Bill wrote on Nov 9, 2008 2:40 AM:Rodger Stroud doesnt understand the concept behind seperation of church and state.

Prop 8 does not violate that principal, which by the way, isnt codified in law. The term stems from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists. The constitution makes no mention of marraige and that issue is left to the states.

BTW, I voted against Prop 8 on the 14th ammendment grounds as I feel that is where the ban is vulnerable. The SC would likely issue a writ and hear the case on these grounds as it then would have a compelling federal interest. The problem lies in the fact that any binding precedent could pave the way for a constitutional crisis by pitting the churchs right to worship freely v. the gays rights to pursue happiness.

The full faith and credit issue is discriminatory and needs to be remedied as I have stated many times.

Gays can not be equal if their marraige isnt recognized in all 50 states.

Thats the flaw in the civil union as it burdens gays with legal fees that heteros arent burdened with in order to exercise their rights.

Thats a 14th ammendment issue but not a seperation of church and state violation.

This issue isnt going to go away and hopefully it will be resolved before it melts down into a constitutional crisis.

I can see it now, a radical gay activist couple goes to a church as a straw plaintiff for some bottom feeding attorney, they get refused and a class action lawsuit is born.

That would be a crisis that wouldnt settle anything as only a compromise will remedy this.

Strengthen the civil union by recognizing it as legitimnate in all 50 states. This would allow the church to maintain the name "marraige" and everyone would be happy.

A crisis avoided.

Thats the solution.

He Said wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:42 AM:The "married over 40 years and 41 plus years" in two letters reminded me of an incident. Mrs. He Said and I have also been married over 40 years. Once a couple asked her what she attributed to the longevity. While they were looking for a great philosophical answer they received "Basically, we never both wanted to get a divorce at the same time."

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 9, 2008 6:31 AM:The American people have spoken.
The American people have chosen HOPE over FEAR.
The American people have chosen ISSUES and SOLUTIONS over name-calling, smears, rumors and false innuendo.

Thank you to all the Republicans who helped crystallize the difference between fearful hatred peddled with lies and smears and fears, versus real forward-looking solutions to serious issues offered in hope and optimism and appealing to the better angels of our nature.

Thank you to all the Republicans who continue to prove that they dwell on the failures of the past and seek to repeat them.
Thank you to all the Republicans who harbor the failed policies of the past and seek to restore the failures of Hoover, Reagan and Bush, which The American People reject.
Thank you to all the Republicans who continue the policies of personal slime, vendetta and smear that the American people may have fallen for once, but now reject.

The American people have spoken.
Democrats listened. Republicans did not.
Until you can learn from failure and change, you are consigned to the irrelevance of oblivion.

Thank you for making Democrats the majority party again.
First national majority since Carter 1976.
First win by a northern liberal since Kennedy 1960
First time Democratic majority in San Diego County since FDR (LBJ and Clinton won with pluralities only)
First time Democratic win in Orange County, San Bernardino County and Riverside Counties.

From the blogger formerly known as OBAMACAN, as
POSSIBILITY is transformed into REALITY

Copson is mostly right wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:31 AM:Good letter and to-the-point analysis by Mr Copson today. He's certainly right about all the things wrong with the McCain campaign, although it wasn't the Dems that linked McCain to Bush, it was McCain! His voting record, his stance on deregulation, his Iraq plan, his anti-Roe position, and even his switches of heart on immigration and torture. All these told us that McCain was staying the Bush course. I would also slightly disagree about the "making history" votes for Obama. McCain picked Palin hoping to get a wad of "making history" votes that were intended for Hilary, and these could've happened. But didn't. Finally, objective studies of how the MSM covered the campaigns (at George Mason University) told us that Obama got MUCH more press coverage than did McCain, but that MOST of that coverage of Obama was negative. From the Rev Wright micro-coverage to the out-of-context "spread the wealth", Obama had every possible negative examined to a degree that McCain escaped almost completely.

Wanda wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:37 AM:Dennis Copson's letter was refreshing, particularly his omision of Obama voters being duped :)

Bob wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:49 AM:While I enjoyed Dennis Copson's letter on seven reasons McCain lost the election, I was curious about "McCain was tagged as a Bush loyalist by the Democrats..."

Would seem there was overwhelming evidence that McCain was a "Bush loyalist" and a vote for McCain was a vote for more of the same.

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:18 AM:Come on, now, Prop 8 Proponents, let's be honest here.

If you really, truly believe that "Marriage has been created by God as one man and one woman", then you're not reading your Bibles very closely.

Consider Exodus 21:10, 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 1 Chronicles 14:3, 1 Kings 11:3, 2 Chronicles 11:21, and Deuteronomy 21:15, just for starters.

The Bible is full of examples of men marrying multiple wives, and rules about when it is incumbent upon them to do so!

So let's get real. If you're using the Bible as evidence of the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage, you're an idiot.

And if you're using Leviticus as evidence that homosexuality is forbidden, then let's hope you're not eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of two different fibers, or performing any kind of work on the Sabbath. All capital offenses, according to the Holy Word of God.

And let's really hope that your children don't talk back to you, because then God wants you to stone them to death.

So, which is it? Moron, or hypocrite? Or, as I think is more likely, you just find the idea of gay sex kinda squicky, and they're not like you so they're not worthy of the same rights as you.

Which means bigoted. Stop hiding behind the Bible and own it.

I have Gay friends and family (you probably do too, whether they tell you or not), and aside from what goes on privately in their bedrooms, they are just like you and me.

Gary In Murrieta wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:26 AM:I bought the Sunday Papers this morning and when I sat down to read the Comics to my kids I realized the comics were so small that I could not read them. Good thing I bought more than one paper (Sunday Coupons).

For example the "Find Six Differences Between These Panels". The version in the NCT was 2" X 1 1/4", and in the other paper it was 3 1/4" X 2". Believe me that makes a big difference. My daughter was able to find all 6 different things before me.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:08 AM:Letters and blogs continue with ridiculous conservative venting of their failure to elect McCain and their diatribes against Obama. LOL. Obama 360 McCain 162. Nuiff said.

Alf wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:24 AM:Well, "Bill" at 2:40AM,
I agree with one very important exception, a "civil union" must be changed to include every right and responsibility of "marriage".
In that way, the ONLY difference is in the name, not the legal function.
We agee again, I don't know if my heart can take it!!!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:27 AM:Well, "He Said" at 5:42AM,
although just pups at 16 years married, your final descriptor "Basically, we never both wanted to get a divorce at the same time." is right on.
Regards, Alf.

Duped wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:29 AM:For anyone who voted for W to accuse Obama voters of being "duped" just has to be the funniest, most ironic charge in American political history. Remember "compassionate conservatism" (which, once elected, turned out to be neither)? Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? Remember, later, "Mission Accomplished", "Bring em on" and "Heckuva job, Brownie"? How about "The United States does not torture"? Then there are the McCain/Palin voters, who cast their ballot for the career Senator, who voted for and promoted Bush policies, and who said he represented "change". They voted against Obama because they were told he was a "socialist", "pal terrorists", "Muslim", "pal of Farrakhan"...and look! Our bloggers STILL parrot these campaign slogans that even McCain has denied! Talk about duped! Is this pathetic or hysterical?

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:30 AM:I think Dennis Copson pretty much encapulates many of the reasons John McCain lost the election. Not that Barackous Nobamous was qualified,
his only claim was that he was the embodiment of "change", and that people should place their "hope" in him.
I've read many journalists who now, after the fact, say "We don't really know him." Some have mentioned a sort of creepyness by the outwards signs of cultish behavior by NObama supporters.
I could have enlightened them many months ago.
As many of you already know, I was not a Barackous supporter. He tells me that he shall be my President too. We will see. I am, as of yet, unconvinced he has my best interests at heart. I strongly believe the vision he has, and the vision I have will never meet.
His is one of a collective American, mine, born of individual responsibility.
His, of larger, more intrusive government, mine, smaller and limited per the Founders. He also says, that he will require us to work and sacrifice toward his vision. When I think he's right, I'll support him, when he is wrong, I will oppose him.
But the one thing that is most scary, and yes... I use that word. Is that he is an unknown quantity. Except for a 2 year commercial, we know almost nothing about him. Most of it, intentional. It bothers me greatly that we have elected a fairly young man who refused to release his complete medical records, when "the old guy" released everything.
It bothers me greatly, that for a supposed "constitutional scholar", we have no track record. But mainly, it bothers me greatly that he sot out for most of his life, the most radical friends and associations, which he later attempted to hide.
In all honesty, I believe we have elected our very first empty suit who has tapped into wishful thinking.
But, I also believe that what we will see come out of the Barackous Nobamous White House will be the words and the deeds of the most radical elements of the Democrat party leadership.
And not his own.

But Nuff Said wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:32 AM:Isn't it needless to say something that's needless to say?

Bill nails it wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:34 AM:Exactly right: gay rights has nothing to do with religion, only with civil rights under the Constitution. People whose religious beliefs tell them to consider homosexuals an abomination are perfectly free to do so, just as people are still free to be racists. Irrelevant. A civically united gay couple should have the same legal rights as a straight couple. Period. This needs to be done on the federal level because among the rights that are now denied to gay couples are ones including, e.g., immigration status. Let's get this done, for once and for all. You who are faux-Christians, who reject the most important of Christ's teachings when it comes to homosexuals, you can still meet in your little conclaves and pray for these people even as they nauseate you. That is the glory of living in a country with freedom of speech and religion. Simple. Bill is right. That's the solution.

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:44 AM:On of the main problems this election cycle, was Bush fatigue.
There's just no doubt about it.

But people like "Bob" @7:49 AM are simply displaying their ignorance, and I'll show you how, right now.

One of the main theme's throughout the campaign was "McCain voted with GWB 90% of the time."
What was never.. NEVER asked, was about the 10%. Did you notice that? Cause I sure did.
If you go back and check those votes, in almost every case, Barackous NObamous voted for, or with GWB, while John McCain voted against.
I think that's key., about these KEY votes.
Just one example... the Cheney 2005 Energy Bill that, according to Democrats, according to NObama, and according to all the Leftists who shouted NObama's name, Hope & Change... and all that other baloney...
Barackous voted with GWB to give Big Oil money.
The other thing that is just astonishing, is how John McCain was used... and Yes, I'm using the particular word.. USED by Liberals, Leftists, Progressives or whatever else they are calling themselves today to hide who and what they really are,
The USED John McCain, the big dummy that he is trusting a Lib, they used him to pass Campaign Finance Reform...
Which... NObamous rejected.
Because John McCain's name was on the bill, and he truly believed less money in politics was generally a good idea, he got reamed.
Because understand this...
A Leftist will tell you today, anything he needs to, to get his way later.
He'll set you up, and play you, and then defeat you by your own rules.
It's a Saul Alinsky tactic.
What we need to see, and demand, is to see all of the under $200 donations to Barackous's campaign.
That was a huge amount of money generated, and no one in the press, ever batted an eye. Why?

Alf wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:55 AM:I forgot a few words in my 9:27AM post,
it should be -
although we're just pups at 16 years married, your final descriptor "Basically, we never both wanted to get a divorce at the same time." is right on for Mrs. Alf and me as well.
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:04 AM:I sure wish my good friends, like
"Caro Cogitatus" @8:18 AM would now, finally, own up to the facts on the ground.

Instead of just beating up on "the white folks", I think you guy's need to come out, and call your own leadership into question.
Barackous NObamous does not support gay marriage. He has said he'll leave it to the states to decide.
Well, we've decided...

In addition to that, with a 4% increase in black voter turnout, nearly 75% voted Yes on Prop. 8.
Nearly 65% of Hispanics voted yes on 8.

"Whites" as a group, voted No by a majority.

Your problemo, is NOT with us anymore.

Voter wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:05 AM:Let's forget what the book of fables says and start thinking for ourselves.

Ms M wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:08 AM:I was wondering where the naysayers were getting their info on Obama taking their 401k. Well now I know:

...."The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.

But maybe that shouldn't be so surprising, because radio's Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.

"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."

A slight problem with Limbaugh's report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.

The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.

The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)

To broadcast such a report -- so drained of context as to constitute a lie -- would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall -- making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal. Shameless.....

Okay, you cons really, really need to turn off the con propoganda machine or at least verify the hate and lies that come from the mouths of the anti Obama folks. Hopefully this post has helped to not only clear up your misunderstanding but also show what liers and idiots you listen to - SHAMELESS AND PATHETIC!

No separation of churchstate wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:09 AM:All it means is America cannot set up a church or force everyone to be in a religion.

Glad we went into Iraq wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:10 AM:If the liberals didnt keep blocking us every turn we'd have done better. Don't give me that GOP majority crap. The Dems had enough votes to filibuster. Thank God some of us see past the liberal spin. Not enough do though, since Obama was elected.

Democrats trashed our economy wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:11 AM:It was the Democrats who messed everything up. 2 yrs ago everything was good. Gas was cheaper, unemployment was lower, and the economy was good. Now it's a mess, and which house runs Congress? The Dems. Also California has a huge budget deficit. Dems control government there. Dems control government in Michigan too and they have high unemployment.

Ms M wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:11 AM:More from the same article:

....Perhaps Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of those intent on poisoning the soil before bipartisanship can take root might recall words of wisdom from Brit Hume, a veteran newsman who is close to leaving the Fox anchor desk for semi-retirement.

The problem with the accusations of Obama being "dangerous" and "radical," Hume said on election night, "was that it just didn't fit with the man you saw before your eyes."....

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:12 AM:But Nuff Said[-] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:32 AM: Nuff Said never said, "needles to say.' Nuff Said said nuff said.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:18 AM:DD continues to propagandize with false information even after he admits to being wrong. The famous 91 percent income tax rate of Roosevelt and Truman that DD calls a “wartime measure” was that of Roosevelt and Truman not President Eisenhower’s as I so stated.

President Eisenhower did not have, as DD falsely writes a “Republican legislative majority” for several years during his 8 years as President.

Republicans won the House in 1952 and lost it in 1954. Republicans did not, under Eisenhower, ever control the senate.

So, where is this “Republican legislative majority” under Eisenhower.

The Constitution requires that only the House can generate “Revenue” bills, thus the Republican House generated bills in 1953 and 1954 to lower the tax rates but the Democrat Senate didn’t cooperate and call the bills up for votes.

Democrats unworried about the United States of America stopped the bills for purely partisan reasons. They were not about to give Eisenhower credit for lowering tax rates.

When Kennedy was elected the Democrat House and Senate voted to lower the rates so Democrats would get the credit, which they did and still – like DD claims – do.

Partisanship kept the income rates up and they were not Eisenhower’s.

As usual, DD’s propaganda is nothing but partisan propaganda and BS (Big Stories) that have not a scintilla of truth about them. If DD thinks he can prove me wrong, perhaps he can provide us with the official Congressional Quarterly rolls of Congress between 1953 and 1961. That is if he can find any documentation that Eisenhower had a “Republican legislative majority” during his Presidency.

But Voter wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:22 AM:You speak blasphemy! The church must do all your thinking for you.

to Glad wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:24 AM:Can you tell us what, exactly, Democrats did to block, obstruct, handcuff, or in any way limit the Bush war on Iraq from 2003 to 2006? Please, be specific. Thanks in advance. (You put this in combination with what Ms M reported and we have the rewrite of history already under way. 1) Iraq, like Vietnam, would've been a cakewalk if not for the liberals; 2) this is the Obama recession. Fortunately, only the yahoos and dittoheads believe these things and tell each other they're true. On earth, this stuff has little meaning.)

But Nuff Said wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:24 AM:You're right!

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:36 AM:Joe Jones is a man after my own heart.
Now, I know the Lib's will call me heartless, but...

Our Founders did the exact same thing.
When the Crown decided to tax them unfairly, they smuggled. They hid their revenues.
NObama has no divine right to my labor, by the sweat of my brow I built, I worked, and did without.
Now, just about this time most of my liberals friends will say, well.. that's agains the law, that's not showing your unity, that's un-american of you.
NO.. it's not. Read your history.
Like the Founders, I will out think them, and beat them at their own game.
And that trait, is as old as the country.
The otherday, I found it odd that in the place that launched this Union, Boston, Mass.
The residents of Mass. had an opportunity to repeal their own State income tax, and it failed miserably.
Really, hard to believe.
But, the Leftists inside the State, the bueracracy, the powers that be were able to convince Mass. voters that their lives would be worse off, for not paying an additional $12 billion in taxes.
This is exactly the Leftist vision, and also Barackous Nobama's plan.
WE, the smart one's in the government know better how to spend your money than you do. And when you disagree with us, because we know you do not know how government actually works, because...
we also control the education system in this country, we shall decide for you what is best for you.
We'll "kick you down a piece" just to convince you we really care, but we all know what it is, an invitation to economic slavery.
Because if they truly believed in Capitalism, as they say they do...
They'd have gladly given up $12 billion in capital for you, the individual to begin a new business, and "bubble-up" the economy.
But, that.. did not happen.
They scared you, they frightened you, and they were able to do so, because they also taught you, preached to you..
that without them... you'll not survive.
That, my friend is a long, long ways from where our Founders began.
They left everything they previously knew, with nothing placed before them to make their lives comfy.
And the Left still wants to call this a "change" election.
It's nothing of the sort, it's a continuation of the same.

Two years wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:50 AM:As predicted, the Democrat victory in 2006 is the best thing that ever happened to the yahoos and their need for saving face. As of December, 2005, they say, there was NOTHING going on that in any way caused the economic problems we have now. All was well. Then the bells tolled, and in January, 2006, the Dems won. Since then, Senate Republicans (plus the Bush veto) have allowed the Senate Democrats to do exactly zero. So it's the best of both worlds for the yahoos. On the one hand, their heroes of deregulation continued to prevent anything from changing. On the other hand, because of the plurality of D's in Congress, they get to blame the Dems for anything and everything. Nice scheme, but, like all their schemes, false.

Mackeral wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:57 AM:Ron and sdraoul are right. We should be scared of Obnama Hussien and he is going to take all our money.

Palins real America wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:03 AM:From the UK Telegraph QUOTE The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.
The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. ENDQUOTE Well, isn't the GOP admirable for running such a classy campaign? Isn't Palin a "winner" for choosing to work her crowds in this manner? Did she and McCain think that these were just words that could be used to sway voters away from Obama, but still innocently? As we have been saying all along, the GOP campaign strategy is based on hate-mongering and no lie that brings this out is beneath them. The McCain/Palin campaign has gone lower than Bush's take-out of McCain in 2000. Domestic terrorists don't pal around with Obama; they run the GOP campaign. No more!

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:08 AM:Now, I won't go as far as...
"Democrats trashed our economy" @
10:11 AM, plenty of Repubics had their way with us all too.
These are the "Me Too" Republicans, who believe the only way they can ever win, is by being more like the Democrats.
It abolutely amazed me when GWB wanted to expand Medicare through a new drug benefit plan. The only concern to real Democrats was... it wasn't BIG enough.
And GWB also pushed this Housing bubble started in the Clinton years.
This is why it is critical to see, and understand what, where, and why from one Congress to the next, from one President to the next.
As many may now agree with me, this Housing Bubble began in the Clinton Administration, accelerated under Bush, and is now laid at the feet of Nobama.
Now, I know this is complicated for partisans to understand, especially the kool-aid drinking types.

But this person does bring up a very good point. What we are witnessing is a virtual collapse at all levels of Government. A government system run the
same way for 75 years, since FDR. That's... the failure.
We've all had to live inside the FDR economic box, and it is collapsing all around us.
It took the Soviet system 75 years to collapse, why would we be any different if we incorporated socialism into our governmental structures?

This may take a little more critical thinking than some of my more liberal friends can muster, but let me just lay it out there.
In California, since 1971 we have had Democrats in charge of both the legislature and the State Senate.
And we're in trouble, deep trouble.
Same too with Michigan. The only State in financial free fall, while all other states showed growth. They elected a NObama-like govenor, who raised taxes, and ran business out of the state.
Where unions had their way, and they then couldn't bribe business to come back in.
Now I see her, as one of Barackous's "advisors."
This does not bode well for us, because.. if it's all about judgement, by having her, with her track record...
he ain't showing any.

Now, some will refer to me as a "bitter clinger", they would be wrong.
I'm a realist. I didn't drink the kool-aid, and my eye's are wide open.
And for those of you who believe this latest financial fiasco in the deregulation of markets by "republicans" is responsible...
another word of caution to you for buying the NObama dream.
As a part of his "economic team" is one Robert Rubin, who wanted the markets deregulated, so that Citicorp could buy Travelers Ins.
And I thought that was a lesson we had learned?
Guess not...

Oh Please wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:09 AM:Democrats trashed our economy Dumbo is alive and well. Simplicity from a simpleton. Did you every hear of business cycles and the law of cause and effect? Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the economic failure and the lack of action by the President who thought the free market would take care of the situtaion. The situation in Michigan is due to the free market, globlizatin and the NAFTA treaties. It is not the fault of the Democratic Party in Michigan. Otheriwse the citizens of Michigan would have voted them out. They did not.
gray Davis was recalled and Arnuld installed to solve the problems in California. He failed and now asks for special taxes to solve the deficit. Other states are also begging the federal government for bail out loans. You are an ideoloque playing the blame game instead of finding solution.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:12 AM:Mackeral[-] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:57 AM:
You should have been scared of Bush. He has already taken your future money plus interest and the money from our grand children by waging war on CREDIT. One thing about Mackerel. When it is caught in the act, it smells.

Bill wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:15 AM:Ms. M

The last thing I want to hear is people like you lecturing conservatives like me on bi-partisnaship after 8 years of childish attacks, name calling, and other types of vile partisanship against President Bush.

I will fight Obamas ideas with everything in me.

Where were your demands for bi partisnaship the last 8 years?

It is patriotic to oppose remember?

I will oppose the president at every turn and I wlso want my representatives to do the same.

Bi partisnaship my arse.

Did the people speak in 2000 and 2004?

No, the election was stolen remember?(yeah right)

It sure is refreshing to see a party lose and election and not claim the election was stolen. Dont lecture us on bi partisanship because we dont want our elected officials being bi partisan.

We want them to stop Obama from implementing his agenda.

You have some nerve to ask for bi partisanship after the way Reid, Pelosi, and others have acted the last 8 years.

I guess the poeple only speak when Dems are elected right?

I want GOP lawmakers to be as partisan as the Dems have been the last 8 years.

Dont lecture us on bi partisanship after Pelosi and Reids actions.

No way no how!

Go Rush Limbaugh!

Mrs. Wedded bliss wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:19 AM:To "He said" 5:42 post
Thirty years this year for Mr.Wedded bliss and I. The answer from Mrs.He said was brilliant and so right on. Somehow we've managed to navigate through. Kinda like this country.Through hard work we will all get through it, as long as we remain focused, get over ourselves and just plow on through. God bless America.

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:20 AM:And just as FDR shut down Father Coughlin, so to will the Democrats shut down all their opposition.

Eh? "Ms M" @10:08 AM?

You know, in my dictionary "Liberals" actually used to celebrate individual liberty. Including freedom of thought and speech, and limitations on the power of government.

Guess that's why they changed their name to progressives? Huh?

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:25 AM:Ronnie Boy at 9:30 a.m. continues to think he is oh so clever and that his play on Obama's name is just ever so hilarious, even after about the 6,000th repetition.
Either that or he is now living in utter and complete denial.

Before the election, referring to "Nobama" accurately refelected a preference for the outcome of the election.

But now the results are in.
The people have spoken.
They yes "YES OBAMA"
and that is the reality which Ronnie Boy can't face.

But keep up the good work, Ronnie Boy.
You tried your name calling, and the American people have rejected it.
You tried your unfounded smears and rumors, and the American people have rejected it.
You tried your guilt by association, and the American people have rejected it.
You tried your fear over hope, and the American people have rejected it.

Keep up with all the things that lost you the election.
Keep up the good work!
Yeah, your clever name calling is just hilarious!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:28 AM:Ron (@10:04am),

Certainly I'm disappointed with the yes-on-8 votes by blacks, who know first-hand how corrosive and insidious bigotry can be. I think many were misled by last-minute propaganda indicating that Obama was for Prop 8 (he wasn't), and by long-term propaganda that homosexuality is a choice (it's not, any more than skin color or right/left handedness).

But my comments were directed to anyone who uses the Bible to define marriage as "one man, one woman".

I would never presume to tell y'all what religious beliefs to hold dear. But I have no problem saying that if you hold the Bible to be God's inerrant Word, then you'd better not be eating any shrimp or lobster, wearing mixed-fiber clothing, or doing any kind of work on the Sabbath.

And if you're basing your definition of marriage on The Good Book, then at least your multiple wives and concubines will know how to treat their slaves.

Yeah, there's lots of rules about that in the Bible, too.

FWIW, I agree with many other commenters that marriage should not be a government-sponsored institution. Let any two consenting adults form a life partnership that extends rights & benefits from the government, and if the couple wants to have a marriage ceremony to celebrate they can find a church or other institution that wants to perform it.

Separation of church and state is to the benefit of both.

Sour Grapes wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:31 AM:SDRaoul at 10:18 a.m. continues to whine like the sore loser he is.
Every single prediction he made failed.
His party has been thoroughly discredited and rejected for having failed at everything they stood for.
SDRaoul continues to make up facts and history and try to return to imaginary days of a better past seen through the rosy prism of selective reflection.

He continues to call for a return to the tax policies of Kennedy.
OK, SDRaoul - we'll do it your way.
Thirteen brackets with the top one at 70% - SDRaoul's prescription for a better America!
You heard it here first!

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:33 AM:I do wish Mackeral would go back to the sea, or wherever he (or she)came from. What nonsense!!

Mackeral[+] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:57 AM:

The Real Reason McCain Lost wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:39 AM:Ron always preaches his need to "educate" other readers/posters, although, "indoctrinate" would be a better word because of his obvious unwavering support for the right wing of the [formerly]Grand Old Party.

But, here is the reason for McCain's loss, take it as an education if you will.

Its not coming from the base of the Democratic Party. Heck, its not coming from much of a Democrat at all.

Instead its coming for that huge segment of American voters, who whether right or wrong, represent a "Sleeping Giant" that seldom springs into action (and shame on us), except when the situation is dire. And, our numbers are so great, that when we do stir, its usually all about change, and woe is the party in power, whether you can justify the lack of complicity of current office holders or not.

We didn't vote (period) or vote the way we did because of any one reason, and certainly not for reasons contrived during the long election campaign.

We voted when we realized enough is enough, and the direction we were headed was unsatisfactory.

And, its not about party politics.

We did it in 1976 when we said "enough is enough" and wanted a fresh start from corruption (whether an accurate criticism or not) of the GOP following Watergate.

We did it in 1980, following a loss of confidence in Jimmy Carter, who while he may have restored our faith in political fair play, lost sight of the economy.

We did it in 1992, when George Bush pushed us further down the road we didn't want to go to.

We did it again, mid-term, in 1994, when we awoke to force a correction in Clinton policies.

And, we will do it again, should Obama disappoint us.

So, the GOP and the Democrats are equally accessible to our wrath...and unlike the base [whatever that really is, if it actually exists] of the Democrats and Republicans will only find short comfort or protection from those of us who really mind the helm of the greatest democracy in the history of the world.

So, wingnuts, right and left, spew what you like, but the masses who elect officials are not sleeping, we are nearly withdrawing to the sidelines, observing the happenings of this great republic.

Serve us, and you will survive. Disappoint us, and we will spring into action and punish you with such wrath it may take decades to recover from.

That's just the way it is, so you party stalwarts, you aren't crap! Deal with! We call the shots, and do not hesitate in putting you in your place!

Hannity v Limbaugh wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:46 AM:The difference between Limbaugh and Hannity?
Hannity is smarter.

Limbaugh is going to just keep up the same old failed tactics of angry name-calling that lost the election.
Limbaugh is going to further isolate the extreme right wing into an ever smaller and ever more insignifcant minority until their numbers are small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.
Limbaugh can't look at what just happened and see that doing more of the same will lead to more of the same.

Hannity sees the writing on the wall.
He will at least give lip service to civility.
For awhile.
But he'll keep that back-stabbing dagger close at the ready.

the soul election wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:05 PM:The winner of the Presidency is our first with soul. John McCain lost both his soul and the election. Palin showed us her soul, lost the election and future elections. What does it mean? I would hope that for the first time in years, someone with power actually acknowledges that we have an underclass. It's been popular in the US, since Reagan made greed good, to pretend that the poor do not exist, even though their actual numbers are growing and this is, to say the least, likely to impact the society as a whole. Will Obama have the courage to spoil the party of denial and shine a light on our fellow Americans? Without jobs, homes, health care? The ones, too, who have gone bankrupt or had to give up their homes thanks to one medical crisis. Our decades of pretending, I hope, are over. I hope that we can again become mature enough to look at the world as it is, instead of the President's picture of it. If you can't look at reality, you cain't have no soul.

Ms M wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:16 PM:Bill
[-] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:15 AM:...Bill, tell me what have the libs said about Bush that wasn't true. If it's the truth it's not bashing.

Tell me, if Bush was so great where was he on the campaign trail? Why did the con candidates run from this administration? The things McCain said about Bush - was that not bashing? Why are you so down on what the libs have said about Bush - but not of what your fellow cons have said. I could see you down on the libs if the cons were not saying the same things.

No one was lecturing you cons on bipartisanship - it would be useless. It's really sad that even after Rush has been shown to be a lier - you still bow down to his with his words as being your gospel. PATHETIC!

oh Bill wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:27 PM:You're fighting Obama before he has even suggested anything. What a sore loser. Let me ask you: did the Dems obstruct Bush's Iraq war in any way? Did they fund his troops despite the war's being initiated on lies? Can you specifically tell us how the Dems in Congress stopped Bush from doing what he and his helpers in Congress wanted? Did the Dems stop torture? Close Gitmo? Undermine the tax cuts? Gosh, Bill, I'm trying to find SOMETHING the Democrats actually did to mess up Bush's policies and Presidency. Help me out here.

To Mayor of San Marcos wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:30 PM:Nothing like being humble, eh?

Nothing like being a graceful winner, eh?

Nothing like rubbing it in, eh?

One day the tables will turn and you will find yourself on the losing end. We will make sure to "return the favor".

Activity for the day:
1. See how our nation's leaders accept victory.
2. Find the definition of the word: Humble

You are like the school-aged child that says to the kid that didn't get picked: You SUCK!!

Grow Up Desmond! It's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:32 PM:Gloat now, my friend...
gloat until you get your fill.
But it is , as I said it just the otherday "OBAMAPREZ" @11:25 AM,

When NObama {and Yes, I will continue to use that name}, when NObama does go after your money, your job...
Remember, I tried to tell you.

And it's not denial, I'm a realist.
I understand what is coming, and it will not be good.
I predict for you, that as the tax rates rise, even the jobs we have doled money out to save, will leave.
The credit card has been maxed out, the collection guy's will soon be calling, and then we'll have to slash this government down to the appropiate size.
That's the only two times in liberal reported history where we even got close to "balancing" a budget.
1) LBJ jettisoned Fannie Mae
2) Clinton slashed the Military.

Cutting government works.
You'll learn.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:39 PM:"Sour Grapes" is like most of my critics, they don't understand what I write or what they read.

I extolled Kennedy’s tax cutting, I did not extol a 70 percent income tax rate. I am for a 10 percent flat tax, starting at $20,000 (or the official poverty level) for a family of four with a national sales tax of something on the order of 3 or 4 percent so that all people pay federal taxes even if they are on welfare.

Except for Kennedy, every single Democrat President since 1933 has raised taxes not lowered them that led to only three budget surpluses in 70 years, or for those who can’t add, 67 budget deficits. Obama will be no different. He might make a tiny cut for propaganda purposes for the middle class but he will raise taxes on a net gain basis, which every one of his Democrat predecessors has done except for Kennedy.

Carter, for example, didn't raise taxes by government but his failed administration caused double digit inflation, the cruelest tax of all, and interest rates that reached 21 percent.

The first home loan I wrote as a loan officer was a 19 percent VA loan, which I rewrote under Reagan's in 1983 for 12 percent and later rewrote the same loan to 7 percent.

Thus, Carter was a disaster even without a tax increase. Clinton's 1993 largest tax increase in history led to the dot com bubble and recession that led to 2.5 million jobs lost of the 22 million that NAFTA helped create between 1994 and 2000.

By the way, Obama made campaign noises of bailing out of NAFTA that created 22 million jobs here and tripled out trade with Canada and Mexico that together are our largest source of oil and natural gas.

Another loser wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:44 PM:Bill's comments about partisanship reflect the loser's lame perspective. He is trashing Obama before the new President has even taken office, trashing him for what he might do. Or for any fantasy about him that Bill can come up with or hear on the radio. Ms M has it all over Bill today. She puts the crucial question out there: did libs bash Bush for things that he actually did, or for any fantasy that we could imagine about him? And, Bill, just wait: when Bush is gone and the historians and prosecuters can finally have at the workings of Cheney and Bush, maybe even you will be astounded at what has gone on. But wait. Now I'm behaving like you, Bill, assuming wrongdoing on the President's part. Forgive me. I'm willing to wait and see what is disclosed. I hope you do the same. Great post Ms M. You trashed Bill worse than Obama trashed McCain.

Poor Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:49 PM:After enjoying the Bush years via his investments in Big Oil and his business in the armament industry, Ron is really worried that his government-subsidized joyride might be over. What if Obama directs the economy towards the development of renewable energy? What if Obama even cuts back on military spending to do this? To make jobs in markets that are good for the world? When Ron says Obama is coming after our jobs, what he really means is that Obama might be coming after RON'S subsidies! There are many Americans who are, or who will be, working in sectors of growth, just as your oil and weapons have been growth sectors for too many years. Time for being flexible and forward-looking, Ronnie. Then you will thrive. Or, if you prefer, you can continue complaining, saying it's not fair, you know, like self-reliant conservatives always do when their tax-supported subsidies run dry.

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:56 PM:How did I know that you'd take it easy on them? "Caro Cogitatus" @11:28 AM?

Now.. how did I know that?
Because I'm also willing to bet your a big believer in victimology.

>>>I think many were misled by last-minute propaganda...>>>

Now, what I'd like to know is this...
How do YOU know they were misled?
Why can't they believe what they voted for?
I think they believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
I also think they had a chance to vote for the first non-white President.
It was a combining of issues.
You guy's like to say: "We have a Big Tent."
Here's your chance, for "change."

Pink Power Ranger wrote on Nov 9, 2008 1:15 PM:Does Ron ever come up for air?

Ron wrote on Nov 9, 2008 1:22 PM:I got some bad news for ya...
"Poor Ron" @12:49 PM,

Now pay attention, I like you, and I'm just simply trying to help a brother out, ok? So, head's up, this info will help you make some decisions, that are coming, very, very shortly.

Regarding this so-called "What if Obama directs the economy towards the development of renewable energy?"

I got news for you, those units will be built in China, not here.
Now, this is just a head's up, cause while he may tell you were gonna create green jobs, the fact of the matter is,
"Green" folks, don't like manufacturing.
It's a dirty business, they'd rather do without. And on top of that, we cost to much to build them. In order for regular Americans to afford it, it will be built overseas.
You can't have the unions deciding for themselves that they wil unionize the entire country, when what we know it, they drive out manufacturing business's.
But here's what you can do for "the Enviroment", and I got this on an insider deal type of info... it's GOLD!
Buy Nuclear.
Now how do I know it's a go?
I'll give you two letters...
Ya ready?
W.B.

bodecea wrote on Nov 9, 2008 1:38 PM:If we are going to interject religion into our government, the best way to start is the 10 commandments. Or should we say, the 9 Commandments, since churches appear to have completed ditched the "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" one (#9)...Religion for the religious is so much easier when they can pick and choose and ditch sins/commandments whenever it is convenient for them...don't you think?

Alf wrote on Nov 9, 2008 1:45 PM:Well, "Bill" at 11:15AM,
back to your usual form, I see.
I do not need to "bash" GWB, the results of his actions do that for me,
Answering the questions below, HONESTLY, do that for me
Please explain to me how GWB made this country better by sending American Troops into Iraq where over 4,100 of them died SO FAR.
Or how we were going to be greeted as heroes and liberators.
Or how, over $700 BILLION dollars SO FAR and OVER $10 BILLION dollars PER MONTH IN IRAQ has helped this country.
AND NONE of this "he kept us safe" BULL. You know it's BULL and I know it's BULL.
Was this country better off in 2004 than in 2000?
Is this country better off today than it was in 2004?
Is our economy better off?
Is our military readiness better off?Have we permanently crushed Al Qaeda?
Have we permanently crushed the Taliban?
Have we, via GWB's arrogance, damaged our relationships with almost ALL our allies?
Have we raised the ire of just about every middle-east country?
DO WE HAVE OBL YET???
Regards, Alf.

But Mrs. Wedded bliss wrote on Nov 9, 2008 1:55 PM:Why not honor the sovereignty of all nations by saying God bless all the nations of the world? The average person in every nation wants the same thing, to make a living a a good family. You need to understand that the U.S., while a great nation, is not the be-all and end-all, not the "one-size fits all" best thing, that our system of government is simply incorrect.

But Pink Power Ranger wrote on Nov 9, 2008 2:00 PM:Nope.

hardtack wrote on Nov 9, 2008 2:15 PM:Is Joe Jones kidding? People don’t make money by being stupid. There must be at least three dozen foreign countries that have lower taxes on corporate and/or investment income than the U.S.

Want to know why jobs are going overseas? Greed . . . . the greed of politicians who thrive by spending what others earn.

jvc wrote on Nov 9, 2008 2:44 PM:Why do I get this empty feeling when my
hero Reardon does not blog?

tjefferson wrote on Nov 9, 2008 2:52 PM:To Ron at 11:20. Ron shows his true colors. He defends fascist Father Coughlin. While the Nazis were invading Poland, and London was burning and her citizens dying in the blitzkrieg, the infamous Father Coughlin was a one man propoganda machine for Hitler. He was also a big fan of Benito Mussolini. His pro Nazi radio programs had a huge following in the 30s. In 1939, a month after the invasion of Poland, the National Association of Broadcasters, an independent broadcast association, with approval from the Vatican, the Apostolic Delegation in Washington, and the archbishop of Cincinnati put and end to his radio program. The USPO stopped his fascist mail propoganda just prior to our entry into WWII, and finally, in 1942, when American troops were fighting and dying in Europe, the bishop of Detroit finally ordered him to shut up and confine himself to his duties as a parish priest.
Why would Ron defend a dirty fascist like Father Coughlin?

Reardon wrote on Nov 9, 2008 3:21 PM:Sorry JVC. I missed Rush this week and have nothing to say. I am going to catch up on Hannity and Rush and should add somethining next week.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 9, 2008 3:27 PM:The people have spoken. Leviticus 18:22 clearly teaches homosexuality is an abomination. A simple majority vote made a passage in the bible an instrument to change our state constitution. I trust we will soon be voting on the following commands from the bible:
1. Lev 1:9. To burn a bull on the altar as sacrifice.
2. The sanctioning in Exodus 21:7 of selling daughters into slavery.
3.Lev 25:44 Permission to possess slaves provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. I hope that won't start a war with Canada.
4. Exodus 35:2 calls for the death penalty for those who work on the sabath.
5. Lev 11:10 says eating shellfish is an abomination which makes eating shrimp as bad being homosexual.
6.Lev.21:20 Those with vision defects may not approach the altar of God.
7.Lev 19:27 Forbids male hair trimming around the temples.
8.Lev 11:6-8 Touching the skin of a dead pig is unclean. No more football?
9.Lev 19:19 Farmers must stop planting two different crops in the same fields.
10. Lev 20:14 People who sleep with their in-laws will be burnt to death.

We've got a lot of propositions to sign, a lot of votes to cast, and a lot of laws to enact. Let's get going all ye good Christians.

Amazing wrote on Nov 9, 2008 3:48 PM:It is amazing how many people on here think they can speak for God. God did this and God did that and God made this. No one should have the right to speak on God's behalf, but God. No one owns the right to God's voice. If you truly believe in God then you will let God's unheard voice speak for itself and not through your imperfect mouth. This goes for everyone. When God comes to you and tells you what God wants you to say then and only then you may speak on God's behalf. Until then shut up, and do good things. Stop hating and telling people what to do. Live you life and not others for them.

Mackeral wrote on Nov 9, 2008 3:53 PM:If you keep listening to the far left liberal news you will be in deep trouble ron's posts make sense everyone should listen to ron he is only trying to help you out.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:12 PM:Lev. 16:22 states that homosexuality is an abomination. Lev. 11:10 states that eating shellfish is an abomination. Are there degrees of abomination? Is homosexuality more or less an abomination as eating shellfish, or are they both equally abominable? I hope a Christian answers soon because I'm getting a terrible craving for my delicious shrimp and clam pasta and I don't want to go to hell for it.

Tony wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:55 PM:Rev. Edwin Bacon, of All Saints Episcopal Church, delivered a sermon in support of same sex marriages Sunday, Nov. 9, 2008, in Pasadena, Calif.

All the churches that did not support same sex marriages and gave money "for prop 8" have a political agenda and must be taxed. They do not deserve a "non-profit" status.

This would include the Mormon churches in California and elsewhere.

Our Constitution is our law. Church and bible are not the law.

Alf wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:59 PM:Well, "jvc" at 2:44PM,
how would you like to have to try to identify which posts were yours, after the fact, and which were those of cowardly imposters?
Several opinionated people have had a coward or some cowards usurp our rather unique handles upon occasion.
That is why I tend to favor the system that sfgate (San Francisco Chronicle) has - you register and have your unique screen name. In order to make a comment, a person signs in. (Alf and its variations were already taken so I use a different name there.)
Regards, Alf.

oh tj wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:04 PM:These aren't really Christians. These are people who insist that Jesus worship THEM! You see, they go through the Bible and choose those elements that agree with their beliefs, and reject those that don't. God and Jesus are subservient to THEIR wishes and desires. Or sometimes, when the Bible fails, they just make it up, as with abortion. The Bible, for all its "thou shalt nots" and "abominations", nowhere says that abortion is wrong in any way whatsoever. Again, this is something these people believe, and rather than face up to the responsibility of this, they blame God or Jesus for their belief. It's really blasphemous, on top of being cruel and bigoted. Like anyone else, they just want their beliefs and desires to be how the US is run. Unlike others, they make phony claims to moral superiority. Pretty disgusting, don't you think?

The Vision Thing wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:07 PM:I have checked my Bible and TJefferson at 3:27 is p.m. correct.
Any blemish in the vision is a sin.
I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses.
Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Advice for mackeral wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:07 PM:Since you guys are the kings of "love it or leave it", and since you are already hysterical about what Obama might do, why don't you join Ace and that other guy and leave? It's obvious you don't really want to live under our Constitution. You would prefer a military dictatorship, where the great conformist masses stamp out dissent with glee. You would love to be a "good citizen" of such a regime. Cuba, Burma, and many other nations govern this way. Think about it. I'm only thinking of your happiness.

Why not wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:22 PM:You know by now that Ron accuses people of being Marxists, Stalinists, socialists whenever they are anywhere to the left of him. So when we learn that he quotes a fascist, why should this surprise us? After all, if you look at Hitler's idea of how government and the military-industrial complex should work hand in glove, and how any hint of socialist thinking should be eliminated, don't you see Ron? I don't think Ron is anti-semitic, not at all. I don't know if has strong biases against any other group (except gays, a group scapegoat-worthy to Hitler as it is to Ron). But Ron's idea of government, of what constitutes "socialism", of how the "smart" people work with government to get rich through military power...any German of the 1930s would recognize the ideas easily. Hitler had his Krupp steelworks. Ron has his oil and weapons investments.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:24 PM:tjefferson[-] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:12 PM: Where is Sally when you need a real answer from an all knowing Christian?

The Real Losers wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:45 PM:Ronnie Boy at 11:08 a.m. and 12:31 & 1:22 p.m. predicts doom and gloom for the economy.
Like, Obama hasn't even had his turn at bat, your guy did and not only struck out but fatally injured our six strongest players, so like, you are not in much position to be whining after what your guy did.

Well, there will be some winners and some losers.
A purely hypothetical individual whose income is over $250,000 from owning a defense contracting business (feeding at the public trough, profiteering off the deaths of our brave soldiers in an illegal war based on lies that diverted resources from the terrorists who actually invaded us) and maybe dabbles in some oil stocks on the side (profiteering off pollution and dependence on oil from terrorists) would be a big loser.

In contrast, 95% of Americans who make less than $250,000 or are small business owners or invest in clean energy and/or jobs in the United States will be the big winners.

Whichever group Ronnie Boy fits into, he will be either a winner or loser.
I'm a winner, as are most Americans.

Based on the above, Obama is a shoo-in for reelection in 2012.
And I can assure you, Wright and Ayers and his funny name won't be issues then.

Stephen wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:57 PM:The First Amendment says that Congress (the Federal Legislature) shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thomas Jefferson is the person who came up with that phrase. As such, he is the only one who has the right to define it.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 9, 2008 6:09 PM:We do not need assistance from Ron or any of his like thinking associates. Rather doubtful that your advice would be taken seriously. After all, look at the name that you chose for yourself while posting on this blog. Mackerel? Even Palin has the more expressive name of, Baracuda.

jvc wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:17 PM:Just so you know, this place comes apart when you are gone!

Enough said.... wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:43 PM:The election is over and you are still bickering like children.

Equality wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:31 PM:ALF - since you keep harping about OBL, let me know if Obama will ever get him. Since he has absolutely no foreign policy experience, I won't be holding my breath.

Equality wrote on Nov 9, 2008 11:35 PM:I am tired of the gay marriage debate. The people have spoken TWICE. The average American has spoken. We don't want businesses to be sued for how they run a business. We don't want upstanding organizations sued. We don't want a radical agenda shoved down our throats. Now go back to work and leave marriage alone!

Roberto1 wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:29 AM:Its funny to watch all you Obama something for nothing moochers gloat. Sharing the wealth is a cost that will be born by all taxpaying citizens.

Karl wrote on Nov 10, 2008 4:11 AM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:16 PM:Bill
AM:...Bill, tell me what have the libs said about Bush that wasn't true. If it's the truth it's not bashing.

How about calling him akin to Hitler Ms M? I found that in extreme bad taste, very far from the truth and way out of line. Certainly you do not condone this lie do you Ms M?

Karl wrote on Nov 10, 2008 4:24 AM:Alf @ 4:59 PM:

As one who has had his "handle" used by a coward for deleterious purposes, I am down with the registration idea. It's long overdue here. How about it Editor, care to comment?

Karl wrote on Nov 10, 2008 4:29 AM:Stephen
[-] wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:57 PM:The First Amendment says that Congress (the Federal Legislature) shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thomas Jefferson is the person who came up with that phrase. As such, he is the only one who has the right to define it.

What nonsense Stephen. I think TJ had a hand in establishing the court system for this very purpose.

Alf wrote on Nov 10, 2008 5:57 AM:The 3:21PM post was not the real "Reardon".
How do I know?
I emailed the real "Reardon".
Not to mention that the post made no sense.
Agree or disagree with the real "Reardon", at least he makes sense.
Regards, Alf.

John D. wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:37 AM:I just want to remind ms. Martin from Escondido that 4 1/2 points may not be a lot, however if you look at the number of high profile names that did not get re-elected. That is quite an accomplishment! I've watched Bilbray's career ever since he was an obnoxious mayor of a little town in south county and as much as I didn't like him at times, he has always been his own man. The political parties don't run him and that is why I voted for him.

Alf wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:17 AM:Well, "Equality" at 11:31PM,
I'll make you a deal,
give Obama EXACTLY as long as GWB has had to get OBL, and if Obama still doesn't have him, get back to me then.
Otherwise, quit defending someone who cut and ran from his true mission, AS STATED, over 5 years ago and let OBL get away.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:20 AM:Yup, "Equality" at 11:35PM,
let's get back to the work of un-Constitutional discrimination.
Regards, Alf.

christine wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:45 AM:Such hate and intolerance. Blame games and name-calling. Is this all you can do with your time? Hey, Libs, your guy got elected. Now, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. If you really think your government can solve all your problems, you will be sorely disappointed when it doesn't. Get up off your seat and do something.

Richard wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:59 AM:Jefferson learned the phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' from the Rhode Island preacher Roger Williams. His book containing the first mention of the phrase from about 1680 if I remember correctly is on display at the Huntington Museum in L.A.
And it's supposed to be a wall to block the church from forcing false dogma on citizens while allowing all good will, such as food pantries and community services, etc., to flow freely. At the same time the wall was to block the government from taxing or controlling the Church while allowing the government to protect its freedom of worship. It thus could be called a filter more than a wall.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:20 AM:Web Comments Registration
The post from "Alf" (4:59pm) and "Karl" (4:24am) are right on target.
All major online forums require registering one's screen name with an e-mail address that is then confirmed and, thereafter, participants log on to each session.
While still retaining official anonymity, each participant can still construct their own individual screen identity without seeing it usurped by phony "twits."
For those of us who have expressed many concerns about various aspects of how the NCT web comments forum is administered, it is easy to dismiss our concerns by saying we don't have to participate here.
But the fact is that most of us live in North County and subscribe to the host newspaper, the North County Times, and some of us (using our real names) contribute to the actual published letters to which these comments are purportedly responding. Many of those here know other participants personally and we are all part of the same community. While there are other forums and message boards we can (and likely do) participate in, there is no equivalent of our North County Times community.
In an age of newspaper cutbacks, and the realization that disk storage space is far less expensive than the costs of paper, ink and home delivery costs, I should think the North County Times would realize that this medium is the wave of the future in journalism, and they should be thankful to be part of the team that delivers content, which will survive, rather than printing or delivery aspects, which may not.
We all should be conscious of ways in which to improve the online dialogue experience.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Posted 8:17am; skipped; re-posted 9:20am

Richard wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:36 AM:Perhaps you should be writing to Bush, telling him what you just lectured to 'liberals'. It is he who should learn how to serve his country, rather than ruling over it, 'doing whatever it takes' to win elections or ordering our military to fight a war of his choice when we have to borrow money to fund it. "liberals" already understand these tings. Wars are fought against those who attack us. Getting a murderous thug does not require nation building on top of it.

bodecea wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:27 PM:To Richard,

Looks like the Church is trying to break down that wall. I suspect they will be very sorry when that happens because it allows the government to return the favor.