John wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:48 AM:Had no idea we have so many homo-sexuals in this area. Prop 8 only defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That's all. How could anyone vote no? Gays can have unions and have rights but their relationships are not marriages.

Asteroid to gotta wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:50 AM:Could you please cite source info that “MSNBC beating, his Factor show out.” (GOTTA WONDER[-] wrote on Oct 27, 2008 6:49 PM:) and exactly what you’re “trying” to communicate by that; as MSNBC is a network and “The Factor” is a show at competing network,FNC. You’re not alleging Olbermann is beating out O’Reilly are you? BTW; I viewed the O’Rielly segment you’re citing and was disappointed that he would lower himself to Olbermanns level. I haven’t been a fan of O’Reilly since he kissed Jesse Jackson’s ring, but I was still disappointed.

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:24 AM:Unqualified? Marsha Herman?

Alaskan Govenor Sarah Palin is unqualified?

Must be a lack of community agitator experience.

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:38 AM:The meteoric death spiral California finds itself in, is due to Liberals, and Liberal policies foisted upon California since 1971, when Liberal Democrats took over Sacrmento, and have ruled ever since.

That's why our teachers are 4th best paid in the entire country, but student achievement is ranked 47th.
That's how social welfare spending can rise 40% inside of 5 years, but now they tell us were faced with police and fire layoffs.

It is, what it is, because...
That's what liberals do.

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:20 AM:Well, until you get off your ..., Michael Pastore. The transfer of "wealth" to the upper incomes will continue.

I mean... what a ridiculous statement.
Use your head, think about this for a second. Generally, now I know it's not an absolute in all cases.. But, Generally.. when you purchase something, do you purchase it from someone who makes more or less than you do?
If you buy some clothes from.. I don't know.. say.. ah.. Target. Does not the CEO of that company make more than you?
If you buy some tires from Sears. Does not the CEO, and most of the management make more than the average American?
I think they do.

And let's be clear here about "wealth."
What is wealth? Wealth is an acumilation of assets. Could be your house, could be your savings, could be investments, could be a lot of things.
It's not something that one President, or one Congress can give to you to make your life sweeter.
It's ridiculous on it's face.
Under the NObama plan, if your a single adult, paying taxes or not, he says you'll get $500 bucks under his plan.
On my calculator, that's $2,000 by 2012 IF you can hold onto it.
If your a couple, it's $4,000 IF you can hold onto it.
But, the simple fact of the matter is this. It will not make you wealthier.
$2,000 won't even buy you a used car.
And 4,000 might buy you a car, with a lot of problems.
But the key point here is, can you hold onto the money? Can you save it?
Will you use the $2K or the $4K to start a new business? Is that enough to start a business? Do you even know?

But that reality for the vast majority of people is that they'll not save a dime. For those who do pay taxes, and have taxes taken out of their paychecks, the amount per week, bi-weekly, monthly will be so slight, it will be consumed.
For those who don't pay taxes at all, they'll be in the best position to save a lump sum. When the IRS signs over my check to those not paying.
But, for the majority, it will be like they've hit the lottery, it will be spent, and trickle up back into the pockets of the wealthier classes.
At which time, we will repeat the cycle.
It has always been my experience, that those who make less, choose to make less. There are any number of reasons for it, some cumlimative.
It could be a lack of, or limited education with no motivation to improve their circumstances.
It could be bad financial decision making. And most times, it is bad decisioning making. Taking out too much credit for the income, whereby the payout for items used, enjoyed, then thrown away long ago, they are still paying for today.
You've heard the old saying: "To whom much is given, much is expected?"
Well, here's a quick little quiz.
When you got your last pay raise or bonus? And you promised yourself that you would save it?
Have ya?
If you have. Welcome, because you are well on your way in becoming wealthier.
If you haven't. Then, it wil never be about how much money you have, because you can't manage the money you have now.

3D wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:30 AM:Patti Smith's letter says that "God's definition"is and "has always been, and will always be, between a man and a woman." Sadly, however, she does not tell us her source so we can look it up for independent verification. Did god whisper in her ear? Did she see a light or hear a voice ...?
God's definitions? Definitions come from common usage extrapolated by lexicographers into dictionaries. Did God compile a dictionary? I've got my Websters, but can't find my dictionary from God.
I know many people cite the Bible as their source when claiming god's authority, though that is a religious text that is not relevant to civil legislation. Moreover, she could hardly be referring to the Bible since it does define marriage, but not the way she says. Instead of one man and one woman - Patti's standard - the God of the Bible defines marriage as the union of one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe, in an arranged marriage, maintaining "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock. In fact, this form of polygamous marriage has dominated most of the world throughout history and remains the honored standard in much of the world today!
The good news is that, as societies evolve, so do definitions of marriage.
As for the Bible references of this standard being established by God, they are many and I have posted a partial sample several times in the past. Even a partial sample of such references makes for an expanded web comment and therefore, while I have my list at the ready and eager to copy and paste, will refrain unless receiving a specific request.
Blessings,
3D

He is Coming wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:39 AM:Please everyone must vote for our Saviour. It is critical that we get the Messiah into the White House. I am tired of paying my mortgage and Co pays for health care and my car loan and for groceries. As soon as we can get our Messiah elected he will put a stop to all this. The GOV will take over and all our lives will be better. Cant you racist right wingers see the light? I want my check from the GOV I want my free health care and house. PlEASE PLEASE everyone get out and Vote for our Messiah. Forget his complete lack of accomplishments, he is the Messiah and he is incapable of being wrong about anything. He has never done anything wrong his whole life he has never associated with anyone that was not pure and perfect like him. Forget where he was born, he was born as our savior and I cant wait for his ascendence. He will make the GOV care for us so we wont have to take care of ourselves. I am doing my part are you?

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:13 AM:I've determined that many who will vote for NObama, are in some kind of a semi-religious cult. There simply is no other explanation for it.
Even Barackous NObamous has bought into his own hype, take a look at the spectacles his campaign has fabricated.
Fainting crowds, NObama flags and a
seal. Children singing songs.
Teenagers wearing semi-military outfits, in march, chanting NObama's name. A world tour, complete with global proclaimations: "We are all citizens of the world", "We are the one's we've been waiting for."
Socialist realism styled posters and literature.
NObama is exhibiting all the trappings of a charismatic socialist/Marxist demagogue. Much like we have seen rise in Central American countries.
I'm still waiting for the phrase "Dear Leader."
NObama is literally screaming "I'm a socialist", while factual critism is met with "racist" by angry believers.
While first attempting to disguise his inner philosophy, now he openly proclaims it as the right thing to do.
{spreading the wealth around}
And as more is exposed, the more denial by those who seek his favor rises.
Unforunately for us, the "change" he peddles is not new, we've seen it before, and we know where it leads.
He claims to seek "fundamental change", the only change I see coming is a hardening of an already divided electorate, now between those who make $250K a year, and those who do not.
NObama has effectively painted a target on those who make more, and now...
suspected of making more.
Whereas before, most employees understood their boss's made more, talked about it quietly amoungst themselves. NObama has now given permission to attack openly this supposed inequity, by setting the bar of the officially "rich."
If you make more than $250K a year, your now an enemy of the state. At worst, someone to be openly scorned, and gotten rid of. At best, a useful tool to be siphoned from to build the coming utopia.
Just yesterday, I listened to some remarks made by this "constitutional scholar" lamenting that the Warren Court was not radical enough, and did not seek economic justice, by wealth redistribution. No wonder he does not want his lesson plans, and other personal effects released.
Remember what I said about "sliding scale socialists?"
Sure, today you want an extra $500 or $1,000 bucks in your pocket.
The question is, what else do they have in store for you. Like I've said a hundred times, sure.. you may like certain aspects of "socialism", but those you elect, might be true believers.
And THEY set the rules.

Bob wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:14 AM:Enjoyed Craig Burney's "If candidates were cars" letter.

If held to the same truth in advertising standards as cars by the Federal Trade Commision Bureau of Consumer Protection, the McCain / Palin campaign would be dead in the water.

jvc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:26 AM:Incredibly, a government universal health care plan could never be
politically viable because of its
socialistic stigma! But why is the bailout of the financial markets of the wealthy not socialistic?

Sally wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:37 AM:If you really think God has given us ample proof that homosexuals are created then please explain God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that were havens for gays. That "ample proof" shows homosexuality to be an abomination that requires cleansing.

Roger wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:52 AM:Well, John, at 1:48 AM, I can't see where voting no on prop. 8 has to do with being homosexual. It's a basic civil rights question.

redistribution wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:02 AM:Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The waiter angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the waiter inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Sarah Palin wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:14 AM:is truly qualified to disappear back into the north woods and never be seen or heard of again.

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:21 AM:As Bob Ference points out, Caribou Barbie "...is the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard right now!"

I guess somebody has to be.

Does she have a dress uniform for this?

James wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:41 AM:I have come to several conclusions from reading these pages over the last several months.
1. Democrats, or Liberals if you prefer, are always right about everything.
2. republicans, or right wingers etc, are always wrong.
Come on folks get over yourselves. No one is ever right or wrong all the time.

No on Eight wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:47 AM:If it were true that homosexual committed relationships enjoyed every financial and legal right that heterosexual relationships did, I would not have voted No on 8. But the fact of the matter is simply and unarguably that homosexual partnerships do NOT enjoy the same legal rights that straight partnerships do. That's why I voted no on 8. As the poster said, this is not about homosexuality, it's about equal rights under the law. Simple.

Apollo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:49 AM:Re: Elizabeth Jacinto, Mike Orlando, Kim McEvoy, James Morrison, Janet Griffin, Donna Gentry, and Thomas Fry (letters)
More hype about Prop 8 exposing religious leaders to prosecution or taxation or scare tactics that do not apply under CALIFORNIA law. The decision was by a CALIFORNIA Court based on CALIFORNIA law. Stop citing Canada or Massachusetts. They have their own laws and constitutions. The CALIFORNIA Court expressly exempted religious organizations, as all Civil Rights laws have always done. The CALIFORNIA education code has different provisions than other states or countries. Again, they can't argue based on the facts so these "good Christians" must LIE.
The sheer extent of the dishonesty of the Prop 8 campaign is reason enough to oppose it.

Re: Sally (7:37 a.m.)
And Sally says that God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah contravenes the claim that he did not create homosexuals. Several problems. Nothing in the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah actually mentions homosexuality. It just refers to "sin" and could have been anything. Second, this is an ancient legend, with no scientific proof. Third, even if it happened exactly like the Bible describes, and even if it did refer to extramarital same-sex relationships (gee, maybe they should have been allowed to marry and not sin), it is one isolated instance. Hardly put a dent in the billions of homosexuals God created elsewhere and in other times around the world and throughout recorded time.

And anyway, as 3D (6:30 a.m.) so excellently points out, what does a religious teaching have to do with our civil legislation? No one is forcing anyone to change their beliefs, only stopping those tyrannical bullies from forcing those beliefs on others who believe differently.

Question for Sally wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:50 AM:I had no idea that when Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed by God, that only the homosexuals were killed. Can you tell us where in the Bible this is described? Thanks in advance. BTW, I appreciate Sally's honesty. Unlike most, she puts it right out there: she wants homosexuals dead so that society will be cleansed of them. Sally must be a real Christian woman to have that much love for her fellow human, to promote the golden rule in such a loving manner.

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:53 AM:Sally, at 7:37 AM, requests: "...please explain God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah..."

Your own bible tells you they were destroyed for cruelty and lack of hospitality. Apparently, rude people really piss God off.

So happy I could help :)

sdraoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:56 AM:What do you know? Obama has junked his schedule and run back to Pennsylvania four straight days this week because his polling shows McCain coming up with a rush in the one state that can give him the Presidency.

North Carolina back in McCain's corner; Florida too, Virginia teeters.

It's not over until the fat lady sings!

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:56 AM:Oh lordie, there goes Ronnie Boy again at 6:20 a.m. rambling on and on against what he claims are Obama's policies.
They have no more resemblance to Obama's specific economic policies or ideological underpinnings than a polar bear does to a tropical fruit fly. Wow, Ronnie Boy, I have seen some doozies of the "straw man" argument, in which you can't respond to what your opponent said so you just make up something that is a heckuva lot easier to knock down and, whaddayaknow, you're able to knock it down!

Cut with the baloney about "spread the wealth." Obama was not talking about taking anything away from someone else and redistributing it. He was talking about TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS! And those in the higher incomes get exactly the same tax incentives on the portions of their incomes at those levels! What he is talking about is to STOP the Bush/McCain economic policy of redistributing wealth from the working people and middle class to those who are already the wealthiest.

McCain wants to take the same thing in tax policy that Bush used to drive this economy into the ditch and - what is his difference? He wants to do even more of it!
And that is just tax policy. What about the real cause of the economic meltdown? The fact that we wasted ONE TRILLION DOLLARS poured into the rat hole of Iraq that had NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OR DEFENSE.
The transfer of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS out of our economy and into the pockets of defense contractors and oil cronies of the Bush cartel is what has undermined our economy and McCain wants MORE OF THE SAME - troops in Iraq for another HUNDRED YEARS!

Palin is not qualified wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:59 AM:It's funny how the word "qualified" is tossed around these days. Technically, a native born citizen who is at least 35 is qualified under the Constitution to be President. So clearly, when people say that a candidate is not qualified, this isn't what they mean. Some say "qualified" refers to a candidate's career resume. You sure see people yammering back and forth about whether Obama, Palin, or neither are qualified by this definition. Clearly, this is a matter of opinion. Myself, by "qualified" I mean does the candidate have what it takes to lead this great nation. Has the candidate been tested. Does the candidate have the intelligence and character that the job requires. Obviously this is also a matter of opinion. My opinion is that by this definition, Obama has passed the test with flying colors in a long and difficult primary campaign, in debates, under the microscopic scrutiny of his life, under attacks for any iota of something that anyone decides is worth attacking (factual or fictional). Obama is an intelligent, thoughtful, dignified man. Palin, on the other hand, has been in the spotlight for a very short time. She was "picked" by insiders, not a national constituency. At the convention, she read a speech that had been written before she was even selected. She shoots from the hip and pretends to be a regular person. She is intensely ambitious. She avoided interviews for critical weeks. When she was interviewed, she appeared ignorant and bratty. Now I see that her own party has come to distrust her, that she seems more interested in becoming a candidate in 2012 than in supporting McCain's platform. Sorry, from what I've seen of Palin's intelligence and character, my opinion is that she most certainly is NOT qualified for the high post for which she is running.

Evidence wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:07 AM:Sally[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:37 AM:
Where is your proof that this ever happened? I mean real evidence. The Bible is not scientific evidence.

Want to Know wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:11 AM:Sally[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:37 AM: If God did kill those homosexuals. Why did he not also kill all the Hindu, Egyptian, Hittite homosexuals. And, why did He continue to create homosexuals post facto?

Taxman wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:14 AM:He is Coming[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:39 AM: You are right. Get out and vote early and vote often. Obama comes get used to it. By the way, he is coming real soon to get your money. Don't care if it is in the bank or credit union or even under your mattress. Obama is coming for all the Republican gravy. LOL

Bible Thumper Bob wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:17 AM:Sally, at 7:37 AM, is confused regarding "...God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah..."

You will find the answer in Leviticus 11:12. Apparently, eating shellfish is an "abomination".

My guess is Red Lobster opened franchises in these cities, causing God to smite those sinners but good.

political CRIME wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:22 AM:To all of those involved in sign theft: it is illegal. Disgusting.

To all of those involved in leaving political flyers (with or without postage) that touch any part of the mailbox (including the
mailbox 'flag') you have committed a Federal crime. Disgusting.

Prop 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:24 AM:So much about Proposition 8, but I don't have a problem with gay marriages. I am not gay. If marriage is only intended for a man and a woman to procreate, does that also invalidate my straight marriage later in life from which no children will be produced? Or is it invalidated because either of us has been divorced in the past? No. Our vows to one another are solid, with God as witness. A promise to one's spouse, I believe, is also a promise to God. So how can gay or any other marriage hurt straight, traditional marriages?
Marriage is a civil union. Whether or not it happens in a church or whether God is mentioned or not, God is there watching and listening to the vows being said to one another. If a same-sex couple chooses to make promises to one another, how is that undermining the vows made by opposite-sex couples? It isn't. WWJD? He did not condemn. Neither should we.
-inky

Gary wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:24 AM:LOL

A lot of disgruntled teachers wrote letters today voicing their displeasure on their Union Dues and resources going to support No on Yes.

My wife is a Public school teacher and she says the teachers are fuming. The Unions cannot even get education right so they have no business meddling in this.

Of course I voted YES ( and my children still attend Private Schools).

NO on 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:33 AM:At an earlier time people voted 61% to ban gay marriage.

This 61% majority is not a defensible position in our country.

We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the minority from the majority when the majority is violating basic human rights.

The judges who overturned the vote were following the guidelines of the Constitution and protecting the rights of the minority.

Stop taking the country backwards to the times when women were not allowed to vote, to segregation, to the killings by the KKK, to the Nazis incinerators.

NO on 8 means Tolerance and Respect for others.

NO on 8 will not change your life nor your marriage nor your religion.

NO on 8 will not cause Public schools to teach "marriage".

Go forward. NO on 8.

To Apollo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:55 AM:Apollo:

To lump together all the Pro Prop. 8 letters and letter writers in one paragraph that accuses them all of "religiouos hype," of citing laws from other states, of misusing the Education Code of the State of California, of making accusations of dishonesty and lying as well as your sarcastic, caustic and potentially libelous use of the phrase "'good chirstians'" is more blatantly dishonest and offensive than any of the letters.
Aren't you glad you live in a country where you can make such offensive comments freely and anonymously.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:58 AM:If Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be President, why is Obama who has far less experience than she does?

Maverick turns Rogue wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:05 AM:Sarah Palin has gone from "maverick" to "rogue" according to the McCain campaign and she has her scope trained on 2012.
Yep, I betcha that just inspires lotsa Joe-sixpacks to think more than with their groins when voting. I mean, she's already making statements that are contrary to McCain's position.
"Rogue" ?
More like a turn-coat, if you ask me, and gittin' too big for her britches.
(wink, wink)

Saddened but with HOPE wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:13 AM:Hey, does anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition? Boy, those church loving, God fearing guys had it right. Believe what we believe or face the rack, the wheel and the whip. Nothing like a good old dose of torture and pain to bring someone around to the right way of thinking. Nothing like fear to compel belief! Hmmm, do ya think that God was on their side too?

sdraoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:15 AM:Who was it that said MSNBC beat Fox News? Who was it who said that Keith Olberman beat Bill O'Reilly? Neither statement is true.

On the night Olberman beat the O'Reilly hour, O'Reilly wasn't on the air, Laura Ingraham was. The other four nights of that week, O'Reilly stomped Olberman, head to head, as usual.

Here is the actual MSNBC press release bragging that it beat Larry King. In the same time slot, Hannity and Colmes stomped MSNBC by hundreds of thosuands of viewers.

"NEW YORK - Oct. 27, 2008 - MSNBC's seven-week old "The Rachel Maddow Show" marked a huge milestone, out-rating CNN's "Larry King Live" in just its second month on the air among Adults 25-54, the first time ever MSNBC has out-rated CNN at 9 p.m. (700,000 vs. 673,000, program data, excludes presidential debates). "The Rachel Maddow Show" is up an astounding 396 percent from Oct. 07 among A25-54 (700,000 vs. 141,000) and up 387 percent in total viewers (1,893,000 vs. 389,000).

MSNBC's fantastic ratings growth reached new heights in October, becoming the fastest growing network in all of cable for the month (+147% in total viewers, total day vs. Oct. 07, through Friday). MSNBC also saw its best month ever in weekday primetime in total viewers (2,002,000) and in the key Adults 25-54 demographic (769,000)."

Duke wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:17 AM:That Ted Stevens is a hottie! Hope they send him to Tucson, AZ.

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:19 AM:WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

From BARACK OBAMA:
“We’ve always grown the American economy from the bottom up. John McCain calls this socialism. I call it opportunity, and there’s nothing more American than that."

From WALL STREET: Bloomberg news announced yesterday that Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch have set aside $13 billion to give out as year-end bonuses, despite the financial meltdown. One analyst is predicting the average managing director at an investment bank will receive a bonus of $625,000 this year. Top bankers could receive as much as $1 million.

Both payouts come from U.S. taxpayers.
One of these is popular socialism, supported by the American people
The other is corporate socialism, supported by Republicans leaders.
Merry Christmas bonuses to the Wall Street brain trust, which did so much to create wealth and jobs for America.

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:34 AM:A LIFESTYLE CHOICE:

Patti Smith stated today that one’s sexual orientation is a lifestyle CHOICE. Perhaps she is right. The implication of this is that she was not created by God as a heterosexual. She made a conscious choice to live that kind of life style. Patti, by her free will choice, can choose to convert to the lesbian lifestyle at any time. Perhaps in her next life. She does believe in life after death, I presume.

Well, that’s her right under the law. Patti simply wants to deprive others of the same freedom she enjoys. Way to go, Patti. Bet you got that idea while reading your morning devotional in the KAMA SUTRA.

What is an Obamacan wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:35 AM:A traditionally Republican voter in an open-primary state who crosses party lines on primary-election day for the sole purpose of skewing the balance of delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention toward Barack Hussein Obama , not because they support the notion of an Barack Hussein Obama presidency but because they dread the notion of a Hillary Clinton presidency; a Republican short-term infiltrator into the 2008 Democratic primary process whose mission it is to stack the deck in favor of the weaker and/or less objectionable Democratic candidate in order to eliminate the stronger candidate from the running and then continue with business as usual, voting for the Republican candidate in November.

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:41 AM:POOR RON

Poor Ron thinks that if water flows uphill, it is not water, but capitalist liquidity; and if it flows downhill it is socialism. (6:20 AM)

Case in point: The $13 billion in year end Christmas bonuses given to the employees of Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, compliments of the taxpayers. This was capitalist liquidity, earned by capitalist genius.

Way to go, Ron.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:44 AM:Asteroid to gotta wonder[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:50 AM: Man you rise and shine early. My comparison was in error. You are correct. I should have compared O'Reill's Facotor to Obermans, Countdown rather than comparing the Factor to MSNBC. Mike, I am enjoying your book recommendation. No, I did not wet my bed. Regards. Gotta Wonder

Oh Please wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:46 AM:James[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:41 AM: Your observations are absolutely correct.
Good job!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:50 AM:Asteroid:

Now don't get upset. It was from the Huffington Post which I enjoy so much.

MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" beat Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" in the key Adults 25-54 demographic for the first time ever last week.

"Countdown" averaged 477,000 viewers (A25-54) vs. O'Reilly's 472,000 (excluding Tuesday's primary coverage). This marks the first time that MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot since June 2001.

OBAMA MAMA wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:51 AM:Wanda, dearie ~ I hope you do not object to me calling you “dearie”, but writings are very dear and humorous -- perhaps because you use truth to strip bare the sanctimony of ugly people. Such as your post at 8:53 AM.

There is nothing so vulnerable to ridicule and laughter as the ugly body of a person stripped of its sanctimonious vestments.

Sally is all wrapped up in her sanctimony.(7:37 AM)

hardtack wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:02 AM:“Redistribution,” your post @ 8:02 AM was priceless. Thanks. I’m forwarding it to my email list.

Best regards, hardtack.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:04 AM:My blog at 8:56 a.m. referencing Ronnie Boy's humongous "straw man" argument against policies that have no resemblance to Obama's proposals was incomplete. I should have also referenced the deceiptful misrepresentations in Alexandra Cloney's letter that would be hilarious satire if she didn't actually intend for them to be taken literally.

In each of her five points, she completely misrepresents both reality and Obama's positions.
1. Georgia (whose lobbyist is now McCain's top foreign advisor, so there goes our relations with Russia as well as any semblance of objectivity) was pressured by the Soviet Union, but actually fired the first shots, ignoring suggestions for diplomatic resolutions.
2. Like Ron, Cloney misrepresents Obama's economic views. Obviously, these people are so blind they can't tell the difference between middle class tax cuts and tax increases. They must not actually be acquainted with any real working people. That's a kinder explanation than assuming their lies to be intentional.
3. Cloney distorts ACORN's role, since they were the ones who identified set aside applications suspected of fraud, but are legally REQUIRED to turn them in. That said, Obama's sole involvement was 12 years ago, as legal counsel working with the U.S. Department of Justice. In contrast, McCain praised them effusively when he was their KEYNOTE SPEAKER much more recently, in February 2006. Pot, meet kettle.
4. Citing something from 2002 has no bearing whatsoever on Obama's brief interaction in 1995, seven years earlier. By 2002 they were no longer invovled with each other, no matter how remotely. Cloney's double standard prevents her from pointing out McCain's far more recent and far more intimate connections with domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy who, unlike Ayers, was actually convicted of crimes. Like I said, double standards and straw men. It's all they've got.
5. Yet again, another distortion of Wright's positions. This much decorated veteran is greatly patriotic, and four few brief snippets (from 20 years) in which he set up scenarious of hope an optimism, were taken out of context. And Obama was not in the pews on any of those four dates. And her double standard prevents her from citing the racist, hateful, anti-American statements of the pastors McCain sought out for purely POLITICAL, not ecclesiastical, endorsements. Lies, deceit, double standards and duplicity. The whole substance of the McCain campaign. Even McCain, running 100% attack ads, can't think of a reason for anyone to vote for himself.

Karl wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:15 AM:James @ 8:41 AM:

I think you're onto something James.

Karl wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:22 AM:As an Independent who thinks that neither ticket is qualified please indulge me "Palin is not qualified @ 8:59 AM".

What qualifies or unqualifies Mr. Barack Obama? Since you took the time to dismiss Sarah Palin I would hope that you have thoughts on the above poser.

Thanks in advance for your truthfull and well thought out response.

Peace to D's R's and I's alike

Chris to Dear Chris wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:24 AM:I gave you some solutions, that is the point. The thing is that I am used to people like you that come out here and never dispute or have an argument with what I say. All I get is sarcasm and I took your blog as more of the same. So since you say you agree with me then why did you send such a rediculous blog. Anyhow I see that you are not able to deal with dialogue and it will be nice that I won't have to deal with more sniping from you like I do with people like "to Chris" and Asteroid.

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 AM:You haven't posted any comments in 2 1/2 hours now. Are you short of moderators? You could hire me, fair and impartial Wanda. What could go wrong :)

Animal Cruelty wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:34 AM:Several letter writers today (Eric Anderson, Denise Godfrey, Charley Wolk) are all up in arms about a simple proposition to allow farm animals to be able to simply MOVE. It is not that big of a deal, and anyone who can't comply with its very minimal standards is obviously incapable of running a humane business dealing with livestock.
For thousands of years, humans have domesticated free range farm animals and have done so profitably. Most family farms today are humane. The only ones who might have a problem are the huge megalithic corporate industrial agribusinesses.
They do point out one small loophole, that sellers of agricultural products could import them from other states, however the cost of doing so over locally-produced offsets the cost of simply allowing a small expansion of cage size, so somehow I think this is an empty threat.
In any case, the law does not take effect until January 1, 2015.
Did you notice that? 2015!!!
That is more than SIX YEARS away.
It gives farms oodles of time in which to make the small adjustments they would need, and it gives the legislature ample time to correct that one loophole by simply requiring that any product from livestock SOLD IN CALIFORNIA be required to certify conformance with the same standard.
Simple, huh?

to Karl wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:51 AM:I think Obama is qualified as I summed up in my earlier post. He has an excellent education in the law from the finest institution in the country, at which he was a star. He chose politics over what sure were many enticing offers from the best law firms. The kind of politics he chose was very grass roots oriented, and he served his community, and then his state. Since declaring his candidacy, he has been through as tough a primary run as the nation has ever had. I've heard him speak in debates against primary opponents and against McCain, and in speeches. He is articulate, thoughtful, and clearly grasps that the world is complicated. I trust that he will choose an incredible team for his cabinet that will value skill and knowledge over cronyism. I find his views on most things on the right track though of course I don't agree with him on everything. I was very impressed by his 2002 speech that was extremely risky, politically: in that speech, he got Iraq exactly right. More recently, his vision for Iraq, while missing the famous "surge" that in reality was called for by many people, including many liberals, for years, is right in line with the views of the people and democratically elected government of Iraq. That's something to respect. He has shown that he does not lose his cool or his perspective under pressure. He has shown that he resists making impulsive, dramatic decisions. He seems to be a man of honor. I am also very impressed that in an international poll of thousands of people in 22 countries, Obama was preferred to McCain by 4:1! Since I care a lot about what America means to the world wehave to work with, this is very important. I don't think of him as the "messiah" that many right-wing idiots talk about, just the better candidate for reasons of his philosophy and character. Enough?

Marsha wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:54 AM:I'm confused...what exactly is impressive about Sarah Palin?

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:04 PM:From the Toledo Blade:

"Mr. Obama responded to The Blade's question by agreeing that every American willing to work should be able to find a job at a living wage. But he stopped short of accepting that as a right.

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers."

Government guaranteeing homes for everyone -- isn't that what triggered the mess we are in?

Guaranteed jobs -- and what is the guarantee someone will actually work at those jobs?

My fear is that even this list is the shortened version!

Ms M wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:09 PM:Marsha
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:54 AM:...and when the cons tell us what is so IMPRESSIVE about Palin - maybe they can add what the difference is between McCain and Bush. You know stuff on the issues!

oh raoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:12 PM:I don't know why you get all excited when passing on some change in this or that poll. We've heard you for a long time and have learned from you that McCain will certainly win next week. So move on already!

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:12 PM:As I sit back, and watch the eyes in "NOBAMACAN'ts head roll backward in near blind faith...
he denies, the undenialable.
Wad I tell ya, a religious like faith, cultish.. really.

He then tells me, to: "Cut with the baloney about "spread the wealth." Obama was not talking about taking anything away from someone else and redistributing it. He was talking about TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS!"

Dude, seriously... you need to listen to what the guy said to Joe the Plumber.

What can I tell ya? Point proven, again.
Prophet?

Roger wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:13 PM:Yea, Bob, at 9:17 AM, that's probably it.

Keep on thumping.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:13 PM:Complaints that Obama's position on the redistribution of wealth has been distorted through sound bites, brought me to get at least part of the story in Obama's words.

Excerpt of Obama 2001 NPR interview as provided by NPR Station in Chicago:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. "

I don't know about the Nuance Boys, DD Apollo, Caro and SOLON, but that quote does not give me solace.

interesting Comments on MSNBC wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:20 PM:From the Hollywood Reporter"
"
In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats. She stressed, though, that its Palin's small-town American roots she wishes to defend and not her politics or policies.

Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programming, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."

Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because "I actually get death threats."

"I'll stop sending them," joked Larry Gelbart, the writer, producer and director best known for the "M*A*S*H" television series and such movie screenplays as "Tootsie" and "Oh, God!"

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:28 PM:Well, Marsha, at 11:54 AM, apparently, she appeals to the "social consevatives" (ie. trailer parks across the bible belt).

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:34 PM:Not that I wish to bash Christianity per se, but I cannot help but wonder at a religion, or at least those that profess a religion who work so very hard to bear false witness....aka, LIE...in order to fool people into voting for their Segregationist agenda.

Bob wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:36 PM:Why, Marsha, at 11:54 AM, Caribou Barbie is commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard!

There hasn't been a single attack from the dreaded al canadian terrorists since she took charge!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:41 PM:Saddened but with HOPE[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:13 AM: No. But, you just gave Bush some good ideas for Gitmo and at rendition sites.

MarkyMarx wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:48 PM:redistribution
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:02 AM:

I don't get it!

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:48 PM:Interesting comments today in the Wall Street Journal by the Co-Founder of the Federalist Society, and current law professor at Northwestern University, STEVEN G. CALABRESI

(Quote)The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.
Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.

We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms. (UNQUOTE)

Karl gets it wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:50 PM:Maybe Jay Leno is right: "If God had intended us to vote, He would've given us candidates." Even locally the only candidate I'm enthusiastic about is the 19-year old for Carlsbad City Council, and she's a long-shot.

Tax the rich wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:52 PM:Joe Biden, told a Scranton, Pa., TV station on Monday that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." "You getting an idea of what's on in their mind, huh? A little sneak peak," McCain said, pointing to Biden's comment. "It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase."

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:56 PM:Well, "Wanda" at 8:21AM,
yes, but the new one she just got cost $3000 dollars.
Regards, Alf.

Fat Lady Sings wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:08 PM:McCain gains backing of Joe the Plumber
OK. Its over. There is no way that McCain can lose now. They have the endorsement of this unlicensed plumber who owes back taxes.

Fred wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:11 PM:Where did Obama get all that money from?

The Real Marcia wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:16 PM:Marsha Asks at 11:54 AM I'm confused...what exactly is impressive about Sarah Palin?

Marsha,Marsha,Marsha, Just ask Greg, Peter, Bobby, or Alice, they'll tell ya.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:33 PM:Fred
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:11 PM: From me.

Ms M wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:37 PM:Fred
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:11 PM:...from millions of everyday folks like me. I have voted in elections for the past 30 plus years and this if the first time I have contributed to a campaign.

Trick or treat wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:40 PM:Just 4 days after Halloween, the voters will have a choice between scary and scarier – – McCain, with his saber-rattling foreign policy; Obama, with his economy-rattling delusions of redistribution, taxation, spending and regulation. Both candidates buy-in to government global weather-control fantasies that will inevitably ride on the back of everyone’s living standard. As for judicial appointments: too frightening to contemplate!

When it comes time to shudder and vote – if one must vote for one or the other – McCain, with a Democrat majority in Congress, seems less intimidating than Obama with that majority at his service.

Personally, I ignored the hobgoblins and voted for the Libertarian ticket.

Happy Halloween, hardtack.

Question for Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:42 PM:Maybe I'm not reading your quote from Obama about the Warren court properly, but I don't see anything wrong with it. He is saying that the Warren court, like other courts right up to now, have not delved into things like the redistribution of wealth. He says that in this sense, the Warren court stuck to the founders' intentions. I don't see where he says "and the courts SHOULD delve into these things", in fact that would contradict what he says about the founders' intentions. Am I missing something? Can you help me out here? Thanks in advance.

Ya Gotta Be Kiddin Me wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:56 PM:In 1940, the WSJ tells me, the reliably Democratic Party organ, the New York Times endorsed a Republican candidate rather than a third term for FDR.

One of their complaints the NYTimes had with FDR was "fostering the idea that there exists a great fund of wealth which has only to be divided more equitably in order to make everyone prosperous" and "permitting important members of his Administration to preach the doctrines of class jealousy and class hatred."

Where is the New York Times when we need them?

Cute irrelevance wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:04 PM:Cute story, Redistribution at 8:02 a.m. and Hardtack 11:02 a.m.
You conservatives are so easily amused by things that have no relevance to anything.
If you want to make this relevant, please re-tell the story and help us liberals see specifically which tenet of liberal market economics (holding the private sector accountable) and/or which specific Obama policies they relate to.
Not rumors or innuendo you heard from Rush or Faux News, but actual Obama policies, you know, the kind you might find on his website.
And puh-leeeeeeeeeze - do note that tax cuts for the middle class, and progressive taxes such as McCain explained supportively in 2001, have no relation to Marx's quote, "From each according to..." blah blah blah.
If you believe otherwise, please explain the connection.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:07 PM:To Question: No, I can't help you if you cannot see that the entire screed is a case against the courts, and the civil rights movements not taking adb=vantage of their opportunity while in power to address the redistribution of wealth.

But if you cannot divine that in the words, simply wait and watch for unmistakable action.

I understand the inability to read intent -- we have a nation that cannot understand the First Amendment: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...abridging the freedom of speech..."

NO MEANS NO, at least the feminists tell me, except for obscenity, pornography, libel, slander, campaign contibutions, fairness doctrine, ...

The short answer is, no, I can't help you.

two comments wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:17 PM:What's with all the BOLD type?

Get rid of any and all political signs! They are unneeded and a blight to us all.

Apollo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:19 PM:Re: Reardon (12:13 p.m.)
What is the problem with this old quote from Obama about the Warren quote?
He is talking clearly about the Civil Rights movement and restoring rights to its victims.
Its victims are the descendants of SLAVES who were freed.
They are the ones who built all the great wealth, the plantations and all aspects of huge wealth in the Deep South. They did not enter into any "social contract," even under duress. All that wealth was created by them and taken from them in the greatest single "redistribution of wealth" in the history of the North American continent.
Now, Obama is noting that while the Court took seriously the allocation and application of rights to the dispossessed moving forward, they did essentially nothing to correct the inequity. All those poor blacks should have been the ones who inherited that wealth and economic security. Instead, all they inherited was a legacy of broken families and doors closed to equality of opportunity. The wealth of Strom Thurmond's inheritance should have been in the hands of the black woman he was busy fooling around with, not to himself or his own heirs. They did not even get the 40 acres and the mule they were promised!
Now while "reparations" are impractical and would be impossible to administer, since many blacks (such as Obama himself) didn't even come from slave ancestors, some attention to correcting that injustice would be appropriate and it would not be called "socialism" but correcting a historical injustice.
Is that too nuanced for you, Reardon?

OBAMA MAMA wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:19 PM:TO: “redistribution 8:02 AM”

So many capitalists look for “reasons” not to pay their employees, whether it is a factory worker or a restaurant waiter. There is so much more pleasure in giving out gratuities, whether a tip to a beggar or setting up a tax-exempt charitable institute. Most of have our hidden motives and prejudices in doling out “our” money. Even misers and grinches indulge in occasional charitable giving to placate their conscience.

I applaud your giving the $10 to the homeless guy, even though he could possibly be a shiftless “bum”, because it is not good to condemn universally poor beggars. The great majority are poor and in need. I saw such a person in Vista this week. He was standing alongside the freeway exit at Nordahl with a sign saying “HUNGRY”. I believed in my heart he does suffer from hunger. So I resolved that I will always have a $5 bill on my sun visor so I will be ready for the next hungry person.

I believe it is more blessed to give $10 to a beggar than a $$ billions to bail out Wall Street brokers. I just hope you are not putting us on about your $10 generosity.
10:11am, submitted 2nd time 1:17pm

Dont take my word for it wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:21 PM:It's all right there in Obamas book "Dreams of My Father", He does not hide the fact that there was no one in his past by accident, no one. He was careful, very careful to hand pick who He accociated with, It's all there in black and white! All during College and after he has assoceated himself with communist ideals and sympathizers, read it for yourself.

We all know that Between the far left with the same agenda and ideals right here in North County, and the vote for change for the sake of change group, they are the majority on the NCT Blogs and we all know it, but they don't want you to dwell on that. They are happy to just buy your vote with the promise of a few pieces of (tax relief)silver. Don't just take my word for anything, Read Obama's book or Do your own research. If your for the far left agenda, vote Obama, if not, vote McCain, that's the choice. Now go Vote for your choice!!

Dave wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:25 PM:Father / Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears

BEEN BUSY WORKING wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:26 PM:Marsha, you asked a question at 11:54am. “What is impressive about Sarah Palin?”

Excuse my ignorance, Marsha, but I have been very busy out at sea for the last six months, working. Who is Sarah Palin? Is this somebody important?

And what about the truth wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:33 PM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:37 PM: "...this if the first time I have contributed to a campaign".

And this is the first black candidate running for President of the United States. Oh no, I'm not voting on Obama because he is black. Guess that answers that on so many levels.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:36 PM:According to several news sources a top McGWB advisor has labeled Sarah Palin a "Whack job".
How many nails has McGWB driven into his own political coffin by choosing Palin as VP?
Far more than enough.
I actually feel sorry for McCain the man, not for McGWB the politician.
Palin the "maverick" has become the "rogue", the "diva" and the "whack job".
Regards, Alf.

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:38 PM:Could have sworn we did this yesterday, but Fred, at 1:11 PM, The June 2008 issue of The Atlantic Monthly magazine had a great article on this titled: "The Amazing Money Machine". It's available on line.

Mostly, those Obama people did some creative and innovative things while McCain did more of the same old thing.

Apollo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:46 PM:After this blog was submitted at 12:19 p.m., two more blogs (both conservative) submitted LATER were processed, including a very lengthy one, longer than this, at 2:25 p.m., and then the blogeditor stopped processing.
This blog is in specific response to the request in the referenced blog from Reardon.
It seems to me that, if the NCT doesn't want to develope the same reputation for BIAS as Fox News, that a paper who endorses McCain AFTER it closes the deadline for any letters in response to effectively shut off reader feedback in the print editions, would want to go out of their way to present balanced viewpoints.
Stop delaying and censoring liberal blogs that do not violate rules.

Resubmitted.

Re: Reardon (12:13 p.m.)
What is the problem with this old quote from Obama about the Warren quote?
He is talking clearly about the Civil Rights movement and restoring rights to its victims.
Its victims are the descendants of SLAVES who were freed.
They are the ones who built all the great wealth, the plantations and all aspects of huge wealth in the Deep South. They did not enter into any "social contract," even under duress. All that wealth was created by them and taken from them in the greatest single "redistribution of wealth" in the history of the North American continent.
Now, Obama is noting that while the Court took seriously the allocation and application of rights to the dispossessed moving forward, they did essentially nothing to correct the inequity. All those poor blacks should have been the ones who inherited that wealth and economic security. Instead, all they inherited was a legacy of broken families and doors closed to equality of opportunity. The wealth of Strom Thurmond's inheritance should have been in the hands of the black woman he was busy fooling around with, not to himself or his own heirs. They did not even get the 40 acres and the mule they were promised!
Now while "reparations" are impractical and would be impossible to administer, since many blacks (such as Obama himself) didn't even come from slave ancestors, some attention to correcting that injustice would be appropriate and it would not be called "socialism" but correcting a historical injustice.
Is that too nuanced for you, Reardon?

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:51 PM:Major newspapers oppose Prop 8.

LOS ANGELES TIMES editorial:

“Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status.” (Editorial, Aug. 8, 2008)

NORTH COUNTY TIMES editorial:

“We agree all Californians should be afforded equal protection under the law; no one should be excluded without due process, and especially not within the state's Constitution. But attempting to define marriage one way or the other is not a path we would choose for government to take.
We believe the California and federal governments should not be in the business of defining marriage, especially not in an era with societal views on sexual orientation in flux, and that government should leave the definition of marriage to individual faith communities to determine.” (Editorial, Oct. 19, 2008)

No major newspaper in California has endorsed Prop 8.

grj wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:52 PM:I say right on to Obamacan! post 8:56 etc.. It seems no matter what Obama says and does the regreedicans twist and distort it. The scary part is people actually have bought into w's fear mode and would vote in a mcbush warmonger.Wake up Obama is willing to talk to others before dropping bombs.Shame on Bush/Cheney rove etc.. What a mess you have got usa into.....

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:55 PM:Well, "Dave" at 2:25PM,
that may have been the way it was.
Their status right now -
Republicans BORROW AND SPEND TOO MUCH,
Democrats TAX AND SPEND TOO MUCH.
Republicans burden future generations for what they want.
Democrats burden the current generation for what they want.
BOTH PARTIES SPEND TOO MUCH!
I am voting a write-in for Ron Paul.
BTW, how's your ears?
Regards, Alf.

ToCute irrelevance wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:57 PM:Well the unfortunate side effect of being a wealth redistributor is your inability to apply yourself in high school or college to make a better life for yourself.

Actual facts and numbers befuddle your mind to the point of someone suffering with ADD.

So to get my point across, simple life lessons are all that is left to try.

Oh and anything on Obamas website has been filtered and twisted to remove any incriminating evidence until Biden opens his mouth.

Case in point

"Joe Biden, told a Scranton, Pa., TV station on Monday that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." "You getting an idea of what's on in their mind, huh? A little sneak peak," McCain said, pointing to Biden's comment. "It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase."

So I will just try to keep it simple for the simpletons and lazy bums out there.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:02 PM:Evidence obtained by the BBC in the breakaway region suggests Georgia used indiscriminate force, and may have targeted civilians.
Witnesses said tanks had fired on an apartment block, and civilians were shot at as they fled the fighting.

Seems that I just could be right about those Georgians. Russia had a right to invade after her soldiiers were murdered and the non Georgian population, the citizens of South Otessia were being gunned down and murdered. And, good ole Bush is to blame as well. It was his orders that sent our military to train the Georgians and to make arms available to them. I still do not understand what the Israeli military was doing there as trainers?

Another Editorial wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:18 PM:Ventura Co. STAR opposes PROP 8:

“Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution by adding the words: ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’
That's the same language that was enacted into state law by passage of Proposition 22 in March 2000 and the same language deemed discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May of this year.
The Star urges a "no" vote on Proposition 8, which would embed discrimination in the California Constitution.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing the majority opinion, got it right in the May ruling: ‘An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.’ ” (Oct. 12, 2008)

snerd wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:19 PM:Most of you old guys don't see what's going on here. The world is passing you by. The old style politics that used to work are just tired. The younger generation is smarter, more well-educated and way more diverse than you guys. They are looking for a new vision and they believe they've found it in the calm well reasoned policies of Barack Obama. They have seen that government has a place in a modern society and they want to elect people who are more likely to run that government well. Now I know that change of this order is frightening to some but it is change that is coming regardless. America is changing back to a place that venerates intelligence and education, has room for all races and mixtures thereof, welcomes science as a way to solve problems. I guess what I'm saying is to quote one of your generations poets "If you can't lend a hand, then get out of the way".

Ms M wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:27 PM:And what about the truth
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:33 PM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:37 PM: "...this if the first time I have contributed to a campaign".

And this is the first black candidate running for President of the United States. Oh no, I'm not voting on Obama because he is black. Guess that answers that on so many levels....um... the last time I checked, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton and I think her name is Sheila Jackson Lee are BLACK and when they ran for president I did not contribute to their campaigns because I did not feel that they had what it took to be CIC. You see, there are millions, (white folks too)who like me are contributing and voting for Obama because he IS the best candidate! You cons a just so darn PATHETIC!

Sally wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:32 PM:The point I was responding to was "God has given us ample proof that homosexuals are created". The evidence is that God destroys homosexuals instead of creating them.

Even though the word "homosexual" isn't used in scripture, the meaning is clear, provided you understand the meaning of "know". You'll find this in Genesis 19: "The men of the city compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out unto them and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."

Those "men" were actually angels who explained to Lot: "we will destroy this place, because the LORD hath sent us to destroy it."

If you're going to implicate God as the basis for homosexuality, you'll need to quote scripture chapter and verse.

Thank you, blog editor, for allowing this posting.

REJOICE REJOICE wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:35 PM:A CA newspaper endorses PROP 8

Supporters of Proposition 8 have cause to rejoice. They finally have a newspaper endorsement, the PARADISE POST up in Butte County, a conservative area that supported Proposition 22 by 69%.

“But condoning, embracing, giving society’s official stamp of approval (which is precisely what legal gay marriage does) is quite another. Please vote YES on Proposition 8.” (Editorial, Paradise Post)

Cute Irrelevance wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:41 PM:The person responding to me at 2:57 accuses me of "ADD" (hmmm, when I, a liberal, made a reference to someone being "high" - obviously metaphorical - the blogeditor censored it, speaking of double standards) and then refuses to provide the specific examples or data from specific Obama policies in order to make the point.
He cites Joe Biden's misstatement of $150,000 when the policy is $250,000 but fails to explain how a middle class tax cut is "taking" anything from anyone since EVERYONE gets the same tax cut on the portion of income at that level.
He then simply makes up the false charge, with no supporting evidence, that Obama's website has been filetered. Proof please?
As for misstatements, what about McCain's many misstatements about the Sunni/Shia, the Pakistan being on the Iraq border, and many others?
Oh yeah, your famous double standard.
THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT!
("ADD"? My A * *)
All those glasses houses!

Fascinating wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:42 PM:Reardon and many others here are one and all passing around stories of a radical leftist takeover of the nation if Obama is elected. They base this on a phrase from this speech, an isolated sentence from a book, an inferred intent from an interview. OK, I get it, this is beyond anything empirical, it's a belief and a prediction that we'll hopefully see for ourselves. But I must say that the frequency and intensity of these stories is surely increasing as election day approaches. You folks seem downright terrified of a doomsday if Obama wins. You sound irrational, but time will tell, I hope.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:45 PM:Sally
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:32 PM: Why would God destroy whom he has created. Why would he continue to create them? God creates so that he take pleasure in their destruction? Why didn't destroy all the homosexauals in the world at that time?Why hasn't God stopped creating homosexuals?

Ms M wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:51 PM:Sally
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:32 PM:...Sally, first of all I do not put all my faith in the bible. It is a document that was written by man and the same passage can be interpreted differently by the reader - just as the passage that you selected. But in my limited knowledge didn't Lot inseminate his daughters? Maybe that's what ticked the Lord off!

GOD IS LOVE wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:55 PM:GOD IS LOVE!!

Well, Sally, we know where you and your god come from. Your god, like yourself, is violent and intolerant (3:32 PM). You said “The evidence is that God destroys homosexuals instead of creating them. “

Keep on preaching, Sally. You are winning many new converts.

Laughing at snerd wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:56 PM:Okay! Good luck to you and the youth! We'll talk again when you're old.

Editorials wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:57 PM:Who cares? Think for yourselves people and read the law! Check out California Family Code 297.5. Read the whole thing and learn something!

No Opposition wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:59 PM:NC Times did NOT oppose PROP 8

It is incorrect to say the NC Times opposed PROP 8. They hemmed and hawed and straddled the fence in a “neutral” position: “everybody vote your own conscience”. The NC Times did not have the backbone of the UNION TRIBUNE, which clearly and strongly came out in opposition to PROP 8.

Even the conservative Orange County Register and the Desert Sun editorialized against PROP 8.

to Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:01 PM:At this point there is no evidence that God creates them. God doesn't do thinks just because man says He does.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:03 PM:Obamacan is smoking happy tobacco again.

Jeremiah Wright saw no combat in his two years in the Marines and three years in the Navy.

Corpsman Wright never served overseas while in the Navy workign only at a Naval Hospital in Maryland.

Vietnam combat occured after Wright left the service.

WRight is not a heavily decorated veteran, Obamacan.

And, Obama lies about being or not being in the pews when WRight vomited out his black theologian garbage and/or his anti-Americanism and anti-white garbage.

Laughing at laughing at snerd wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:03 PM:The boomer generation, of which I am a member, is in a unique position right now. The two defining issues of our early life are deeply involved in the election. We have Obama, thanks to the work and heroism of all of us who worked in the civil rights movement. And we have McCain, thanks to the bitterness and rage we still have from the Vietnam disaster. That's the matchup: the legacy of the left and the right of the boomers. One reason I voted for Obama is to celebrate the civil rights movement and another is my wish to finally say goodbye to the whole Nam syndrome that has tied this country in knots ever since LBJ lied us into it. Time to move on.

to God is Love wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:03 PM:Yes, but He can also be very violent and intolerant. Amazing aint it?

Con wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:26 PM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:27 PM:You cons a just so darn PATHETIC!

Ya,Ya,Ya.

Sally wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:28 PM:The was a question at 8:50 (AM) expressing disbelief that only homosexuals were destroyed when Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out & asked where it is described in the Bible. That information is in Genesis 18 where Abraham pleads with God that the righteous people in those cities should not be killed along with the others. After some discussion, God agrees to leave the cities standing if there are only ten rightous people there. As we learn in Chapter 19, only Lot & his family qualified. They were evacuated and the cities destroyed. If you're going to claim God creates homosexuals you'd better be ready to quote chapter and verse from scripture because all the evidence goes the other way.

Ms M wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:29 PM:Laughing at snerd
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:56 PM:...um I think you should be talking to them now. They are currently tax payers and the majority of the folks that are in Iraq fighting Bush's war are pretty darn young!

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:37 PM:Fascinating: Am I reading tea leaves(?) -- yes.

Am I worried? Not much.

Not because I don't believe Obama is a radical, (I do) but because there is a political dynamic for all winning political parties -- each one gets about 3,000 political appointees just in Washington D.C. and I sincerely doubt Obama can find 3,000 Democrats as radical as he is.

Once appointed, political appointees of each party get accustomed to the sinecure of public office and they act as a mollifying force on extremism. Most of them could not run a local bodega, so they want to retain public office.

And then there is reality. That also will reduce the Obama radical factor, and as you may have noticed with the Christian Science Monitor dropping its daily edition for a weekly, and the LA Times laying off 75 just today, there will be scrutiny of Obama from what is now the alternative press like no president before as the MSM slowly folds, should he win.

Besides, as an older guy who works but who does not need to, I have Plan B.

And C.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:50 PM:No, Apollo, that is not too nuanced.

I read it each time it was published, and I hope everyone else reads it also.

I encourage everyone to read Apollo at 12:13 and 2:46.

I intend to republish it widely myself.

Thank you.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:56 PM:SDRaoul at 4:03 p.m. accuses anyone who disagrees with him of lying and "smoking happy tobacco" (even metaphorical drug allegations not permitted by liberal bloggers).
One does not need to go overseas or be in combat to receive honors, and Jeremiah Wright achieved the highly technical medical position as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, and was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson.

As for Obama "lying about not being in the pews when Wright" preached four specific sermons, because of people like SDRaoul who just make up repeated false charges, the Obama campaign was forced to show official travel records covering his travels on those dates and proving his claim and proving that SDRaoul hurls false, reckless charges with no regard whatsoever for truth or decency.
Just like the corrupt, despicable McCain/Palin attack machine he so perfectly exemplifies.

to Ms M wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:01 PM:Genesis 19:31-36 descibes how Lot's daughters got him drunk on wine to have intercourse with him. Why would they do that? Either they thought their father was the last man alive after Sodom was destoyed and the only male left to carry on the family line, and/or they had spent too much time living in Sodom and developed a tolerance for sexual immorality. Be a better parent than Lot. Vote yes on 8.

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:04 PM:Is God intolerant?

You raised a provocative thought. You mentioned that God can be very violent and intolerant. (4:03 PM)
And Sally mentioned that God destroys homosexuals. (3:32 PM)

The provocative thought: Did God create man in his own image, or have men created their gods after their own images?

I think Sally has created a god after her own image. That works for her.

On the other hand, kind, loving and compassionate create gods after their own image, also.

Roger wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:12 PM:Why should anybody accept Sally's feeble theology at 4:28 PM and reject Wanda, at 8:53 AM, or even Bob, at 9:17 AM?

Gary wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:22 PM:The other reason I voted YES on 8 is because we already did this a few years back the people voted. What I really hate is that even though it was voted on, the Liberal Judges overturned it. What is the use of voting then?

Don't blame me I also voted for California Proposition 187, and where did that get us. Because the judges overturned that one, California is the most over-run state in the nation.

Apollo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:33 PM:Re: Reardon (4:50 p.m.)
So let me clarify, since you didn't (and correct me if I've misstated your views, though you haven't given me much to work with here.

If someone pulls a gun on you, forces you to drive to an ATM and make the maximum possible withdrawal, and the police catch him, your view would be that if they take that money away from him and give it back to you, you would call that re-distribution of wealth?
Or let's say the robber shot you in the process, so it should not go to your rightful heirs?
You would call that "redistribution of wealth"?

So please, go back and look at mine of 2:46 (and yes, the original was delayed for an inordinate amount of time after later, longer posts from conservatives), and tell me how taking wealth created by black hands away from them by force (not even the pretense of a social contract), and then how that differs from trying to give the wealth of the Southern Plantations, created by blacks against their will, to the rightful heirs.
You have a strange sense of justice, Reardon.
Oh yeah, it is called "conservatism."

to SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:34 PM:You go ahead and create your own gods and let us know how that works out for you. Sally did not create her God. He created her.

To Gary wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:47 PM:You presented absolutely no justification for your vote of h8. You should return your high school diploma an go enroll in a civics class. The prior vote is meaningless when a law infringes on the rights of others. It doesn't matter what percentage approves the measure. I suggest you take your hatred and move to a less "over-run" state. You exemplify ignorance.

My tip to teenagers wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:50 PM:If McCain is elected, think seriously about a military career. Officer is best (better chow) – try for Annapolis, Air Force Academy or West Point – – maybe, Coast Guard.
On second thought: Make Coast Guard Academy your first choice.

If Obama is elected, and you are considering a business career – i.e., you want to make money – think seriously about joining the Mafia.

Warm regards, hardtack.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:57 PM:to Gotta Wonder
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:01 PM: Sally, God creates all living things and beings in this universe. He is the author of all life, past,present and future.
If so, God created heterosexuals and homosexuals.
If he did not, then who did? I do not have to use the bible as a source of documentation. That might be your preference. It is not scientific evidence.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:00 PM:to SOLON
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:34 PM: Who is Sally's God?

gracchus wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:07 PM:at 12:48 p.m., reardon, you wrote of the bad judicial appointments of lbj and carter. can you specify which judge carter appointed to a federal court? as i recall he made no appointments to the supreme court; therefore, what lower cour judge do you find objectionable? which supreme court justice did lbj appoint whom you find objectionable?

what regulatory and economic policies of the great society offend you? is it the civil rights legislation? is it the voting rights legislation? do you think that lbj violated the spirit of the u.s. constitution when he prodded white segreationists like george wallace to have their state governments ensure full civil rights?

i don't know whether you believe that this legislation was bad. but you have sweepingly condemned the accomplishments of lbj.

you additionally conjecture that if obama becomes president that the united states might have a constitutional right to welfare and a constitutional mandate to affirmative action. i have inferred that you fancy yourself a student of the u.s. constitution. you thus know the difficulty of amending the constitution. your speculations concerning the changes which you suggest that obama might wreak subtlely promote a fear of obama's proposals and have no foundation on reality.

finally, reardon, why did the united states ratify the XVI amendment in 1913, fewer than 20 years after what mark twain described as "the gilded age"? do you think that the people had seen enough of the ostentatious, conspicuous consumption among the wealthy, while millions toiled long hours in unregulated factories and lived in dangerous slums? the middle class hardly existed in the united states before it had an income tax. and that middle class did not come to exist as we know it today until the new deal established a progressive income tax that expected the wealthy to shoulder its share of our civilized society.

expecting the wealthy to pay more int axes is not wealth redistribution. it is the price of paying for a government that allows them to enjoy their comfortable life-style secure in the knowledge that no one can seize their property without due process.

Where is Obama getting the money wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:23 PM:Its very weird that Obama and the Dems suddenly have so much money. I fear that someone is skirting campaign reform laws. I guess it shows Obama and the Dems had to buy the election.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:28 PM:Apollo: How many generations may the victims’ children, grandchildren, great-Great-Great etc. go back against the robber of their Great-Great-Great, etc to seek redistributive justice?

If the robber six generations ago invested the stolen money wisely, and that $7.95 robbery has now generated a wealth when combined with other innumerable things of, say $1 million, what government bureaucrat is to decide how much the great-great-great etc. is to get.

It seems that redistributive justice is far too difficult for my, what did you say of me yesterday, my ""narrow conservative cognition."

I ain't real bright, but math is my sole strong point, small as it is, so please let me know your formula for redistributive justice.

(I am just so please that you allow me to continue to communicate with your superior intellect, and I continue to ask your beneficent indulgence.)

to Focal point wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:42 PM:Sally's God is the God of Abraham, who never changes. Did Jesus promote homosexuality or any other sin? No He said "Go and sin no more." Jesus commanded us to love, that is true, but not to accept sin.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:46 PM:Obama claimed to have been a regular attendee at Wright's church for twenty years.

When the Wright scandal broke, suddenly Obama couldn't remember hearing any of the anti-white and anti-American sermons.

Obama is a lair. He didn't deny hearing any sermons until Wright was caught on DVDs sold by his church.

Does anyone believe that Obama didn't know what Wright said after twenty years of sitting in church, admiring his "MENTOR" and kissing his butt for political purposes?

And again Obamacan, you are the one who said Wright was a decorated veteran, not me. Peacetime decorations are recieved by all in the military serving when the decoration -- Like National Defense -- is authorized. Wright didn't even qualify for a National defense Ribbon and neither did he qualify for a Navy Cross, a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star and myriad others John McCain was awarded.

Obama is a liar and you, Obamacan, fall for the lies every time he says one and he says one every time he opens his mouth.

Poor Gary wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:49 PM:Like so many conservatives, Gary aches for America to be a nation that lives with a different Constitution than it has. Sad. Gary wants to live where the majority dictates (and Gary always, ALWAYS, makes sure he is among the majority). He just doesn't get the Bill of Rights or many other parts of the Constitution. Gary would be much happier in Burma or Cuba, where there is a very specific way of being a good citizen, which Gary would certainly be. And the oppression of those who are not good citizens is encouraged. Gary, while Hitler's Germany is dead and gone, there are many nations that are much more to your liking than the USA, with its guaranteed protection of the minority from the majority...that protection that you despise. Here's the unamerican, folks. Which side are you on? The Constitution's and the Founder's ideals, or Gary's. It's one or the other. No on 8.

Pride is a wonderful thing wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:50 PM:Well OBAMACAN, Your mother can take pride knowing her little boy has worked so hard to help bring marxism to the US, The rest of us are proud of you also. Keep up the good work. Go Obama!

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:56 PM:"Where is Obama getting the money" is back again today at 6:23 PM. Answered this yesterday, and again earlier today (2:38 PM). I'm tired of doing this.

If you actually care, have somebody read this article to you.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:04 PM:gracchus: That is a quote from the Wall Street Journal today, as written by the Co-Founder of the Federalist Society, and current law professor at Northwestern University, STEVEN G. CALABRESI.

I started that post with a proper attribution.

You might ask him, immediately after your remedial reading class.

Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:07 PM:Does anybody actually read sdraoul's posts?

Why?

Easy one Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:09 PM:Wanda
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:56 PM: Simple, If your tired of answering the question, then SIT DOWN :)

Ugh Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:22 PM:Saw Rush Limbaugh tonight spouting your talking points about Obama and the Constitution. Now I realize you are no more than another extremist in pretend fair and balanced clothing. Ugh.

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:26 PM:The only thing this proves "Fat Lady Sings" @1:08 PM, is that someone with access to key & critical records... more precisely, Government records can be gotten, if the money is good enough.

I mean... think about it for a second.
The kind and sheer amount of information released to the public by the NObama campaign is really un-nerving.
Firs of all, this so-called "unlicensed plumber who owes back taxes" is a private citizen. He had no dog in this fight, except he asked a simple question. Then the roof caved in, and the NObama-ites tried to bury this guy in dirt.
It give me, personally, great pause, for a couple of reasons.
A) This tells me how easy it would be for anyone, at anytime, for any price to get my government records.
If the NObama get's his way, our medical records will go electronic.
By, government fiat, of course.
How safe will my personal, private medical history be then?
and B) If having access to personal private records is a good thing, why hasn't NObama released his full medical record? Or his lesson plans for Columbia? Or the Annenberg Project?
Or the Woods Foundation?
And why has Joe NOBiden released his history of brain aneurysms?

to snerd 315 pm wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:27 PM:I too was once young and opinionated. Issues are not as clearly defined as you think and time has a way of opening our hearts and eyes to all views. I will be very interested in hearing how you view life in 30 years. May it be a blessed journey.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:27 PM:to Focal point[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:42 PM: The correct answer should be the one that God said, "I AM WHO AM."

Adnaw wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:29 PM:Maybe for the same reason they read yours Wanda at 7:07 None!

oh raoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:34 PM:Why do you continue to post? You have told us that you have the best knowledge about this election, and that from this you have concluded that McCain's got it. Ok! End of story! In a few days, the election will be over and you will be proven right. Why beat the dead horses of your ego? We get it! You have the inside track. It's time to sit back, sip on a martini, enjoy a good cigar, and wait for the returns that will prove your brilliance. Enjoy this week! You are the one that got it right! Congratulations!!

Focal Point wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:38 PM:sdraoul: Rev. Wright does not claim any decorations. So what! What does it matter? One thing that irks me about you conservatives on this blog is that you take a possibility and the extrapolate it to meet your position and then claim it as truth. Quite frankly, most of here think that you are a bigger liar than Ombama or McCain. Wright is old news. It did not work for Clinton. I do not think it will work for McCain. McCain can only be saved if the information given to pollsters were incorrect.

About the mioney Wanda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:50 PM:It is true that there many small donations. But Newsmax has discovered many foreign donations as well. Many donors also lied about their place of origin. The Obama campaign has been very secretive about a lot of this. The Newsmax site tells more.

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:52 PM:Honestly, I'm really trying hard not to laugh, but "gracchus" @6:07 PM, my land reformer buddy,

Friend, your really making it very, very difficult not to just break out in rolling on the floor, belly busting laughter.


gracchus: "expecting the wealthy to pay more int axes is not wealth redistribution. it is the price of paying for a government that allows them to enjoy their comfortable life-style secure in the knowledge that no one can seize their property without due process."

According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income. In other words, they pay just about double to protect the wealth they own.
The top 5% of taxpayers own nearly 36.66% of the nation's wealth, their AGI is $153K a year, and they paid 60.14% of all income taxes.
The top 10% wages begin at $108,904, they pay 70.79% of all income taxes, and they own 47.32% of the nation's wealth.
Are ya catching the drift here?

Here, let me make it simple:

They are already paying their share, plus some of your's.
All you need to do at this point is,
say Thank You.

Keep posting sdraoul wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:52 PM:the Obamaites hate truth, thats why they complain.

to dave wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:56 PM:..."welcome to the Republican party." said the father gently. But then his daughter stopped to think. Something her father hasn't done since he started listening to rush limpdough. "First of all, dad, they already do what your talking about, it's called grading on the curve. so, with all due respect, dad, your argument is not very thought out. And secondly you are trying to compare apples to chairs. How is paying taxes, something of which if we didn't do this country would not exist, compare to grades?" said the daughter. "Well, it's spreading the wealth, honey. Don't hurt your brain with all that silly thinking." said the father with a wink. "Well, again with all due respect dad, you got the whole spreading the wealth thing completely wRONg. We're talking about everyone doing better, you understand that, right? If not are you being deliberately obtuse?" asked the daughter. "Now looky here young lady, I don't want my money going to those people!" yelled the angry father. "Those people? You mean poor people? Black People? Gay People? What "People"?" asked the daughter calmly. "Those lazy do nothing people!!" he yelled. "Dad, you realize that a lot of very hard working people are helped by what you seem to lament so much; taxes. There are a lot of folks working three jobs, with no health insurance, taking care of sick elderly parents that rely on the assistance of others. Don't you want to help these people?" she said. "Heck NO! Why should they get MY MONEY!" he seethed. "well, dad, if that's how you feel than I can't explain it to you. Some people feel it is there personal responsibilty to offer folks a hand up, and I'm sorry you see everything as a hand out. I'm starting to see why Mom left you for the gardner." she smiled and winked. Fast forward years ahead. The daughter is now part of a community organization that helps feed and clothe the needy, her friend from college with the bad grades who partied all the time is the head of the republican party, and her bitter old father died alone clinging to his bible, his gun and his hate filled self righteousness. Now that's what I call the real difference between being a republican and a democrat. One is the party of "me" and the other is the party of "We".

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:01 PM:god created SALLY? (5:34 PM)

If so, that must be why he created homosexuals. Why would He create someone like Sally? So that she can be the conduit for god’s love of homosexuals? Surely God would not have created Sally to be His conduit for Evil. Certainly not so she could advocate the destruction of evil homosexuals.

As I understand Him, GOD is LOVE; and SATAN is HATE.
She that speweth hate is not of God.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:01 PM:Ugh: Since I did not see Rush tonight, and my posts were made all day today, perhaps Rush is following my "talking points."

I hope your analytical skills improve with age, but I would appreciate specificity as to which “talking points” today I used for which I DID NOT SPECIFY SOURCE DOCUMENTS?

Doug wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:07 PM:Note to Sally: Sodom and Gomorrah was a FABLE. Please note the Bible in not a historical text but just a collection of stories. What’s next, you will want to base our laws Hansel & Gretel or the Three Little Pigs?

Oh Please wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:07 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:26 PM: Joe got caught up in this mess due to the selection by John McCain. It was McCain who made all the misstatements and allegations while promoting Joe to be something that he is not. Obama dug for the facts found them. Joe was exposed. By the way it was Joe who misrepresented himself. So, just how was Joe going to buy a Plumbing business. He does not have the resources to even qualify for a SBA loan. He owes back taxes. Ron continues to use Joe to proport a lie. It was McCain who has abused Joe not Obama.

Ron wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:08 PM:I hear ya, "sdraoul" @6:46 PM.

Here's what NObama is asking us to believe, about him.

A) He was a regular attendee at Wright's black liberation church for twenty years. Yet, he's not a black liberation believer.

B) He was mentored, as a teenager by the communist Frank Mashal Davis. But, he's not a communist.

C) He got his first community agitator job from Gerald Kellman, an old Saul Alinsky pupil. But, he's not Saul Alinksy type community agitator.

D) He worked on a board with a known American terrorist. Plugged his book, started his political career in the guy's house. But, never had a single discussion with Ayers about his past.
As, he was only 8, and he thought the guy had been "rehabilitated."

E) Gave money during the primary to ACORN, worked for ACORN as their attorney, and was a trainer for future community agitators, funneled money to ACORN thru the Woods Foundation.
But, is not a part of their current crminal activity?

Like I've said a dozen times. That's too many questionable people. Too many: "There, there's."
And I've just listed a partial history.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:11 PM:It's getting wild in here!
The post from "Reardon" (6:28pm) shows he is just chomping at the bit for a "gotcha" he can pounce on if it happens to have even a variant of the word "redistribution."
Calm down, "Reardon." You're using a single passing reference in a 7-year-old quote that has nothing to do with anything remotely similar to Marxist wealth redistribution. The explanations by "Apollo" (2:46 and 5:33pm) were exactly right, and reinforce a point I have frequently made: a truly free society must have equality of OPPORTUNITY (not outcomes).
If a person is born to poverty in a minority neighborhood surrounded by gang and drug violence, they simply do not start with equality of OPPORTUNITY -- there is no level playing field. A truly free society needs to at least make some effort to level the playing field.
"Apollo" makes the excellent point of taking it to the next step.
Not only did that innocent little baby have nothing to do with causing the inequality of OPPORTUNITY, s/he actually had the birthright of all the wealth her ancestors produced, but which someone else STOLE. Guess what, "Reardon," if you are in possession of STOLEN PROPERTY, taking it from you and returning it to the rightful owners, OR THEIR HEIRS, is not "redistribution."
You ask, "How many generations" back remedial action should go?
How about AT LEAST ONE!
Since the injustice first occurred, there has not been ONE SINGLE GENERATION in which the rightful heirs have had a shot at their own inheritance -- on the contrary, they have been forcibly denied voting rights, educational equity, and job opportunities (not outcomes), as well as inheriting a tradition of family structures that were forcibly and intentionally weakened.
No one is asking for reparations which, as Obama has noted and "Apollo" echoed, would be impractical and impossible. But, hard as it is for you to wrap your simplistic conservative mind around, there is a role for PUBLIC POLICY in remediating INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY (not outcome) which is NOT direct, Marxist redistribution, but in affording access to education and employment opportunities, leads to a result in which there is a NATURAL realignment (or "redistribution" if you prefer) of assets based on the inherent, or natural kind of individual inequality that Ayn Rand believed in, which conservative policies unnaturally suppress to the advantage of a dominant ruling class.
But, yeah, yeah, I know, "Reardon," you just want a "gotcha" where someone used the word "redistribution" so you can copy and paste it into a mass mailing to all the people on your e-mail list who humor you by pretending they give a damn about anything your write.
And, your way, it fits on a bumper sticker.

The post from "Pride is a wonderful thing" (6:50pm) makes assumptions about OBAMACAN that might be shocking news to her and her family. It also resorts to pure name-calling, reducing Obama and all those who support him as a candidate (nothing more) without offering a shred of supporting basis for this outlandish accusation. Oh well, so typical of conservatives, both as to jumping to conclusions, getting things wrong, and name-calling and attacks as substitutes for the fact they got no issues and no reasons to support their own nominee. Sad.

The post from "Ron" (7:26pm) continues his reliance on fabricated, false data. The Obama campaign has said NOTHING about "Joe the Plumber" except that a person in his hypothetical situation would do better under the Obama plan. Phony "Joe" approached Obama, as clearly shown in the video. Obama took the time to answer his question in lengthy, thoughtful detail. It was McCAIN who brought up Joe TWENTY-ONE TIMES in the debate and prompted inquiries from the MEDIA (not the Obama campaign) for which McCain even apologized. C'mon, "Ron," at least TRY to get some facts straight. Oh yeah, it's "Ron." Forget it.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:13 PM:About the mioney Wanda" Newsmax is reporting? Newsmax is reporting foreign donations? I checked out its website. It is not objective news organization but a portal to lie about Obama. It is just a portal for lies and distortions. LOL LMAO.
Face the truth. When a conservative like Chris Buckley, says he will vote for Obama, the truth about Newsmax is self evident.

Pobre Gente wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:19 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:52 PM: Are the rich paying for this war in Iraq? Will the future rich or their heirs be paying for this war? Will they be paying for the bail out? I rather doubt it? The tush is that the rich always find a way to keep and to increase their wealth while the middle class destroys and the poor get poorer. The rich rich pay 18% of their wealth. The Middle Class pays 28% while the poor just starve.

GAY MAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:20 PM:Gary has been there and done that ....

and he isn’t going to change, even though the whole word is changing around him. (5:22 PM) Eventually the world will leave Gary behind.

On the matter of society’s attitude about same-gender marriage we see enormous changes over the last 30 years, with a steady growth of tolerance and understanding. A look at the polls over those years reveals that in 1977 only 28% of Californians supported gay marriage; in 1977 that grew to 38%. By 2003 the number had expanded to 42%, and today the number is very nearly evenly divided. We shall know in one week what the public’s position is.


Gary seems to be unaware that there is an ever expanding consciousness and tolerance in California, both in the general public and in the judiciary and assembly. Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing the majority opinion, got it right in the May ruling: "An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:22 PM:Reardon[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:01 PM: Now we know it is Reardon that supplies
Rush with the talking points. You will be hearing from Keith soon. You are a card.

Equality wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:28 PM:Can someone answer these questions? I'm genuinely serious about these -
1) If Obama didn't like Wright's speeches, why would he sit in his Church listening to him for upwards of 20 years?
2) Why did Biden say that FDR was president and got on television in 1929 when that is historically inaccurate?
3) Why does Sarah Palin need 150k for family clothes when she is highly paid governor of the state of Alaska?
4) Why has McCain not explained his story in the savings and loan scandal he was embroiled in?
5) Why is there no investigation into Dodd and Frank, the guys in charge of Fannie and Freddie - they said nothing was wrong with the system a few years before it collapsed. Why would they lie?
6) Why do Republican senators keep giving gifts to their friends like Cunningham and Stephens?

Any and all answers would be appreciated to this voter who is struggling to find the best candidate. Thank you.

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:34 PM:Who actually reads sdraoul? (7:07 PM)

Months ago I used to read his comments occasionally. But his negative palaver quickly grew redundant, so I stopped reading them altogether.

I do read Wanda, however, because her writings are terse and often witty.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:53 PM:As i suspected, from the insult level, at least, DD Whiz and Apollo are the same.

OBAMACAN wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:57 PM:Ron at 8:08 p.m. simply distorts the truth. Point by point:
A) Wright is a mainstream Christian pastor. A thorough search of 20 years of sermons found four snippets that could be taken out of context to sound monstrous. It just happened they were on 4 dates in 20 years when Obama wasn't even present.

B) As a teen in Hawaii, he knew the long-since retired beach bum Frank Davis who, like many in the 1930's, had dabbled in socialism. He was an "interesting character" Obama knew, nothing remotely close to being a "mentor" except in Ron's imagination.

C) Saul Alinsky was a strategist, not an idealogue. He was long dead before Obama got involved in Chicago. This is truly a desperate stretch even for the inventive Ron.

D) Ron's obsession with the Ayers connection is more of his double-standard hypocrisy since this brief interaction in 1995 with an ALLEGED (never convicted) terrorist is dwarfed by the far more recent and more intimate connections between McCain and CONVICTED DOMESTIC TERRORIST G. Gordon Liddy, whose donations to McCain are many, many times more than Ayers single $200 donation in 1995.

E) Ron further demonstrates his double-standard hypocrisy, obsessing about a remote ACORN involvement 12 years ago but conveniently and repeatedly omitting McCain's praise-filled KEY NOTE ADDRESS to ACORN in February 2006.

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:00 PM:Ron doesn’t know ACORN is a PEANUT (6:46 PM)

ACORN is an extraordinary instrument of good for democracy. It’s great achievement is registering hundreds of thousands of Americas as voters, drawing them into the electoral process, one of the great pillars of our nation.

Not only has ACORN done this, but it has done it extraordinarily well, with stringent quality controls. It screened out all fraudulent and faulty registration forms, reporting them, as required by federal law, to the public voter registrars. It not only caught Mickey Mouse several times, but Donald Duck, and couple of quacks named Ron. They all got caught -- by ACORN. This was ATTEMPTED fraud. It did not succeed thanks to ACORN's alertness and quality controls.

But what did succeed was voter DISENFRANCHISEMENT, and that on an unbelievable scale.

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls in the last few weeks, or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.

In the swing state of Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State wiped out 19.4% - one in five - voter names in an unnoticed mass purge.

Now Mickey Mouse has never attempted to actually vote, Joe the Plumber may go to the polls on Tuesday and find his name has been purged. This is the real fraud.

So, as far as ACORN goes, it is a PEANUT. But purging of voter lists just before the election is the mammoth and egregious crime.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:00 PM:I get all my information from Rush or Hannity. Do you actually believe I can think for myself? However, they are allway correct.

THE JUDGE wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:17 PM:Proponents of Proposition 8 have offered several irrational arguments for their position.

They complain that "activist judges" overturned the will of the majority. But that's what judges are supposed to do when the majority seeks to deny the rights of a minority. REPEAT: THAT IS WHAT JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!

The notion that same-sex marriages somehow threaten the sanctity and strength of heterosexual marriages is simply absurd. Those who worry about the health of heterosexual marriages should focus their attention on divorce, which is the real threat to marriage.

No church will be compelled to perform same-sex marriages if Proposition 8 fails. We know this from over 50 years of experience after the legalization of mixed racial marriage. No church has ever been compelled to perform a marriage between a black and a white, and churches in the South are still the most segregated institutions. Go to a rural Southern Baptist Church on a Sunday morning, and count the number of blacks in the congregation. Then count the number of racially mixed couples in the congregation. Ain’t none.

Twit on the Loose wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:23 PM:Would love to let Reardon have it for the ridiculousness of the blogs at 8:53 and 9:00 p.m. but, sad to say, gotta be fair and acknowledge it looks like the work of the infamous "twit."

Reardon can stand or fall (mostly fall) on his own merits (or lack of them) - he doesn't (or we don't) need any help from the "twit."

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:25 PM:WANDA just asked why people rarely read the stuff posted by Reardon. Look at his post at 9:00 PM, and the question is fully answered.

That post, however, has one uncharacteristic good quality: BREVITY.

Feel Better wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:28 PM:DD Wiz
[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:11 PM: Hey Wiz, sounds like you had a bad case of "Bloggo Gas", there's no way you don't feel better now. Rude of you though not to warn the rest of us first!

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:39 PM:Reardon WAS Reardon at 8;53, but have you noticed that the twit usually posts late in the afternoon or evening when the babysitter is otherwise occupied?

David G wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:57 PM:If Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality then why did Lot bother to offer up his two virgin daughters to a mob of gay men? The answer is they were not gay! My suggestion is to forget what your preacher/priest/rabbi tell you and go research the bible for yourself.

Sally wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:58 PM:You may think the details of Sodom and Gomorrah are just a fable if you wish. Or you can use Google with the search term "sodom rediscovered" to see photos from a promising archeological dig. The destruction of these cities was obviously so thorough and complete that any evidence they existed is extremely hard to find. Fortunately, the Bible tells us what happened, and why.

gracchus wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:16 PM:thank you, reardon, for your recommendation that i take a remedial reading course at 7:04 p.m. perhaps you can suggest one and join me. where in my commentary of 6:07 did i question the attribution of your quote? i questioned the content.

inasmuch as you thought it proper to place the quote on this site, i think that i can fairly conclude that you agree with its contents. if you do agree, then i think that my questions that i posed to you are legitimate.

if you disagree with the contents of the quote, i can fairly ask why you chose to share it with us.

Dribble and Drabble wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:26 PM:What are all you bloggers going to do or write about once the election is over? Get a life perhaps or do something with lasting value?

Sally Gomorrah wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:38 PM:Sally at 9:58 p.m. cites the Bible. Fine if you believe that. Many Americans do. Many don't.
It is your RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
This has no role in civil matters.
Believe what you want, but let others follow their own beliefs.
We make PUBLIC POLICY based on the Constitution, not the Bible.

gracchus wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:43 PM:i am delighted to know, ron, that i can give you a laugh, as you claim, in your communique of 7:04 p.m., that i did. humor leavens the dreariness of life.

i can think of no reason why those at the topof the economic ladder should not pay more taxes to support the society in which they live and enjoy the comforts which their money allows them. you have offered no explanation why they should not.

if our society depended upon the tax contributions of the lower income groups, do you really think that we could maintain our current economic, social, and cultural level?

i suppose that we could abolish graduated tax levels, and perhaps all income tax. then the entire nation could enjoy the same types of roads, bridges, water distribution, sewage treatment, educational institutions,and police and military that developing countries have.

i ask you, ron, why shouldn't those upper income taxpayers say thank you to the government that provides them the security of their life and property and a decent society in which to enjoy them?

reasons for voter purge wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:49 PM:neither u or i know why. But usually its due to fraudulent registrations, ineligible voters, people who moved, people who died.

SOLON wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:17 PM:Should a church define “marriage” for all of America?

Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution by adding the words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That's the same language that was enacted into state law by passage of Proposition 22 in March 2000 and the same language deemed discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May of this year.

If PROP 8 passes, you can be sure it will be challenged in the CA Supreme Court again. Why? Because it is a flagrant violation of justice and equality, as just said.

And if it fails, The Mormon Church will continue its crusade to define marriage for the rest of America. A hundred years ago the Mormon Church would have imposed quite a different definition. But even the Mormon Church evolves in a hundred year’s time. Let’s hope they don’t take 100 years to see the light of justice this time.

jvc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:26 PM:Speaking of Obama, I think our african-
American brethren have been so
suppressed and relegated to nothingness that now that they are gaining prominence and we are noticing them,
they are showing themselves to be a real cool people! God Bless them!

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:39 AM:Well, "Dribble and Drabble" at 10:26PM,
there are always people like "Ron" and "sdraoul" and those who post for Prop 8, GWB and McGWB who see demons around every corner and in every possible hiding place. Many Republicans have the mindset that we must have something to fear because if we have something to fear, there will come a reason to use our military and if we use our military we bolster the economy. Some people who admit to making part of their living selling to or manufacturing for the military have a vested interest in keeping our military involved elsewhere, in some conflict, forever and ever.
To a warmonger, every situation looks like a provocation.
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Oct 29, 2008 5:18 AM:Re: The Judge,

Exactly. I would very much like to see proof from the "Yes on 8, Yes on Segregation" crowd that churches are being sued for not performing inter-racial or inter-faith marriages.

Apollo wrote on Oct 29, 2008 6:24 AM:Re: Reardon (8:53 p.m.)
Reardon tries to prove the old adage, "The best defense is a good offense."
Reardon's blog is brief because it lacks substance. It is simply a hollow insult and hypocrtical to boot, because it complains about insults but can't find a single supportive example. Sad.

Reardon was the one who introduced the idea of "redistributive" social justice by citing a seven-year-old quote from Obama out of context that clearly deals with positive, constructive approaches to dealing with correcting long-standing injustices consequential to slavery.
When others respond to him with points he is utterly unable to address rationally, Reardon lashes out an accuses them of unspecified "insults" (no examples provided) and yet again tries to make it personal.
Pot, meet kettle.

OK, Reardon, let's try this again: YOU brought this up.
YOU tell us what is the appropriate role of public policy in correcting injustices forced on others totally against their will without even a hint of buying into any social contract.
YOU asked the question, YOU answer it.
How far back should we go to correct the first redistribution of wealth?
Or is it your position that one class can, with official assent of government, TAKE the wealth created by others (without even the pretense of a social contract) and then there is never, ever any future remedy to correct either the injustice or the consequences of the injustice?
Is that too complicated for you?
Your own question, thought all the way through?
Or are you going to lash out again and complain about "insults" even though you can't cite one single example?
Is your definition of "insult" when someone asks a hard question you can't answer?
Is that your way of dodging your own question?
Is accusing people of unspecified insults (no example) indicative of projecting onto others your own worst outbursts - what you do when you are confronted with rational discourse that challenges your shallow ideology?

Wanda wrote on Oct 29, 2008 6:44 AM:Actually, SOLON, at 9:25 PM, I do read Reardon's posts. Sometimes even agree with them. More often, spent a whole lot of time trying to figure out why I don't agree with them.

Don't read the pompous blowhards' posts as they tend to waste a lot of words, without actually saying anything.

Wanda wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:09 AM:For example:

sdraoul: (insert insipid drivel and bogus facts)That's the truth! Because I say it is! Anybody who doesn't agree is stupid!

Ron: Let me educate you (insert insipid drivel ad nauseam)

Who needs this?

Reardon wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:14 AM:Wanda it seems you do post the pompous blowhard's posts. I have to go turn on my radio to figure out what to write today. Stay tuned for my meaningless dribble.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:28 AM:Sally[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:58 PM:
There is absolutely no evidence that the dig and story in the bible are related. Prove that they are. Notice that I said prove not just make a statement.

Notice to all wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:49 AM:This is a comments section is on the internet that allows people to post their personal opinions anonymously.

Persons demanding that a commentor prove the worth of their opinons often makes that person out to be more delusional than the original poster.

IE: Reardon, who when called out, often defends his "dribble" by posting quotes from his weeks old comments, like any of us care to be rminded of them.

Wanda wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:50 AM:Have you noticed yet, Gotta Wonder, at 7:28 AM, that Sally believes, and won't let go of, the "fact" that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because 100% of the population of both these towns was homosexual? Even Bob, at 9:17 AM had a more believable explanation than this.

Other than providing endless entertainment for the rest of us (and don't think we aren't grateful) why do you bother argueing with a TRUE BELIEVER?

gracchus wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:10 AM:i am very glad to know from your communique of 7:52 p.m., ron, that i can elicit a laugh from you. laughter does much to leaven the dreariness of the world.

in this communique you have cited many figures to show that higher income groups in our society pay more taxes than lower income goups. but i ask you, ron, and you never answer, could our nation exist in its present form if this were not the case?

perhaps you would like to have a flat income tax and more sales taxes to support the government. in this case lower income groups would bear the heaviest tax burdens, and the government would probably not have the necessary revenues to pay for the responsibilities that we expect it to bear.

with its reduced revenues and its consequentially reduced services, then the united states, too, might be able to enjoy the same sort of roads, bridges, water distribution, sewage treatment, educational system, and police and military that developing countries do.

you have never explained, ron, why the higher income earners should not pay more taxes to support a civilized society. they as much as anyone should say thanks for having a government that gives them security and due process in their persons and property. certainly they have much more at stake in a well-ordered state from a materialistic perspective than low income earners.

i note that the more militaristic people often assert "freedom isn't free." that cliche is even more applicable to a fair tax policy. therefore, ron, why shouldn't high income earners pay more for the privilege of living in a civilized, secure society?

Reardon wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:19 AM:Apollo: I'll make it short enough for even you to understand it: The proper response to a bad policy is to change it.

Treat all individuals equally under the law.

The proper response to slavery was to end it, and provide immediate restitution.

That the then existing government failed to properly recompense the injured does not continue to follow 150 years later unto the seventh and later generations.

Developers Slam Esther Sanchez wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:06 AM:Is everyone ASLEEP? The 1000 spot TV ads were PAID FOR BY CALIFORNIA DEVELOPERS! They gave the airport association $20,000 toward this $27,000 television commercial. Hello. Read the UT article. The airport reps could not site back up ANY claims in this commercial. I watched the ad and wanted to know for myself what the specific issues were. There aren't any.

By the way, 27,000 for 1000 ads??? Do the math, it doesn't add up. Commercials aren't that cheap ($27 bucks each). There was way more money spent on this "factless" TV ad that wasn't legally reported. Why do the developers want Sanchez out so bad? Is it because they have bought and paid for Feller, Gibson and Chavez. Looks like they've out spent the Unions by A LOT!

Jennifer wrote on Oct 29, 2008 2:28 PM:I cannot believe this statement from a prop 8 supporter, "Being gay is a lifestyle choice. People have the right to make that choice..."

It is not a choice. People are who they are. I am a teacher and have taught preschool and elementary school. I have worked with children as young as 3 and they have displayed certain charactersitcs that made me think they will be gay when they are adults. And guess what? As these children grew older, they have come back to my school to visit and they are gay. Did the 3 year old make that choice? Does an adult make the CHOICE? A sister of a gay man once told me that she always knew her brother would be gay. He did not make a choice. She told me, "Would he really make the choice to live a life where people despised his lifestyle? Would he choose to be discriminated against?" It is not a choice.

And by the way those of you who support prop 8, have you ever spoken to a gay person? I mean a real conversation. And you LISTENED? I spoke with a woman the other day who was desperate and sad. She recently married her partner of 17 years and now people want to OVERTURN it? It was sad. Leave these people alone...LET THEM MARRY! IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU!! I am straight, married and have three girls. I don't want them to grow up discriminating against people because of who they are. Does that mean I have no morals. Come on people, have a heart. Don't be so closed minded. PLEASE VOTE NO ON 8.

Mike wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:34 PM:So all these people who say they don't want their freedom of religion taken away......what do you do when your children are taught evolution instead of creation in school? Focus on yourselves and stop trying to control others. It's called communism. Why do others spend so much energy telling others what they can't do? If they spent the same amount of energy on being good people themselves our country would be much improved.