Oh brother wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:38 AM:A man tells us he believes in UFOs and his proof is in the Bible.
If there ever were a fully documented case of UFOs proven beyond doubt it would shatter the underlying premise of all religions.
So to get around that inconvenient fact he puts angels in the cockpit. Did evolution take away their wings?

Yes On Eight wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:01 AM:The fact that the liberal California Teachers Union liberal leaders have given over a million dollars of union funds to defeat proposition 8 is sufficent reason to vote YES ON 8.

I heard it from someone who knew someone wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:01 AM:Joseph Hemond writes that it says in the Bible Moses saw a UFO so it must be true.
Has anybody else ever wondered why reports of raising of the dead, great floods, virgin births and other such miracles stopped occurring at the precise time we began the contemporaneous recording of history?

Vote Yes On Eight wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:10 AM:The fact that this so called right for homosexual marraige was derived from a legally flawed decision made by only four of the seven state supreme court judges is sufficient reason to vote Yes on proposition 8, if only to show those judges that they shoul;d not be trying to make the laws that so drastically change society. If it were really a right in the constitution it should have been a seven to zero court decision. That right does NOT exist in the constitution and that faulty decision must be overturned. Proposition 8 can do that. Vote Yes on 8.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:51 AM:Wikipedia Nation
The post from "Obama Nation" (11/1 - 4:39pm) continues the distortion about the "Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING!
Well, at least not in the actual Communist Manifesto.
It has come to exist by virtue of being widely circulated as the "urban legend" of right-wing web sites, so I guess this made up version merits an entry in Wikipedia.
In fact, "Obama Nation" cites as his source Wikipedia.
Does he understand what Wikipedia is?
It is edited by READERS.
And certainly there are enough of them who have been exposed to this right-wing propaganda that someone has posted this distortion.
Wikipedia is often a valuable reference, especially on factual matters that are not controversial, but on subjects where there is widespread false information it is likely that such false information can get into the page.

Instead of looking to a reader-edited work which is well known for errors, the answer is really quite simple.

Don't go to Wikipedia, go to the Communist Manfisto itself.
It is easy to find with a simple Google search. The full text is quite short. Many describe it as a "pamphlet." It is in the public domain, and is presented on many web page.
Find it on any of those page.
Do a search on the word "planks."
NOTHING COMES UP!

Yes, AS I MENTIONED in my post (10/31 - 7:00pm):
There is a point, in the middle of Part II, suggesting some RECOMMENDED transitional steps as guidelines in the process of moving toward Communism, though Marx emphasizes that the specific details will vary according to needs of the specific place and time.
They are not foundational to or even a part of the final vision of Communism, not even part of it, but rather temporary interim compromises.
They are not set apart from the rest of the text.
They do not have a different type face.
They are not identified or set apart by a separate subtitle.
They are not numbered.
They are never called the "Ten Planks" -- someone just made that up.

Someone just picked ten consecutive paragraphs and called them the "Ten Planks." There are more than ten proposals, since many of the paragraphs contain multiple proposals.
The portion that "Obama Nation" copied and pasted from Wikipedia is very condensed, shortened, and conveniently numbered. THIS IS NOT FROM THE ORIGINAL.
And I further notice that while he did include the part about promoting public education and ending child labor, he left off the part about ENDING SLAVERY (which was still legal in both the U.S. and England when Marx wrote this in 1848). Hmmm, I wonder why these partisan propaganditsts left off that one.
Well, go to the original, NOT WIKIPEDIA, and you can see it for yourself.
So I'm going to ask again, as I did in my original 7:00pm post on 10/31, does "Obama Nation," along with "hardtack" (10/31 - 5:55pm) and the 10/31 letter from Jack Fulton, agree with Marx about ending slavery?
If so, if they agree with any suggestion from Marx, no matter how many others they oppose, does that make them Marxists?

It turns out that if you go to the actual FACTS in the original source, you find that "Obama Nation" is as fraudulent as the propaganda hit piece book of the same name.
But again, this is all that the conservatives have.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Here to help wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:58 AM:Well, John Jr., there are 250 million vehicles in the U.S. Slightly more than your assumption of 30 million and in fact there are more vehicles than drivers.
Gas mileage averages 17.1 mpg. We drive about 250 billion miles per year. There are slightly over 200 million licensed drivers in the U.S.
A little research along with your little arithmetic would’ve been helpful. Recalculate and get back to us.
Or just figure 15 bucks a week. Which is less than a lot of folks bottled water or coffee outlay.

El Guero wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:38 AM:Bravo, Donald Robb. The checkpoints should not end until all the illegals are gone, the ACLU be damned.

jvc wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:38 AM:Bravo Richard Rider! It is okay that
Johnny and Jane can't read just as long as they are not truant!Hypocrites!

Wanda wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:32 AM:Does NCT intend to actually post comments today?

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:10 AM:Well, "Wanda" at 6:32AM,
like Mrs. Alf sometimes says teasingly "Maybe I will and maybe U won't!"
Who knows?
Enjoy it while you can!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:24 AM:Well, "Yes On Eight" at 4:01AM,
it is your right to want to discriminate.
It's my right to disagree and to point out that the discrimination that you advocate is un-Contsitutional.

ALSO

Well, "Vote Yes On Eight" at 4:10AM,
we agree on one thing -
it should have been 7 to 0 instead of 4 to 3, those 3 dissenting Justices did not rule in favor of the Constitution.
You have your opinion and I have mine.
It is just as wrong to codify religious views into law as it is to have law codifying religion.
I believe that the First Amendment covers that ground fairly well.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:26 AM:I almost forgot -
Vote!
Vote not to discriminate!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

Roger wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:28 AM:Not real sure what the point of L. Bertrand Halsema's letter was, but since he brought up Civil War reenactments, lets discuss these.

There weren't all that many battles in the Civil War. Mostly what troops did was sit around, bored to tears, in camps. 75% of deaths were not from combat, but from poor sanitary conditions in the camps. So, in the interest of historical accuracy, how about the reenactors dig a latrine, hang around for weeks, if not months, at a time, get sick and die?

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:30 AM:Have you ever read a more confusing letter than L. Bertrand Halsema's today?

I mean... it has so many misstatements and contradictions within it, it's almost laughable.
I know som eof you lib's understand what he's saying. Gotta be a lib...

You may not like that part of our history, but it is important to remember the history, so as not to repeat the history. And given the fact that most school kid's today couldn't tell you the North from the South during the Civil War, more displays beats not displaying. In my opinion.

But this part really, really get under my skin: "Communists, socialists, even if problematically portrayed, could never be as micro-fractionally as harmful to democracy as Confederate-pushed racism. The 600,000 Civil War deaths rot still at the doorsteps of such un-Americans."

Like I said, pure ignorance. Communists, socialists have killed millions. Yet this person seems to think, believe they are "problematically portrayed?" Or "could never be as micro-fractionally as harmful to democracy as Confederate-pushed racism?"
Huh?
I think the math is rather easy, don't you?

But then, he says this: "I'm from the Deep South...Yes, I'm fully Northern European...?"
Again, Huh?
Buddy.. make up your mind.

But this next statement is one, I am positive, only a Liberal could understand.
"The Supreme Court and Bush administrations could never have been enabled to wipe out the remnants of American democracy without racism. The Democratic Party collaborated with all who support racism by not resisting Republican and Supreme Court mistreatment. Our major problems stem from racist attitudes embodied in misleaders, neo-Confederates and their supporters."

Huh?

And I'll bet $100 bucks, this clown is voting for the mentee of the wrong Rev. Wright.
` white folks greed, runs a world in need.
` Barack understands what it's like to be in a country run by rich white people.
` and if you try to expose what they are doing, they.. not only will attack you, in the US of KKK-A..
` I am sick and tired of negro's who just do not get-it.

You mean like that kind of racism?

Fred wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:35 AM:The McCain / Palin campaign still hasn't released the figures on expendature for Joe the Plumber's wardrobe!

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:44 AM:Doggone typo in my 8:10AM post,
it SHOULD BE -
"like Mrs. Alf sometimes says teasingly "Maybe I will and maybe I won't!".
My bad, although it can work either way.
Regards, Alf.

Trickle down doesnt wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:48 AM:Since Ace's posts, there's been a renewed effort here to show that Republican economic philosophy, that subsidizing the rich helps everyone, is a must. This is a logical theory, but it's based on the idea that the rich invest their wealth in businesses, that these businesses are in the US, and that they will share their wealth through the jobs they create. Logical as this is, in reality it just seems not to happen. Under Bush, from day one, the size of population in poverty has increased; the middle class has shrunk; and the wealthy have gotten fabulously wealthy. For the sake of comparison: form about the 1890's to the 1970's in the US, corporate execs made about 20 times the salary of their average workers. Today this number is 400 times the average worker. (In places like Japan and Germany, today, that figure is about 11 or 12 times the average.) Jobs have increased, but not in the US: the corporations, run by people like Ace, take their business elsewhere, get even richer, and then blame American workers (and their unions) for being too greedy. This is the story of the US economy under Reagan and Bush economic policies, not theory, just the facts. And now the same unpatriotic greedheads are telling us that if we dare vote for a change in this policy, we will be at fault for creating more poor. Does it get any more nervy than this? Vote Obama.

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:52 AM:Ever notice how, when you attribute socialists ideals to those who claim to be Democrats, but proudly espouse socialists ideas, they then get very angry, and defensive?
Why? If "spreading the wealth around" is a good thing, why run from it?
Just because Karl Marx espoused this ideal, is no reason to get all worked up, and emotional about it. Just, own up to it, realize you've changed your mind, and have moved way.. WAY beyond all democratic principals our Founders set our feet upon, and tell it like it is?

I mean..
It's really gettin silly out there, when your own candidate says he want's to "fundamentally change" how our system works. Just go with it. No reason to hide behind the symbolism of "being a Democrat", when all signs points to Socialist.

I am simply astonished by those who proudly claim they are redistributionists, yet get all angry about being called what they are: Socialists.

And let's be clear here, as to what exactly we are talking about. We are NOT talking about redistributing income, we are fundamentally talking about the redistribution of "Wealth."
Which is a Marxist principal.

When you are talking about taxing unearned income inside the tax brackets for the first time in history, your talking fundamental change. Radical Change, actually.
When you are openly talking about taking from one economic group to then give to another lower economic group, your talking a fundamental change. A Radical Change in the purpose of taxation.
When your talking about "making too much money" as being "selfish", your talking fundamental change. Radical Change.
NObama has set the economic bar.
If you make over $250K, maybe $200K, NOBiden says $150K, and Richardson says $120K... then your now selfish, and an enemy of the state. If you make that much money, you obviously, in their opinion, hate your fellow man.
But, if you make less than $250K, $200K, $150K or $120K....
Your noble. And we are here to help you.
Those above, your on your own.

vote yes on 8 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:01 AM:Vote yes on 8! It does not discriminate!



Vote yes on 4 too, and no on all the bonds.

Did you know liberals.. wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:03 AM:That the Democrat Congress approval rating is even lower than Bush? And you want more Democrats? Nice logic there. I am voting McCain and Rep Congress.

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:12 AM:Interesting question there by Helen Strand.

"Where did the trillions of dollars go?"

I'm not entirely sure where every dollar went, but here's a few people you could ask:

Franklin Raines
Jim Johnson
Jamie Gorelick
Chris Dodd
Kent Conrad
Barack Obama
Barney Frank

That's just a small list to get you started.

Didnt Anyone Pay Attention wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:25 AM:Those who say Obama can't make up his mind did not pay attention, 250k for FAMILIES, 200k for COUPLES, 120k for INDIVIDUALS.

OBAMACAN wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:33 AM:Once again the blog editors skip my blogs which violates no rules, but allow Ron to post THREE posts, one about the same time as I posted this and two others that are later.
North County Times delays liberals blogs but gives special favoritism to certain conservative bloggers who go along with the endorsements they make AFTER closing the deadline for letters to the editor so readers can't respond in print.

Submitted at 8:33 a.m.; resubmitted 9:33 a.m.

A person asks "Questions" at 1:25 a.m. in yesterday's 11-1-08 blogs about Obama's aunt who is in this country illegally.
Sorry, but once again you are trying to make connections out of relationships that are distant and remote because you can find no flaw or fault in the man OBAMA himself.

Here is the facts about Obama's half-aunt Zeituni.
She is the half-sister of the father he never knew and who he only met once at the age of ten.
Obama did not personally know this Auntie Zeituni.
Obama did not know she was even in the United States.
He did meet her ONE TIME on a trip to Kenya in search of the family of his late father that he never knew. He describes this on page 164 of his book, "Dreams from my Father."
He mentions her briefly and in passing ONE TIME, along with the many other curious relatives in Kenya that he met on his trip.
There were a lot of people that he met.
She was one of them.
He did not know her.

Now, do you want to talk about health care proposals?
Tax cuts for 95% of Americans - the middle class?
Ending the war in Iraq?
Real energy independence?
Economic policies NOT written by Phil "nation of whiners" Gramm who:
Wrote the law that deregulated the financial industry. [Gramm-Leach-Bliley]
Co-sponsored the bill that deregulated oil speculation in the futures markets AND legalized credit default swaps as well as providing the "Enron Loophole"? [Commodity Futures Modernization Act]

Oh, OK, I see why you don't want to discuss these issues.

Von Dairy Queen wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:35 AM:Joseph Hemond's letter is all wrong!

Here at the prestigious Raoul Sinverguenza Institute we've completed a thorough investigation of UFO's and found these are actually aliens being imported bt ACORN to vote for Obama.

That's the truth!

Because I say it is!

To undecided voters wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:37 AM:Three words: President Sarah Palin.

But vote yes on 8 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:41 AM:Proposition 8 passes and then 2 straight people can get married and their marriage is recognized throughout the entire United States. 2 gay people can enter into a domestic partnership and that partnership in not recognized in many other states.
That is discrimination.VOTE NO ON 8!

Prop 8 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:54 AM:At one time, the Japanese were ALL gathered and held at internment camps.
Blacks had limited civil rights.
Women couldn't vote.
Latinos and Whites, Blacks and Whites, almost anything and Whites, were not allowed to marry.
IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW.
Fortunately, morality and the idea of JUSTICE FOR ALL began to take more hold and civil rights were granted to many sectors of our population that had been previously ignored.
Prop 8 is just another legal hurdle to overcome to grant CIVIL RIGHTS to another segment of our population that are currently being violated.
To those people with "Yes on 8" signs in their yards and bumper stickers on their cars, I just want to ask you... what are you afraid of? What exactly are you against, and further - why does it bother YOU? You have the freedom to marry, Prop 8 does not affect YOUR life, so why do you care?

It is only a matter of EQUALITY for all.

I am hetero, married, and a parent. I truly believe that ANYONE should have the right to marry whomever they choose.

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:05 AM:What I try to do on any given day is to dispell the myth's, and serve up fact's.

It's often a difficult task, because most people do not know history, or enough history over time, to realize the slow creep of liberal institutionalism has brought us to our knee's finanicially, and not unbridled greed. Capitalism has gotten a bad rap, when the fact's are, capitalism has supported this massive welfare state.

I mean.... Think about it.
In your own personally life, does your debt grow very, very quickly, almost immediately? Or has it grown more slowly, over time, failed attempts at paying down debt, more promises, and dismal results.

When you view the history of our Social Welfare State since the time of the New Deal, you begin to notice a few things.
The main point is, it's always grown, never shrunk. More, and more programs have been added, people added, taxes raised.. most of the time.
Social Security was probably the greatest single ploy by FDR to seal up Democrat majorities for the foreseeable future. It was also, a second line of taxation. And very purposely a gap in the law to allow the Congress to borrow the known surpluses. Now, you and I are punished, by taxation, for borrowing against our retirement accounts.
But, Congress is not. They are allowed to steal surpluses to use for today's wants, needs, whatever they decide to.
The demographics being what they are, that ponzi scheme can only last so long. Hence, the increases in social Security taxes, from what was 1% to now 12.4% A Life Time's worth of Wages.
At the time of JFK, our total Welfare State spending was a mere 20%. Today, that number is 60%. All mandatory spending. People pay into these programs, and people demand they be paid for paying into them.
That is the Box, the political box as begun, as set-up by FDR.
All Congress's, and all President's have had to live inside the FDR economic box. The creeping increases in the size of that economic box is going to crush us. The sheer magnatude of the pay-off's, we can not manage. We Can't.
So, instead of actually cutting the size of government, which is the sole reason we are broke, they'll add MORE government.
And that's the fundamental change we need. Cause adding more government, on top of the huge government we already have, is just more broken thinking.
But, this is the reality we find ourselves in. For decades, Liberals have preached that your own life depends upon what the government can do for you, personally.
But, what they have not really wanted to talk about.. that is, until now, is what the government has to do to someone else in order to do for you.
Today, it's rich against poor.
Come their healthcare plan, I guarantee you, it will be young vs. old, kidney against heart patients.
Cause that's just the way they roll.

Fuzzy Math wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:08 AM:The blog from "Didn't Anyone Pay Attention" at 9:25 a.m. seems to be real confused by big numbers.
I'm going to be real nice and help this person out:

$250,000 the level at which top marginal rates begin to increse (only on the portion of income above $250,000. No one below this amount will see any tax increased from any form of tax.

$200,000 the level below which taxes will not only not be raised, but will be cut.

$150,000 was a hypothetical example used in an illustration using a hypothetical middle class taxpayer, by Joe Biden.

You'll be a lot less confused if you actually do PAY ATTENTION about what the numbers are really referring to.

And Ron at 9:12 a.m. asks where the trillions of dollars went.
Here are a few more you could ask:
HALLIBURTION
WALL STREET CEO's
OIL COMPANY CEO's (and Bush/McCain Buddies)
Those who made out like bandits (litterally) on credit default swaps that YOU get stuck for

Sally wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:15 AM:The reason to vote Yes on 8 is because of the results seen in other states that have already changed their definition of "marriage" to recognize homosexual pairings.

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:20 AM:This is really, really beginning to get comical....

As the weeks, and months have gone by.. everytime another NObama alliance has been exposed, "he never knew."

Have you noticed that? LOL
Cause I sure have. Every single time a very questionable associate of NObama came out, He never knew. He just didn't know they were that Radical...
He just didn't know they felt that way...
He just didn't know how they were associated with other known radicals...
He Just Didn't Know.

Today, we have NOBAMACAN't @9:33 AM making yet another excuse about NObama's illegal alien Aunt.
He just didn't know.

Ayers he didn't know.
Wright he didn't know.
Gerald Kellman He didn't know.
Carl Davidson he didn't know.
Father Phlager he didn't know.

He just didn't know.

Now, he dind't know about his Aunt living in a Boston public housing, while on the run from immigration.
He didn't know about his own half-brother living on $12 bucks a year.

He just didn't know.

Sounds to some of us, like willful blindness.

Oh, and P.S.
If you need some help understanding the peer-review process... I'm here to help.

Lighten up DD wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:23 AM:I actually have a copy of the Communist Manifesto. I also did a Google search. In both my copy and the copy I found under Google Books the paragraphs in question are numbered 1-10.
So I'd have to say your antagonist is not just making things up.
In fact, every copy I've found so far on .edu websites also has them numbered. Although most call them the 10 points.
Maybe Marx didn't number the original with his own hand, but this is what's out in the public domain.
You are correct, however, in that the recommendations are not absolute. They are prefaced by:
“These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.”
The most advanced has the most inequality therefore more radical reforms are needed, I suppose.
The problem is: if the proletariat comes together to sweep the bourgeoisie from power, the proletariat becomes the new ruling class until someone sweeps them away. And so on. Communism cannot sustain itself without someone in charge. Therefore it fails every time.
The good thing about democracy is that even though power is invested in a few, it does change hands now and again. As we shall see in full effect next Tuesday.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:29 AM:Two days before the election and White Catholics have returned to McCain. White women favor McCain.

Blacks are for Obama almost unanimously.

Who says race doesn't matter in the election?

If McCain carries Pennsylvania he wins. If that happens will the predictions and demands of many black writers come true -- race riots?

Should non-black voters worry about how blacks will react if Obama loses; should they cower in the face of threats?

Are the undecideds breaking big time for McCain?

Floyd wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:35 AM:I do believe DD Wiz needs a vacation. He denies the ten planks of the communist manifesto because the word "plank" does not appear in the document. A week at Mount Shasta would be relatively inexpensive and invigorating. Just to be on the safe side, be sure to avoid beaches and other waterfronts because they might have "boardwalks".

Query wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:39 AM:To "Prop 8":

Do you believe in that which you wrote?

You wrote: "It is only a matter of EQUALITY for all.

I am hetero, married, and a parent. I truly believe that ANYONE should have the right to marry whomever they choose."

So my question: Does that mean you support polygamy?

A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.

It will really hit the fan wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:42 AM:As soon as a gay couple legally married in California moves to another state and sues for recognition, or a gay couple in California sues the IRS to be able to check the "married" box on their 1040.
In the first case the U.S. Supremes will have their hands full with the full faith and credit clause in Article IV. Let Scalia try to wriggle out of that one.
The second case is a bit murkier. An Equal Protection arguement, I suppose. Could go either way.

Wow wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:48 AM:Hedidn'tknObama?

Fcoal Point wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:19 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:29 AM:
I am a white Catholic. I shall vote for Obama due to alternative.

Ms M wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:21 AM:sdraoul
[-] wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:29 AM:...it's going to take more than "white catholics" to pull this out for McCain.

Yes, blacks are voting for Obama - when has the majority of blacks not voted for the democratic candidate?

My question for the few blacks that are voting for a candidate who's party has shown it's true colors - why THE HECK COULD you vote for McCain? The racist things the cons have done to try and win this election should have blacks voting 100% for Obama - and the majority of decent Americans whatever their color may be. If anything McCain has shown us hown to divide this country even more! PATHETIC!

Didnt Anyone Pay Attention wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:31 AM:Thanks Fuzzy Math. I knew that even if I got something wrong, someone would correct me and at the same time debunk those people who claim that Obama keeps changing the numbers.

jvc wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:36 AM:With these elections, let us hope that the Republican party no longer is the party of inclusiveness!

Question for Sally wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:37 AM:You say, "The reason to vote Yes on 8 is because of the results seen in other states that have already changed their definition of "marriage" to recognize homosexual pairings." Maybe I missed something, but what ARE these results, specifically? I know that since gay marriage has been allowed in California, making us, for a brief time, one of those states you talk about, I have noticed exactly nothing to have happened as a result, other than the provoking of a furious and well-funded campaign to undo this. My straight marriage, and that of all those I know, are fine. The kids are fine. There is no increase in homosexuality. I see nothing changed other than your rabid insistance that it be undone. What have I missed, specifically?

What if... wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:43 AM:I know that the science of sexual orientation leans pretty heavily towards saying that the vast majority of homosexuals do not choose this orientation. But many people are unconvinced. Let me ask you something: what if, at some future point all the science becomes more and more conclusive and proves that for almost all homosexuals, it's not a choice. Would any of you "Yes on 8" people change your mind at all? I suspect not, but I wonder. Certainly if this were found to be the case, it would make the Constitution versus the "Religion" argument more stark: the science would prove that orientation is indeed like skin color or gender, so the argument that it should be protected from discrimination would become much stronger. The Yes on 8-type people would then have to make a clear choice: when deciding on the law of the land, do you favor the Constitution or your sexual values? I believe that enough of the science is in on this matter, and I also believe that there is no reason to discriminate even if it were a choice. But for argument's sake, what would you do if the science proved it, and your personal beliefs about sex were pitted directly against the US Constitution. Which side would you be on?

Shame on us wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:50 AM:Congratulations, America, you've done it again!

I'm really not sure who will win the Presidency, and frankly, was brought up to graciously accept the outcome of elections with the optimistic understanding that anyone subjecting themselves to the rigor of a campaign, and willing to take on an often thankless job is not out to do harm to the nation, but to serve.

But, those days are over. Political campaigns today, especially this one, leaves the reputation of the loser fatally damaged, and even the winner comes off as little more than "damaged goods".

And lets not put all the blame on the campaign workers, the media, or the candidates themselves.

We are equally, if not more, to blame.

Just read back at the disgusting discourse that has filled this page, day after day for over a year.

Its no wonder both sides felt no hesitation to take cheap shots during the course of the campaign.

We seem to thrive on negativity, and yes, even hate.

These opinions will go unnoticed at best, at worst they will be called "bias" and written from the prespective of the other party of whoever happens to be reading it.

When the 3rd week of January rolls around, perhaps by then we should remember we are not residents of Red states or Blue states, but loyal citizens of the United States.

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:57 AM:One piece of good advice whenever you attend a NObama rally, or watch a NObama infomercial, is to...
leave your mind at the door.

Just like my good buddy "Fuzzy Math."

This is a prime example of "wanting to believe", which is exactly what every good politician wants from you.

Now, I know NObama ain't Bill Clinton, but Clinton never had a $10 trillion debt, neither. And quickly...
We all know the history...
{in my best Billy Bob Clinton voice}:
"You know.. when I told you I was going to give you'all a tax cut, well.. that was before I ever got in here. But I just want you'all to know, I'm working hard for you, the American people, I've never worked as hard as I've done right now, but there's just no way... no way.. I can do it."

NObama has now got a $10 tril, plus a medicare crisis nobody's wanted to talk about, plus social security.
Now we all know what his solution is, it is the exact smae solution Nancy & Harry have in mind.
They take ALL the money, and they will take care of us farm animals.
Cause we don't know any better.
That's pretty close to it, although...
not in their words. But, that about sizes it up.

I harken back to a couple of liberal politicians who basically told some leftists questioning why they never got us out of Iraq. In fact, I think they refered to them as "kooky" or "kook's", and said they needed to feed them that nonsense, so they COULD get elected.
They knew they had no chance of ever suceeding. Same too with NObama.

So, if you want to believe he'll only tax those over $250,000, be my guest.
You do not know how the economy works.
Which is why most of us just laugh when we hear all this harping over Corporations. Corporations do NOT pay their own taxes, YOU DO thru increased prices.
But, this just confirms some will live in their own little worlds.
You don't understand Synergism between the consumer, the seller, the naufacturer, and government as the middle man.
You just don't.
For the Utopian, they don't need it all to make sense, they just need...
a "Dear Leader" to tell them how it shall be. And now, they have one.
Or "The One", which ever makes your kite fly.

Ms M wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:00 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:20 AM:This is really, really beginning to get comical....Ron, what's comical is you posting, day after day, after day, after day (and probalby daily through 1/16) the same tired old lists of nothing. PATHETIC!

Looking Glass wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:12 PM:Shame on us[-] wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:50 AM: Well said.

Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:15 PM:Hey "Floyd" @10:35 AM,

Welcome to the wonderful word of Lib-eze, that notion that somehow we are all saying the same things, but..
We Aren't.

The terms, definitions used by
"Wiz" @ anytime are demonstratively different than terms or phrases you or I would use.
So, you gotta be careful with people like "The Wiz", cause it may all sound good, but the "meaning" is entirely different.
Like I've attempted to point out about taxing unearned income inside the tax brackets, totally radical in nature. Never tried, never spoken of...
except by those identified as communists.
Now... were supposed to believe it's
a long standing tradtional Demcrat party plank. No way, Jose. RADICAL.

And notice, if you will...
Wiz never asserts the themes of the 10 planks don't exist. He asserts "it's not written that way."
It's a debate dodge, and slight of hand to avoid answering the question directly.
The Theme's of the Communist Manifesto, can be broken down into 10 Planks. As they have by Communist leaders of old.
This kind of trickery, is as old as the Soviet Union.

They will assert it is "propaganda" and
"distortion", but it is absolutely true regarding the socialist advancement under these ideas, called "Planks."

And as I have pointed out on many, many ocassions, communism is where the path leads. As Marx said: First democracy, then socialism, then communism.
Wiz, effectively cedes my point:

"...RECOMMENDED transitional steps as guidelines in the process of moving toward Communism..."

You've heard the phrase: "...two steps forward, one back?"
Yeah, it's like that.

From Me To You wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:17 PM:You got to love that Ron Paul, He's got that Gray Davis look!!

Gallup he is not wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:21 PM:Did raoul ask his white Catholic female neighbor who she was voting for and consider that a representative sample? Just as reliable as his other polling prognostications I guess.
Haven’t heard his Hispanic voting pattern predictions in a while, have we?
Perhaps because it's 2 to 1 for Obama.

Looking Glass wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:28 PM:Why has there been no news about the investigation into the mortgage crisis? Why aren't Frank, Dodd, and the lenders being prosecuted for their crimes? Has the mainstream media lost all of it's objectivity? What is wrong with this country??

Need you ask wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:49 PM:Looking Glass asks, "What is wrong with this country??"
We're gonna fix it on Tuesday.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:49 PM:The post from "Lighten up DD" (10:23am) seeks to add additional information regarding alternative editions of the Communist Manifesto.
My point was based on what Marx actually wrote, and on the editions I have, both in print and digital.
I have not seen other versions formatted as this person suggests, but do not doubt there could be alternative editions, especially since increasing numbers of people have had them presented this way, and especially if one were to find them in an edition distributed by conservative organizations.
I stand by my comments based on Marx's actual text.

The post from "Floyd" (10:35am) questions my comments on the Communist Manifesto.
My comments were based on the actual document, with which he demonstrates precious little familiarity.
I stand by my comments.
"Floyd" stands on nothing.

So I'll ask "Floyd" the same questions I asked those who commented earlier:
Is every single thing that Marx said evil, just because he said it?
Have you no ability to discern between the truly terrible policy recommendations he made, which I oppose, and some suggestions that had merit?
Do you oppose public schools?
Do you want to return to the days of child factory labor?

Do you or do you not agree with Marx on the abolition of slavery (which is in that portion of the Manifesto that some refer to as the "Ten Planks" but is usually part of what gets edited out)?
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Double Standard wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:27 PM:Ron at 10:20 a.m. shows the desperation of his double standard.
Once again he lists the names of people that Obama barely knew and in whose flaws he had no connection AT ALL.
But, in his usual lack of any connection to being fair and balanced, he omits the many, many connections of McCain and Palin that are far stronger and in whose wrongdoing these Republican candidates are directly involved.
McCain was singled out as the only one of the Keating Five with "close personal ties" to Charles Keating, fellow Phoenix resident and campaign donor, who palled around with him intimately and took trips with him.
McCain sought POLITICAL support from many pastors who gave hate-filled, racist, anti-semitic and (if you count Robertson's and Falwell's comments after 9/11) anti-American, unlike Obama who only had ecclesiastical contact with his pastor, who was quoted out of context.
McCain had many appearances on the radio show of CONVICTED domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, who he has never renounced or denounced, and received numerous substantial donations from Liddy.
And Sarah Palin, the great unknown, still has not explained her ties to the anti-American rebel secessionist group "Alaskan Independence Party." What is she hiding?

You can say it wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:31 PM:The problem, DD, is that you told interested parties all they had to do was go on the internet and check.
Apparently you did not check first. All of them have the points numbered. Some from very unconservative websites.
Did it ever occur to you that yours might be an "alternative edition"? How do you know it's the original text?
What makes yours so special anyway? Did you get it at a Karl Marx book signing at Barnes and Noble?
Mine is the German edition 1872. In German along with an English translation. It has the points numbered.

Floyd wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:40 PM:If you can't afford a vacation to Mount Shasta, maybe you can go down to the store and buy a can of Shasta Cola. It's not the same, but it's worth a try. Then again, it's only a ten-hour drive to the Real Thing, and you can overnight in Sacramento if it makes you feel better.

As for your questions, you are simultaneously oversimplifying and accusing in the way you ask them.

Public schools are a relatively recent development in our nation's history. Given the uproar surrounding them, the lack of responsiveness to student needs and parental requirements, the low quality of the finished product and the overall neglect of the facilities, eliminating the current public school system would be a step in the right direction.

The most obvious benefit would be the removal of expensive bureaucratic overhead found in "unified school districts". Treating each school as an independent operation would allow them to compete favorably and fairly with the private schools. To get paid, all of the schools (even the private ones) would bill the government for the cost of providing the education, since it is already paid for by our taxes.

Eliminating the Union Shop in favor of the Open Shop by passing right-to-work laws would also be an improvement, because the union could claim they actually represented all of their members. Teachers would no longer see their forced payment of dues spent to support disagreeable political activity.

3 McCain voters here wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:41 PM:2 more days.

Reardon wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:45 PM:DD writes: " My comments were based on the actual document, with which he (Floyd) demonstrates precious little familiarity."

I am willing to concede that DD does have great familiarity with the message of Karl Marx.

Hey Ron wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:47 PM:For months you have, to us who are not as bright as you, been "setting us straight".

Before election day, give me one more vision, as you see it.

If Obama, of "NObama" as you like to call him, is elected, by what date will the economy collapse, Islamic-facists take over America, Mothers Day be cancelled, and the sale of Apple Pie be made illegal?

sdraoul wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:49 PM:"Gallup he is not" is so ill-informed. He actually challenges my reporting of national poll results published today on national television -- MSNBC, as a matter of fact.

As to Hispanics, they normally are two to one for Democrats but that means that their support of Republicans is twenty times that of black support for Republicans.

John Kerry received 54 percent of Hispanics -- that means he did well with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in New York (the most loyal democrats of all) but did poorly among Mexicans who are 65 percent of the Hispanic population and Florida Cubans.

In case this ill-informed person doesn't know, John Kerry lost.

Republican Socialist wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:59 PM:OK, then, Ron at 12:15 p.m., I will ask you a shortened version of the same question that DD posed:

Do you oppose public schools?
Do you want to return to the days of child factory labor?

Do you or do you not agree with Marx on the abolition of slavery?

Are you a Marxist?

And speaking of Marxism, have you seen the widely circulated video of John McCain, explaining his 2001 vote against Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and explaining (correctly) how progressive taxes work and why we need them.
Is John McCain a Marxist?

And I presented a quote from Sarah Palin from her recent New Yorker interview, describing the Alaska state ownership of their oil business as "collective" and "sharing the wealth."
Is Sarah Palin a Marxist?

sdraoul wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:01 PM:... Race has been the foundation of the Obama campaign. McCain has been reluctant to even use Rev. Wright as an issue.

The only pure racists in this campaign are Obama's minions and Obama himself.

Yes, according to Obama Republicans will tell everyone he is black and doesn't look like every other President we have had. Obama said that, not McCain.

Ms M, in case you didn't read U.S. History, it was Democrats who defended slavery and started the Civil War to protect slavery. Then, after they lost the war, they embarked on terrorism with the wing of the Democratic Party called the KKK and killed thousands of blacks until a Republican President wiped out that post-Civil War KKK. Then the Democratic Party passed Jim Crow laws and dug in a segregationist regime in the South that lasted until Republicans Earl Warren and Dwight Eisenhower started the burial of Jim Crow.

Then came JFK who bowed to the segregationists and made deals with them. Richard Nixon completed the Republican wipeout of segregation and integrated the schools JFK and LBJ ignored.

I forgot that in 1942 the Democratic Party rounded up American citizens and sent them to prison camps in the desert.

Ms M, you need to study history, not propaganda.

If Obama wins it proves one thing wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:06 PM:Money, lies and slick talking wins you elections. Oh and for those who say the peoople like him, see the above three things.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:19 PM:3 McCain voters here[-] wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:41 PM: Your voes might have meant something if you resided in Virginia or Colorado or Nevada. California will remian Democratic regardless of your two treasured votes. But, like you said, "two more days." Obama comes.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:22 PM:Marxist Expertise
The post from "Reardon" (1:45pm) makes the observation: "I am willing to concede that DD does have great familiarity with the message of Karl Marx."
Thank you for that confidence, however, it looks like some of the others are indicating that I'm not as much of an expert on Marx as you give me credit for. But thanks anyway.
Maybe "Republican Socialist" (1:59pm) has it right. The conservatives have more expertise on Marxism than us liberals :-)

Especially as an undergraduate major in Political Science, I felt it important to develop some familiarity with original sources, both those I agree with and those I don't.

By the way, I'm also pretty familiar with the various novels of Ayn Rand.
But please don't go around calling me a Libertarian.
Peace, propserty and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Chris wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:23 PM:Oh, this just gets better. I see that Gordon Brown, British pime minister, is going, hat in hand, and asking the Arabs to help bail out the IMF. So now the west is going to the middle eastern countries to try to get a bailout and in return the Middles Eastern countries will try to get more political power. The sun is setting on the great western empires. That is good. So Chuck, Ron, Bill, to Chris, Asteroid and the rest of you saberattelers deal with it because it is the people that you support who got us into this situation.

OBSERVATON wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:26 PM:Barack Obama and the De