (dare I say "intercourse"?) between and among people, not excluding homosexuals. My own brand of libertarianism (Randian), prefers that government be limited, and 'civil marriage" is beyond my limits. I recognize marriage, such as my 51 years with a perfect woman, as a contract.

Homosexuals may participate in whatever they choose. If I were voting on a sodomy law, I would certainly oppose that as it violates freedom of association (in all of its forms), but "marriage" is a societal invention, and society gets to set the rules of that designation.

If you don't believe that society has that right, from whence comes the exclusion of three people, four people...15 people...?

That Alf invention of "one adult with another" is a pure societal invention -- it is not written in stone ANYWHERE.

Marriage is PURELY a societal invention, as is the "age of consent" -- which, by the way, varies from State to State, as should the definition of marriage.

Society made the definition, and society gets to change it unless you can show me otherwise. First, you get to prove there is a GOD, then prove he/she/it said marriage is between "one adult and another."

No, I didn't think so.

Kevin wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:41 PM:Bob, at 4:21 PM, is right. I couldn't believe anybody, having read this drivel day after day, week after week, month after month, couldn't even regurgitate it correctly.

Don't know, or even much care, if this ad hominem attack is true or not. I'm sure it's pointless. We have much more important issues to concern ourselves with than this.

Sarah Palin's wardrobe expenditures, for example :)

Regarding those Propositions wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:44 PM:Ms. Sessions is right! The propositions involving money are so deceptively worded that they border on lies. Those of us in Escondido are looking at Propositon T, a $98 Million dollar bond that the high school district wants us to believe won't affect our taxes. Bonds=taxes, pure and simple. This bond is being pushed by a highly paid consulting firm hired by EUHSD who has sent out numerous mailers and set up a phone bank. Also on the payroll is the architectural firm who has a big stake in Prop T if it passes, and a local contractor whose return address is on the mailers that went out. This is how propositions get funded...HE WHO HAS THE MOST MONEY WINS!

Taxpayers should be disgusted with these tactics and vote NO on any proposition that tells you millions of dollars are needed for (fill in the blank) but it won't affect your taxes.

Bull!

Wanda wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:55 PM:Dumb, at 4:21 PM, is right. I'm really bored with sensless ad hominem attacks too.

What are the latest figures on Caribou Barbies wardrobe?

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:03 PM:Bob: The "outsiders" was not directed at Kevin -- it was general. I knew nothing, as much as I had looked into it, so you might guess how much those who have never been there even as a visitor might know.

I will fully admit that I do not have any proof that McCain did not graduate with the assistance of his father, but it is not up to me to prove a negative -- it is up to the person making the claim that McCain had such assistance,

I can claim very close association with someone whose Admiral father (and College Football Hall of Fame, and then Athletic Director at Pitt) did not do a thing to help my roommate even get a re-exam.

I was a LOT closer to the Academy than ANYONE making the claim that McCain had his father's assistance. I never knew McCain -- he was a year behind me, and each class had almost 1,000 Midcoolies.

I have subsequently heard McCain was "gross" (the term of art at that time,) but as one whom Col. "Bosco" Parish, Head of the Executive Department, refused to congratulate upon graduation with the comment ""Reardon' has broken more rules and been caught less than anyone in the 100 year history of this institution," I have a lot in common with McCain. (I repled, "Thank you, SIR!")

If you think McCain graduated because of his father -- cite your source.

Disenfranchised wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:15 PM:You know what I can’t wait to see. After Nobama is elected and congress is controlled by the Democrats and EVERYTHING gets even worse…….how will the dems blame the republicans. It should be great!

WandaWonder wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:18 PM:Wanda
[-] wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:55 PM:
What are the latest figures on Caribou Barbies wardrobe?


Is somebody impersonating Wanda? no one's that vapid.......not even here.

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:27 PM:The twit has struck again. I was getting my prostate exam today and did not comment at all. Lots of silly comments from the twit, but those who know me know they are not my thoughts. Try again twit. If you want to impersonate me say something intelligent.

gerold wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:44 PM:Our nation has evolved in the direction of steadily increasing freedom over the centuries/decades; abolition of slavery, emancipation of women, repudiation of racism, and now we are on the midst of finally outgrowing the vicious homophobia that has stained American honor.

Obviously marriage is a socially defined institution. Limiting it to monogamous heterosexuality was an "innovation" imposed by the Christian church roughly 1000 years ago. Before that, we had a true libertarian marriage market, without threat of legal sanction for deviation from the imposed norms.

I think we will have marriage of 3, 4 15 people in the future. Why not? It does no harm to society if 3, 4, or 15 people marry. Would make child care a lot easier, and put those ridiculous McMansions to use too. Bring it on.

Reardon wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:55 PM:You can tell it is the twit at 5:27. Not much intellect visible there, just comments without content in unsophisticated sentences.

(Probably a recent graduate of California public education.)

Hey Reardon you flatter yourself wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:57 PM:Nobody gives a rats patoot if someone "impersonates" you or anyone else.

Its not like your commentary is so stunningly original and compelling that it makes a difference.

Your just one of the slugs (myself included) who spend time here, thumping our chests and painting a picture of ourselves as intellectual giants.

Everyone knows better, we all play the game, so get over yourself.

Alf wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:01 PM:Well, "Karl" at 3:33PM,
I beg to differ with your assessment of "For you to lower yourself by justifying sign stealing".
I did not justify or let the people who steal signs off the hook or "give them a free pass" at all when I said -
"I do believe that this goes way below the level of those criminals who steal or vandalize the "Yes on 8" signs".
Please note the words "those criminals who steal or vandalize the "Yes on 8" signs".
Really, "Karl", individuals who steal signs are doing wrong. An organization that "ALLEGEDLY" sends letters that reek of extortion are doing wrong, but it is worse, no matter what their "side".
Sort of like the person who does 85 in a 70 zone is doing wrong while doing 85 in a 25 zone is worse.
Both are wrong, ja?
Regards, Alf.

to Disenfranchised wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:11 PM:And think of this: if the conservatives have been blaming the "liberals" for everything that has gone wrong in this country for the last 8 years, just try to imagine what they'll do when "liberals" actually have some power! LOL When Clinton was in power and the economy was thriving, these same yahoos insisted that everything was worse than ever. Imagine them in an Obama presidency (with a Democratic Congress!), freed, as never before, to vent their latent racism! Hoop dee doo! I can't wait to stop even looking at this space!

Bob wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:12 PM:Re: 5:18 PM post

I too was shocked at Wanda's 4:55 PM post!

She omitted the possessive apostrophe on "Barbie's"!

You find this vaapid?

Fred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:20 PM:Hey, Bob, at 6:12 PM, what's "vaapid"?

Roger wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:29 PM:Is it Reardon #1 or Reardon #2?

Will the real Reardon please stand up!

Obama Comes wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:39 PM:Can you hear it? The drums have started. Obama comes.

Kevin wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:54 PM:The 5:18 PM poster, apparently, didn't like Wanda's 4:55 PM post.

I loved it.

Nobody could be that obtuse by accident (except, perhaps, Ron, and he's boring).

Hey Fred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:57 PM:I think Bob wanted to say, "Vapid", Lacking anything new, flat, tedious, dull,lacking tast, zest or flavor. etc.

Cluck wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:25 PM:I can see why some are "disenfranchised". It has always humored me how these filthy conservatives have always taken credit for the Clinton years "surpluses" because of the "republican congress", and at the same time lament that Shrubya "inherited" the recession from Clinton. Always wanting it both ways. And now for the past 8 years have taken not one ounce not one iota of "personal responsibility" for all of the problems with which we are now faced. Well folks I'm here to tell you I have taken no pleasure saying "i told you so" and proving what an absolute disaster this administration has been, but if the election goes to the democrats I will work hard to prove you wrong once again and will take great pleasure in saying "i told you so" 8 years from now. Granted even if this "magical utopia" is brought on by the "messiah" that these stupid conservatives keep claiming that liberals think Obama to be(we don't for the record, we just think he will be a good leader), even if it's the most glorious 8 years ever these same conservatives will not be able to bring themselves to admit it. They will continue to blame blame blame and take credit for everything that goes right. Frankly I don't really care as long as the team wins.

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:26 PM:Hey.. ah.. "Trickler" @3:47 PM,

Since you brought him up....

Can you show me in "Wealth of Nation's" or any other publication by Adam Smith, where he specifically lays out wealth redistribution by goverment?
Can you document that for me, cause I must have missed that in class.

And as I recall from my reading of
Smith, he was a very big proponent of "sympathy."
You remember that, don't you?
Some people call that charity, and not the kind of "charity" you lib's obviously enjoy, the iron fist of government.

And when your taxes go up, to supply those who make even less than you, will you then change your tune, because now your own economic survival is at risk?
Or will you be happy in the rice paddies?

Liberal Debate wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:27 PM:PoBoy at 3:18 p.m. calls this page a "'liberal' cesspool" without actually citing specific facts or issues. That's it. As is always the case with conservatives, they can't deal with facts and issues, so out comes the name calling.
Cess pool?
Literally gutter, potty-mouth name calling.
So appropriate for gutter, potty mouth conservatives.
Wow! So impressed with the depth of your incisive analysis.
Cess pool!

Just like Asteroid yesterday 10/23 at 5:24 p.m., who essentially conceded all intellectual high ground when he confessed that, like so many conservatives, he finds it "fruitless and frustrating" to debate liberals, who bring facts and logic that conservatives simply can't deal with in a world of fact- and logic-based reality, which is foreign to those from outer space, such as Asteroids.
Translation: "I give up. Here is my white flag. Conservatives cannot debate with liberals."

Ron wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:44 PM:Notice, if you will...
That in any of "The Wizzer"'s 3:57 PM
post he never properly relays the actual events of history? Never.
That's because in order to maintain this fantasy, this mythlogy the liberals have woven over time, much like an urban myth, once it's into the bloodstream, some people will carry this untruth, or bogus version to their graves.

Yet again, repeating the lie that has become truth in so many people's minds, because of repeating the lie.
Amazing...
Let's get the history right, shall we?
LBJ cut Fannie Mae, he cut the size of the govrnment to get his "surplus."
And not really a surplus, if your using people's retirement money to balance your books, your just pushing off that debt onto the next President, the next Congress, and the next generation to clean up.

But Government gets away with kind of BS accounting, and people who want it to be true, buy, and lick it up like it's nourishment.
This is the very type of pap, and baloney that has poisoned this country into this mess.

And let me, as I always do, clean up another myth, while I'm at it.
This pap about tax rates on upper incomes and why they were so high for so long, only to JFK, then Reagan cut them.
Jobs were leaving. That's it, that's the story, and JFK saw it, and cut taxes to keep jobs here.
Was it enough? No, it wasn't. Look at what happened in the 70's.
Look at all the industries that began going overseas in the 1970's. Why were they leaving? Unions strongholds sucking the very life out of them, and over regulation, plus high taxes, drove them offshore.
Folks, why do you think they called it the rust belt?
You can not have tax rates at 70%, and have all the beels and whistles of unions sucking the life out of the industries of this country, because THEY WILL LEAVE. And they did, in droves. And they kept on leaving, even after Reagan dropped the rates to 50%, then lower. Because it simply does not matter what the tax rate is, if.. IF a manufacturer can do better with cheaper labor overseas. You could offer them no taxes, and if the cost of cheap labor is a better deal, they will leave.
What other explanation can you have with taxes rate being dropped since 1960, til now, and we can not keep them here?
And the jobs we do "keep here", what's business want? Cheaper labor, so the government looks the otherway, liberals say open the borders, and let it in.
Hence, lower wages.

jvc wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:09 PM:Sure there is a slight boisterous arrogance on the part of some bloggers here but by-and-large most bloggs offer
great redeeming value!

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:12 PM:Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations
The post from "Ron" (7:26pm) throws down a challenge to "Trickler" (3:47pm) that he has never been specific enough, or perhaps man enough, to throw down to me, when I have made the same point repeatedly. Since "Trickler" invoked my previous comments in making this point, I don't feel it at all inappropriate to step in here.
"Ron" specifically asks for documentation regarding the claims that Adam Smith supported regulations to protect workers, consumers and renters.
Regulations concerning wages, rents, and consumer protection are covered extensively in various chapters throught Book One "Of the Causes of Improvement."
Progressive Taxes are covered in Book Five: "Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth." CHAPTER II: Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society. ARTICLE I: Taxes upon the Rent of House.
"Ron" concludes by saying, "I must have missed that in class."
Yes, "Ron," it is more than obvious that you missed quite a bit in class.

And "Ron" (7:44pm) once again claims that the budget figures that showed Democratic budget surpluses are somehow based on fraudulent numbers.
"Ron" has made this claim, before yet he has never yet explained why he knows more about the buget than those who compile and maintain such records, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is a department of the Presidential Administration, and these records have been in the care of Bush Administration officials for almost eight years, so if there are problems in them that favor Democrats, the Bush team has had eight years to correct these egregious errors.
They haven't.
"Ron" is throwing out base and baseless propaganda with no substantiation whatsoever.

Pathetic, "Ron." Even for you.
But points for creativity and imagination.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Oh raoul wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:34 PM:Remember Obama didn't take public financing so the trip to see his dying grandmother is costing taxpayers NOTHING! as for his protection it is 24/7 so it's the same here, there or in Hawaii. You must know all this already so again your credibility is Zero!

hardtack wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:17 PM:“Trickler,” thanks for your question @ 3:47 PM. Sorry I’m late, but I don’t spend a lot of time on this site – and I had to do some research.

Do I support rent control and progressive taxes? I’ll take that as a two-part question: (1) In this blog context, I assume “control” means: control by some superior entity – like government. So, my answer is NO. Renters and property owners are capable to (and should be allowed to) control their own mutually agreed terms, without outside force or intimidation – assuming, as I do, one believes in freedom and property rights. (2) NO, income tax is perverse and progressive income tax is worse. It punishes those who are most productive and successful – it’s the antithesis of our reward ethic in sports, arts, and other creative endeavors. It makes no sense to me, personally. In my opinion, a just tax should be based upon utility or consumption, never on income – progressive or otherwise.

Incidentally, Adam Smith may be a forerunner of modern economic thought – he certainly influenced our Founders – but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Smith; just as aeronautical science has evolved since the Wright Brothers. I recommend that we not end our economic education with “The Wealth of Nations.” FYI, the writings of Jean Baptiste Say (1767 - 1832), Frederic Bastiat (1801 - 1850), Karl Marx (1818 - 1883), Ludwig von Mises (1881 - 1973), John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946), Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992), Milton Friedman (1912 - 2006), Murray N. Rothbard (1926 - 1995), and James M. Buchanan, Jr. (1919 - ) would be at the top of my reading list – – with the following caveat: don’t read Marx without reading Von Mises – don’t read Keynes without reading Hayek – don’t take the poison without taking the antidote.

Am I a capitalist? I’m not sure. Am I an owner, investor or entrepreneur? No, not in any significant sense. Do I believe in, and advocate the free market theory of producing wealth and reinvesting earnings in tools, plant, new products and ideas? YES.

Capitalist Adam Smith wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:41 PM:Looks to me like Ron at 7:26 an Hardtack at 9:17 p.m. are quickly trying to put as much distance between themselves and Adam Smith (the REAL "father of capitalism") as McCain is trying to put between himself and George Bush!

Clearly, if Smith were here today, he would be a Democrat.
Come to think of it, Warren Buffet and Paul Volcker are probably the closest this nation has to Adam Smith today, and they are both Democrats.

Regulation is not the death of market entrepreneurship, it is the support structre that makes it possible.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:15 PM:Economics of Monarchy
The post from "hardtack" (9:17pm) lists a litany of writers that he recommends as "must" reading in the field of economics.
I doubt that "hardtack" has actually read any of these thoroughly, any more than "Ron" has actually read the five volumes of Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" whose name he drops but whose theory he understands so little of.

In reviewing "hardtack's" list of recommended reading, I must confess to being sorely disappointed to see that he had omitted Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, darling of conservative economics and frequent contributor to the conservative publication National Review while he was still alive. Gee, once upon a time this was the economic theorist "hardtack" most loved to cite. He previously tried to cite von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's opus masterpiece "Liberty or Equality" to show incompatability between liberty and equality (of opportunity), while I believe that there can be no true optimization of liberty without optimal equality of liberty -- the correlation is positive, not negative -- until I pointed out that this "masterpiece" that "hardtack" was so taken by was a treatise supporting the return to MONARCHY!
"hardtack" then had to admit that he did not know this; the upshot was to confirm that "hardtack" cites sources that he has not actually read and whose real economic philosophies he does not actually comprehend.
Much like "Ron."
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Bill wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:43 PM:The best way for those people to dfend for themselves is to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY over their finances.

What a concept.

Im against all government giveaways whether they be for the rich or the poor.

However, a tax break isnt a giveaway.

Karl wrote on Oct 25, 2008 5:55 AM:Alf @ 6:01 PM:

ja, my bad

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 25, 2008 7:58 AM:Economics of Monarchy
The post from "hardtack" (9:17pm) lists a litany of writers that he recommends as "must" reading in the field of economics.
I doubt that "hardtack" has actually read any of these thoroughly, any more than "Ron" has actually read the five volumes of Adam Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" whose name he drops but whose theory he understands so little of.

In reviewing "hardtack's" list of recommended reading, I must confess to being sorely disappointed to see that he had omitted Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, darling of conservative economics and frequent contributor to the conservative publication National Review while he was still alive. Gee, once upon a time this was the economic theorist "hardtack" most loved to cite. He previously tried to cite von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's opus masterpiece "Liberty or Equality" to show incompatability between liberty and equality (of opportunity), while I believe that there can be no true optimization of liberty without optimal equality of liberty -- the correlation is positive, not negative -- until I pointed out that this "masterpiece" that "hardtack" was so taken by was a treatise supporting the return to MONARCHY!
"hardtack" then had to admit that he did not know this; the upshot was to confirm that "hardtack" cites sources that he has not actually read and whose real economic philosophies he does not actually comprehend.
Much like "Ron."
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Post 10:15pm -- re-post 10/25 at 7:58am

Dave Of The Desert wrote on Oct 25, 2008 8:17 AM:The republiscum spending 150,000 on Palins wardrobe and cosmetics proves you can indeed put lipstick on a pig!

chris wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:04 AM:wow! i must admit i am impressed with the commentary denouncing the kinard of reaganomics (trickle down my bleep) it's refreshing to see others recognizing the cold hard facts of the matter , that being that the selling points of that economic theory are just that , selling points not actual economic practices that benefit the majority of working class americans . i would encourage Prez. obama not to go back to the clinton rates but rather go back to a rate that is far more appropriate for the top bracket, either the 70% rate of 1980 oe even better the 96% rate of 1946 . while i won't kid myself this would deter rampant executive overcompensation ( think paulson's 500mil or even Arod's 2- 250 mil contracts ) or even be spent properly by Washington it would at least restrict the top heavy accumulation of wealth by the relatively few.

Well Sand Man wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:29 AM:Dave at 8:17AM, You are a democratic Liberal Guy living in the desert, Tell me I'm wrong. You did not donate a dime to the GOP, It's not your money, It's not your party Dave, It's not enen your lipstik Dave, so you have No right to comment on how the GOP spends there money Dave, any more then you have the right to tell your neighbor how to spend there's Dave! You just like to insult, DAVE of the Desert!!

Alf wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:48 AM:Well, "Well Sand Man" at 11:29AM,
I believe that the First Amendment puts your "you have No right to comment" in its place.
The First Amendment gives even you the right to emit your own vitriol.
THEN you make the illogical leap from "comment" to "tell", paranoia sure does run deep.
Not ONLY is it the right of everyone to speak their mind, especially on such matters,
it is their duty to call waste for what it is.
The only part that you got right was that "Dave Of The Desert" made an insulting statement.
Regards, Alf.

Richard wrote on Oct 25, 2008 12:26 PM:Yes he does have a right, because McCain said there will be a spending freeze, i.e. across the board. Either these words have meaning or they don't, and if they don't, it affects election outcomes and needs to be brought out.

Well Sand Man wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:36 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:48 AM:

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you Alf

Earler I bet three buddies $100.00 each that you could not resist giving us your two cents and your OPINION of my post. Yes my new pay pal, You have diarrhea of the keyboard and are so predictable. Just my humble opinion and your buds at the NCT will probably not print this anyway, but Thanks again pal for the easy money. I know I got that right!! LMAO

Well Sand Man wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:57 PM:Thanks Richard at 12:26 for your OPINION! Unfortunately I had no money riding on you.(that will only make "cents" if they print my post to alf).

"Either these words have meaning or they don't" you say. Now Richard, you really don't want to go down that road, Do you? Because we could go on and on long after the election comparing notes on who spread it the most.

Alf wrote on Oct 25, 2008 3:36 PM:Well, "Well Sand Man" at 1:36PM,
I'm glad to be of service.
Regards, Alf.