Spent on Eight wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:17 AM:I read one place that the NO on 8
people spent about two-thirds of that 474 million figure, but have not seen any other comments.
I wonder if it is true! It is certain that if the Yes on 8 people had spent two-thirds of the total every paper in th estate would stick in every article about prop 8. So maybe it is true that
no on 8 spent a lot more than
yes on eight. Does anyone here know where to look that up?
if

I have not seen any reliable data on proposition 8 spending except that $74 million figure some places but no breakdown between sides.

Politcal Sign Holder. wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:50 AM:Prior to the election I stood on a corner where people held up "Yes on 8" signs. Many motoists gave favorable honks and many others gave a friendly wave or a thumbs up. A few gave obscene finger signs, and fewer shouted obscenities at the top of their voices.
Then I stood for a while in the midst of a large number of persons holding "NO on "8" signs. They also got some friendly honks and waves for their side. One of them had a bullhorn and sounded angry and was leading the other in noisy chants.
there were a number of young high school aged persons in her group. Some were saying stop BIGOTRY. She was getting them to chant in unison. Stop hate, vote no on eight" However there were some cars giving thumbs down sign and and some smiling while they shouted "YES on 8" as they drove by. I saw NO obscence gestures from the YES peope or cars the entire time
I was there. I heard NO angry shouting from the yes on 8 people across the street, or from their cars driving by.

During several hours with "Yes on 8" people I did not ever hear any one of them call the others haters or bigots.
SO the organizwrs of these kids were teaching them that nice persons who happy to be against homosexual marriage were all haters and bigots. What a shame! These were probably some high school Gay Straight Alliance Club kids who did not even understand what the real issues are. Some of them were looking at us with surprise seeing us behaving in a normal just holding up signs and waving at people, even smiling at them after thay had been taught we were all hateful bigots.

School Pressure wrote on Nov 10, 2008 3:02 AM:Should kids be forced to be members of a high school Gay Straight Alliance Club if they want to be on the debate team or be a member of the student council. I just heard this is almost true already at a nearby high school in a fairly conservative town. It seems several teachers as club sponsors and one school official are gay and are making it very difficult for any other students to be in the student body leadership or on the debate team unless they are also active in the gay club. Obviously they can not say it is a written policy, but the persons who told me are known by me to be active in local school affairs. This should not be happening here in a conservative city. It should not even be happening even in San Francisco, but probably is.



i heard

Joe C wrote on Nov 10, 2008 3:10 AM:Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

In the restaurant my waiter had on a 'Obama 08' tie. Again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The waiter angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the waiter inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Joe C wrote on Nov 10, 2008 3:23 AM:Here is a little story that explains it plain and simple:

Father/Daughter Talk


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of 'the redistribution of wealth.'

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

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

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?'

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

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

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,'Welcome to the Republican party.'

She Said wrote on Nov 10, 2008 3:30 AM:While Leslie Davies has some valid points in her letter it's interesting to see her disparage Sarah Palin (fostering dislike) on one hand and then in the next paragraph denounce those who hate in reference to a different issue. I guess the acceptance of hate is determined by the issue.

Ron wrote on Nov 10, 2008 6:33 AM:My good buddy “tjefferson” {Nov 9} @ 2:52 PM asks:


>>>Why would Ron defend a dirty fascist like Father Coughlin?>>>

Like any true red blooded American, I would defend your right to say what you want to say also. Even though I may vehemently disagree with you, I would defend you right to say it. For someone who goes by the pseudonym “tjefferson”, I think you’d know that?
And I’m not defending what he said; I’m defending his right to say it.
As long as it falls short of calling for the outright assassination of the President, or the overthrow of the government by violence, I’ll stand by his right to say it, even if I think it’s crazy.
That’s the kind of America I want to live in, not the “speech code” America you want to. My world is: Where more speech is better. Your world: Only the speech I agree with.
When I read your post, the first thing that pops out at me, is that you reject his thoughts and his speech, and THAT is the primary reason you have for banning it. That is patently un-American. Ask the ACLU, who defended the KKK’s right to free speech.
And also, you need to review your history. He bought his own time on the radio. Then, the Vatican, the Apostolic Delegation, and the archbishop of Cincinnati all wanted him silenced. They then recognized Coughlin's only superior in a position to do something, actually supported him.
Detroit Bishop Michael Gallagher, had the authority to curb him, but Gallagher did nothing, he actually liked the “Radio Preist.”
In 1934, Roosevelt sent Joseph P. Kennedy and Frank Murphy, with other prominent Irish Catholics, to try to tone him down.
It didn’t work; he denounced them as a “tool of Wall Street.”
The Roosevelt administration decided that while the First Amendment protected his free speech, it did not apply to his broadcasting, because they theorized that the radio spectrum was a "limited national resource" and could be regulated as a publicly-owned commons, in order to eliminate him. New regulations and restrictions under The Communications Act of 1934 were created to percisely and personally to force Coughlin off the air by the Roosevelt administration. For the first time, operating permits were required of those who were regular radio broadcasters. Coughlin's permit was denied, he was silenced.
And what is absurb notion today that is held by Liberals, Progressives, or whatever else they are calling themselves today to hide who & what they really are, and this WOULD include you…
Who would slience people who you disagree with politically. Do you not see the paralells? Do you not see the irony? For a Liberal? Why do you think you need to slience other’s because you disagree with the content of what they say?
I find that kind of thinking, terrifying.

Karo Syruptatis wrote on Nov 10, 2008 6:48 AM:In todays news there is a story that U.S. secretly attacked al-Qaida in Syria and Pakistan. Now I know the liberals would want the US to attack the filthy terrorists publically and not secretly, so the most US casualties would occur, and as long as Bush is president, liberals will continue to bash him. But, we all know that when Hussein takes the oath and he secretly attacks the terrorists, the liberals will be lining up in praise as to what a military genius he is.

Obama the king wrote on Nov 10, 2008 6:51 AM:Seems that Obama is ready to "RULE" once he is in office.

The co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he's officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. It's a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he's here to "rule" instead of govern.

Oh the libs will spin this as a "slip up" and not a real feeling.

AhnuldJoinsThe Racketeers wrote on Nov 10, 2008 6:52 AM:I see Uhnuld has joined the gay racketeers. First he destroys the state fiscally with his spend on anything the liberals in Sacramento tell him to spend, and now he basically says, Screw the vote of the people on Prop 8. Isnt he a precious governator

Yes We Can wrote on Nov 10, 2008 6:53 AM:It is amazing how the Libs have taken on an immigrant slogan Yes We Can that was used as "Si Se Puede". Hmm will that mean that now we will open the borders and give amnesty to illegals?

Chuck wrote on Nov 10, 2008 6:56 AM:>>>About 13 percent of the world is gay, meaning more than 30 students at my school are gay.>>>
Hey Ren, no one cares that 13% of the students in your school are gay, so please be more concerned about the 95% who will be dumber than dirt when they graduate, because of the public school system.

Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:01 AM:Some people need to grow-up, learn and see that the left does NOT help ANYONE but themselves. I challenge anyone to show 50 delivered upon campaign promises from the left in the last eight years. I say it can't be done.

All Hail the King wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:04 AM:From World Net Daily and CJonline.

Even now, plans under way for Obama national holiday.

This must be a bad joke. Do away with Affirmative Action then.

Alf wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:17 AM:In his column published today in the NCTimes paper version, Bill O'SPIN repeats the LIE of "Even while Obama was winning liberal California, voters were overturning the gay marriage law imposed upon them by ACTIVIST JUDGES.", emphasis mine.
Far be it from me to point out that the job of the California State Supreme Court is to interpret and uphold the California Constitution. The California Constitution proscribes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The denial of marriage licenses to and marriage of two people of the same gender based on their gender and/or their sexual orientation was and is in violation of the anti-discrimination clause in the California Constitution.
"Activist Judges", my behind!!
Doing their job as defined, ABSOLUTELY!
Regards, Alf.

God and Gods wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:31 AM:To those who argue that the Founders established this nation as one that is Christian, I'd like you to imagine something for a moment. Imagine that you were an ancient Greek, from the great period of Socrates or Plato. You look at the Founding documents of the US and at the writings of the Founders and decide that they were establishing a nation as one rooted in your own, ancient Greek view of the world and society. The notion of Democracy, for example, is Greek. Think of all the evidence there would be for your argument and how appalled you, a polytheist, would be at the nerve of some moderns who claim the nation is based on the Hebrew God and His Son. As a polytheist myself, and as a strong believer in democratic values (which you find nowhere in Christianity), I'm offended by those of my peers who try to hijack my country. The Founders would be too.

Karo Syruptatis wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:34 AM:>>>Far be it from me to point out that the job of the California State Supreme Court is to interpret and uphold the California Constitution.>>> But when the individual judges on CA's Supreme court have gay marriage in their personal agenda, why is their vote more compelling than the will of the people???

Alf wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:55 AM:Well, "Karo Syruptatis" at 7:34AM,
very simply out -
Any law or Proposition may be passed by the people and it may be "the will of the people", BUT
if it conflicts with the Constitution (state or federal) it is the duty of the Supreme Court (state or federal) to enforce THE HIGHEST LAW of the state or the United States, thus preventing "the tyranny of the majority".
An example -
If 100 percent of the voters who voted passed a Proposition that declared slavery to be legal in California, it is the duty of the United States Supreme Court, or ANY lower Court to overturn it upon challenge, no matter what percentage of the people voted for it, because it violates the U.S. Constitution.
The California Constitution takes precedence over laws (or Propositions) which violate it
AND
the United States Constitution takes precedence over any law or state Constitution that violates it.
That is our system of government and its legal system as it is.
Regards, Alf.

chuck wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:59 AM:>>>Here is a little story that explains it plain and simple:Father/Daughter Talk>>>
Be careful Joe C, under SB777 and the ultra tolerance of the gay racketeers, Father/Daughter may be considered hate speech, because it offends certain types

Wanda wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:02 AM:Was so happy to read Joe C's posts at 3:10 AM & 3:23 AM.

Thank you so much.

Alf wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:07 AM:Well, "Obama the king" at 6:51AM,
please explain to me what the difference is between being ready to "rule" and being "the decider".
It seems to me that if it was Obama who uttered the word "rule", that would be about the same as GWB declaring himself to be "the decider", but it was not Obama who uttered that word, was it?
So far, Obama has personally shown far less arrogance than GWB.
I will judge Obama by HIS ACTIONS AS PRESIDENT, when he becomes President, not before and not on the words of an aide, just as I judged GWB on his actions as president, not on what someone else said or did.
Regards, Alf.

But Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:11 AM:I challenge anyone to show 50 delivered upon campaign promises from the right in the last eight years. I say it can't be done even though Republicans had Congress and the Presidency for 6 of the last 8 years.

Smiling for Prop 8 wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:23 AM:Of course the Yes on 8 people smile. They are just sure that they are good, loving, pro-family people. Why would they use obscene gestures? Their hatred is not in a finger, it's in a Proposition, and part of their marketing campaign is to show the world how wonderful they are. The No on 8 crowd is cursed with sympathy for people who are being discriminated against. So they are angry. Their anger is out in the daylight, unlike their opponents who are hypnotized into thinking they lover the sinners but only hate the sin. Smiling is how Stepfords do their dirty work.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:26 AM:Wow, Joe C at 3:10 and 3:23 a.m., I was so impressed by your amazingly original experiences, until I realized I had seen both of them in widely-circulated e-mail chain letters before the election.
But this time, it just hit me!
It was so convicning! So persuasive!
So I decided to vote for McCain....

Then I woke up and realized the election has already come and gone.
Hey, Joe the Blogger, who ya tryin' to convnince?

Some suggestions:
1. Make up your own stuff instead of copying Internet rumors
2. Get your message out BEFORE the election.
3. You're posting at 3:00 a.m.! Go back to bed. That 3:00 a.m. phone call ain't gonna be for YOU!

To Political Sign Holder wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:26 AM:Let me add my limited oservations to your limited (and probably fabricated) observations. I stood with a Yes on 8 group where adults had told kids holding Yes on 8 signs that gays are sinners and God does not love them. I stood with a No on 8 group where adults had told kids holding No on 8 signs that in America people have the right to love who they want to love and to marry who they want to marry. It's sad what the Yes on 8 folks taught these young children. As for honkers and finger waivers, people are usually more subtle about spreading hate, and more vocal when challenging hate. Challenging hatred and intolerance is not dishonorable.

bodecea wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:28 AM:To School Pressure,

I love those unsubstantiated rumors of the "Yes on H8" crowd. Say it enough and it becomes the truth to any who want excuses to keep our rights from us.

Give us the name of the school so the news can investigate it....for, if what you say is true, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. But I suspect your little story is false, false, false.

Arrogant with and without reason wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:30 AM:Here come the accusations that Obama is "ruling" and is "arrogant". I seem to recall that the Bush administration said many things, none slips either, that displayed enormous arrogance. "We make reality now", "I'm the decider", "The president doesn't answer to anyone", on and on and on. But Bush's arrogance also included walking that talk. Going with gut feelings, relying on advice only from cronies, getting the direct word from God. So he did Iraq his way, did Katrina his way, did everything his way, especially in the first term, and even excused himself from laws passed by Congress via signing statements (which Bush used more than all previous Presidents put together!). Now that, my friend, is arrogance. And what is Bush's arrogance based on? A superior knowledge of the intricacies of how the world works? Of course not! So if we have an "arrogant" Obama (which, to many, is code for "uppity"), at least his arrogance will be based on more substance. As for "ruling", well, he is taking the Presidency as it was shaped by Bush into something above the Constitution and the law. As you guys were warned repeatedly over the last 8 years: if you like how Bush conceives of the Office, imagine a Democrat running the country that way. Here you go. I hope you enjoy Obama's Imperial Presidency as much as you insisted Bush & Cheney were right, as "War Presidents", to create it.

Bob wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:30 AM:What's up, Wanda, at 8:02 AM, did your Reader Digest subscription run out?

How many times do you need to read these same posts?

Spread the Wealth wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:48 AM:When Obama talked about his tax plans, and then when the right found the "spread the wealth" snippet and broadcast it everywhere as proof that Obama was a socialist, people wondered what impact this would have on the outcome. Now we know. Even WITH the "information" that Obama "wanted" to "spread the wealth", he won. He won by a LOT. Inescapable conclusion: the majority of Americans believe that moving to the left is highly desireable. The majority of Americans WANT the wealth to be spread, EVEN WHEN it's tagged as "socialist" by McCain. Inescapable conclusion: Americans want this and have said so very loud, very clear. Little did the right imagine how out of touch they were with the American people's desires and beliefs. God bless America!

tjefferson wrote on Nov 10, 2008 8:58 AM:Ron at 6:33 a.m., as usual, built straw men and threw in more red herrings from his limitless stock to avoid my question of why he defended one the the most notorious of America's fascist, Father Coughlin. It's quite an insight into Ron's values that he needed to go back 70 years to find a fascist example to defend free speech rights. In my post I didn't give my opinion about first amendment rights for a traitor who supported the enemy while our allies and later our troops were dying from the actions of Coughlin's friends, Hitler and Mussolini. Ron falsely insinuats I did. Another of Ron's red herrings falsely insinuates I did not support the ACLU in their petition to the court on the side of the KKK. I'm a liberal and a proud member of the ACLU and I did support the right of the KKK to peacefully assemble at the capitol in St. Paul, MN. I also supported the ACLU in their medical privacy advocacy on the side of Rush Limbaugh, a man I loathe.

And her's yet another "Ron Red Herring." It's about the FCC. The establishment of the FCC in 1934 had nothing to do with Father Coughlin. It was established to correct the confusing power and frequency allocations from the old FRC. The FCC regulates licensed radio stations. Coughlin didn't own a radio station, licensed or not. The first entity to limit Coughlin's radio access was CBS in 1931 during the Hoover administration.

I do believe in the first amendment. I don't recall Ron ever defending the first amendment rights of the liberals on this site who were call traitors and told to get out of the country for not supporting Bush and the war in Iraq. Yet Ron needs to go back 70 years to defend fascist Father Coughlin's free speech under the Bill of Rights. How very, very odd.

Four years wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:03 AM:after an immigration judge issued a deportation order for Zeituni Onyango to leave the country, she is still here. It will be interesting to see if she is still here four years from now. It would be interesting to know much public assistance money is going to people under deportation order each year.

Hearts and minds wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:05 AM:Can someone explain to me how bombing civilian weddings and villages will help us win the "war on terror"? True, we might kill a few terrorists. But what happens next? Entire tribes become allies of the Taliban. The national governments, once our allies, are turned into enemies by the pressure applied by their constituents. Is Bush's goal really to LOSE the war on terror? Or maybe to create a war that will never end, and that will take American lives forever? Because the way he has chosent to fight it is just about the opposite of a strategy aimed at victory. Unless I'm missing something.

Prop 8 - inconsistent morality wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:09 AM:Why is it that so much effort was put towards stopping monogamous, loving family unions, while apparently there's no great effort towards enforcing laws against homosexual and heterosexual prostitution being graphically advertised in craigslist? That's not in the back alleys of a seedy part of town, that's in our homes and on our children's computers. I see none of the religious folks speaking against that. Does that mean homosexuality it's ok with them as long as it's not monogamous? They don't want homosexuality "taught" in schools, yet how many of them have sources such as craigslist blocked from their families' computers?

Chuck wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:20 AM:I see a teen girl blew herself up in Baghdad. See what happens when racketeers get ahold of the kiddies and indocrinate them into their way of life

Wanda wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:21 AM:Actually, Bob, at 8:30 AM, I had side bets on how many times these two posts would be offered up as original thoughts.

The 3:23 AM post has come up every four years for as long as I can remember, and may well have originated in Reader's Digest :)

Chuck wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:22 AM:>>Why is it that so much effort was put towards stopping monogamous, loving family unions,>>> I'd like to know who is stopping that?? The answer is no one.

Spread what wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:28 AM:If I write a bigger check to the government, I'll cut back on discretionary spending and someone will lose his job because of it. That person will not be better off living on a government subsistence check than he was living off of his paycheck. This spread the wealth scheme will increase unemployment and the only winners will be the government officials doling out the money.

So Long to Bush wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:28 AM:Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights, Gitmo, and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

Richard wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:32 AM:Not tipping a waiter who depends on that as income [and who in fact is taxed on the forced assumption that he DID receive such tips, whether received or not] is basically cheating and not paying a proper bill. Yes, all servers are taxed on income that is artificially raised by a fixed percent based on the pre-assumption that their income must have included tips, whether they ever did or not. How's that for income re-distribution? It's done by the IRS now. Obama is not for 'stealing other peoples' money to give to those who 'don't work'. What he is for is common sense. If we are going to have income taxed to support our military, national defense, police, schools, etc. then do it fairly. Don't tax people when they didn't make the money being taxed (the case above) and don't allow tax evasion where those earning much don't pay a proportionate share. This is a 'tax loophole' and Obama wants illegal loopholes closed, because how else can we maintain such things as our Navy and other indispensable services if there aren't taxes?
And as far as helping the poor, everyone does that out of his own heart at his own ability, which means doing it while you still are responsible for paying your own bills. Which is the opposite of Bush, who doesn't believe in paying bills, just endless borrowing from China to pay for occupying a country until they are somehow 'democratic'--whatever the cost.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:33 AM:To Joe C at 3:10 & 3:23 a.m. These gems have popped up in my email countless times during the past few months. If you have no ideas of your own, please, at least, cut and paste something fresh.

on the other hand Ron wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:33 AM:Of course we all, every one, salutes your willingness to defend people's freedom of speech. (As if that was the issue!) On the other hand, as I said yesterday, in many ways, your political philosophy is quite compatible with the fascist view of the relationship between the State and Industry. Like you, Hitler wanted unlimited spending on the military-industrial complex. Like you, anything remotely resembling "socialism" was condemned as evil in Hitler's Germany. Government working hand in hand with big business was Hitler's model, because he saw that it benefitted both enormously. He was also very sentimental about the noble service of the young people in the military, defending the Fatherland. He believed, correctly, that the State-Business coziness and demand for infinite military-related spending would create jobs and end the Depression in Germany. I see you and fascism have a great deal in common. Not the anti-semitism part, of course. But an enthusiasm for killing anyone who might be seen as an enemy of the state? Sure 'nough. An enthusiasm for doing anything necessary, including torture and warrantless snooping, to defeat the state's enemies? Check! Enhanced power for the unitary executive and his need to work in secrecy? I think so! My opinions here are based completely on your many posts, Ron. If the shoe fits...

Chuck wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:34 AM:>>>>Their hatred is not in a finger, it's in a Proposition, and part of their marketing campaign is to show the world how wonderful they are.>>>

Where is the hate??? The gay racketeers want to change the definition of marriage and the peole said NO, they prefer the traditional definition. Why is that thateful. Same sex couples have exactly the same legal rights are those in a traditional marriage. So, the question comes down to: Why would the racketeers spend $40 million to change one definition, unless it was part of some grander scheme of theirs. So, as I see it, the grander scheme has suffered a setback, to the benefit of all of the rest of us

To But Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:37 AM:My poor misguided liberal dear, please do as I say, not as I do. My character and my personal effort to make this country better should be clearly evident by the money I have spent on bumper stickers for my drill-baby-drill SUV (which is quite literally the least that I can do). My declaring myself a good American obvioulsy makes me a good American. Why is that so hard for goofy liberals to grasp? Yours truly, a God-fearing flag-waving liberal-hating Yes on 8-voting Fox-watching conservative. And if you want to reply, please don't forget, I have the bumper stickers to prove I love America (well, at least that I love half of America).

craigslist wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:40 AM:A child is looking at that stuff on a computer screen only if a parent allows them to. No moral parent allows their child to surf the Internet unsupervised. We all know the quantity of immoral material available online, and that it would be impossible to block every objectionable site.

Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:41 AM:Do you left wingnuts really think Obama will be able to deliver all those promises he made to you?

Business are closing, leaving, laying off. The stock market is tanking. Money is flowing to off shore accounts How can you spread the wealth if there is none?

He is about to find out that the presidency is the worlds lonliest job. He won’t have the luxury or time with your little special interests.

Did you see the stunned look on the Obamabots faces when he announced that we all will have to sacrifice? Or when he said that there should be a draft to national service?

Face it… you all are just waaiting for those checks he promised. Thats all you care about ….. gettin yours… Instead you will be lucky to get a good spot in the bread line.

Prop 8 wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:01 AM:To craigslist reply:

A child is in public school and attending family life and sex education classes only if a parent allows them to.

If a parent can monitor their kid's internet usage, they can also refuse to sign permission for their child to attend sex education, or put them in private school.

Joe C wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:03 AM:The Lord Obama meeting with his economic advisory team here, and the theme of the meeting basically could be summed up as, "Alright, what the hell do we do now? We actually won this thing, now what do we do?" So we're we have Jennifer Granholm, architect of a sit tight wide recession named to the Obama economic team. This is like naming Eliot Spitzer your attorney general. Hee, hee... I mean, this is too good. And again, this article in the Detroit News: "Her strengths are she's charismatic, a good public speaker. She's outgoing." Wow! ou mean she's cute and she speaks well like... Sarah Palin? She's destroying an entire state! Maybe they can make Michael Bloomberg the leader of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:05 AM:There has never been an election in history where the candidate won on the basis of charisma, rather than talent and values, and things worked out well: Hitler, Castro, Kennedy, Trudeau, Chavez, Putin are all examples of this. I remember being in Montreal in 1970 just after Trudeau was elected with “Trudeaumania.” The French Separatist terrorists went nuts, there were bombs every week. I was in an English neighbourhood and all the windows were bombed out of our house. Quebec has never been the same. The Francophones in Quebec just use Canada for the medical plan and pensions. They are separate in everything but name.

When you suspend your judgment because you are too lazy to be critical of anyone, regardless of their skin color, only bad things can happen.

I would not hire someone whose citizenship, college grades and medical status I could not prove. Obama is fighting a law suit for production of his birth documents in Philadelphia, and he has sealed his education records and medical records.

Roger wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:06 AM:Yea, you're right, Debbie, at 9:41 AM.

Hasn't been all of six days since he was elected, and he still hasn't taken office, but already everything, which was going so "swimmingly well" before, is falling apart.

We should have listened to you.

Ms M wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:06 AM:To all the con bloggers out there: You have been so very busy bashing president "ELECT" Obama. Have you forgotten that YOUR guy is NOW the president. Now all together please tell us WHERE HE IS? We are having a financial breakdown (the worse is yet to come) and other than seeing him on TV begging America to bail out the FAT CATS where is he? Why are you not contacting the "decider" about all the ills that America has faced? Why are you not demanding better from YOUR guy? What's the matter - no solutions to todays problems. Nothing constructive to fix our problems. PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!

Ms M wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:12 AM:Debbie
[-] wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:41 AM:...pray tell Debbie, what about all those promises that Bush made? Just how many things did he accomplish? No, forget about what Bush promised to do - just tell us what he DID that was POSITIVE during his administration? Tell us the greatness of his time in office? Tell us about the creativity from Bush? Tell us about the fresh new things that have been accomplished by Bush & company? Come on Debbie - we are waiting!!!!

Richard wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:15 AM:Yes, a breadline created by the current White House, so stubborn that if you denounce torture you are a leftist liberal; if you don't want to accept killing collateral civilians, you're a cut and run defeatist; and if you don't fund billions in war supplementals from borrowed money from China, you're not supporting the troops; and to help the economy you must institute tax cuts, even if they're already cut, cutting them again while also starting a war. The country voted to stop this nonsense, not to form more tent cities and breadlines.
Do you honestly want Obama to continue Bush's desires? Will you be happy if Obama were to continue torture, arresting people without habeas corpus, wiretapping and expanding bombings into Syria at will without communicating intent with the government of Syria, continue with more tax cuts and borrowing more money from China by insisting we protected them from anthrax Iraq attacks? Please, say it isn't so, so we can get on with denouncing the nonsense this has always been. Otherwise, you could make these request known in writing to Obama.

Joe C wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:17 AM:Unemployment numbers, 6 1/2 percent, oh, it's horrible out there, it's really rotten. The stock market however is up 202. Once again it's inexplicable. Now, these unemployment numbers at 6 1/2 percent, what do we do here? Do we blame Congress or the man they hired to ensure the economic well-being of Americans? And I mean this. Congress is run by Democrats. It could have delivered tax cuts months ago and avoided any and all of this disappointing news, but they played politics, they passed the $700-plus bailout, rescue, power grab bill, they did nothing to increase the disposable income of consumers and businesses, neither did the Treasury secretary. If they would have just passed across the board tax cuts months ago, we wouldn't need hope because we'd have had prosperity. We would have jobs or a better chance of recovering. So Obama's having his peace summit, peace whatever it is with his advisors waiting on the -- look at that set. Once again, the Greek columns look to be back with blue curtains on them and all those American flags. It's a replica of the acceptance speech set where Obama is going to have his press conference. So he can have his economic summit, he can do a press conference, it's going to be a waste of time. The answer is so obvious any nonelitist can figure it out.

If you let people and businesses keep more of the money they have earned and invested, then you're going to have increased economic activity. It's not complicated. Congress can click its heels three times and pass tax cuts, but they don't dare because liberty and freedom is not what the Democrats are about. And, by the way, I'm confused. I have to admit, folks, I am totally confused. We got unemployment at 6 1/2 percent, we got people being laid off all over the country, General Motors, Ford, it's bleak out there. I thought the Treasury secretary was ordered to prevent this? Should the secretary be fired for the job numbers? He has not ensured the economic well-being of Americans. Well, let me read to you the title of the bailout bill, Section 1, the short title: "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Section 2, Purposes. Provides authority to the Treasury secretary to restore liquidity and stability to the US financial system and to ensure the economic well-being of Americans." Is the well-being of Americans ensured right now? It is not. Is there stability in the US financial system? There is not. The Treasury secretary was given everything that he wanted, $700 billion bailout.

I'm just helpin ya out here.

NOBAMA wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:19 AM:No President can control the economy, but he can help it a whole lot. “Can” Obama? Better question is, “will” Obama fix the economy? And the answer is no. He can’t because he is, according to his own statements, a rabid communist, a Marxist of the first order. Thus, he WON’T DO anything but make things worse, thus putting more power into government (his) hands. And, to Obama, doing that is fixing things.

jvc wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:30 AM:We have all been waiting in the bread lines since Reagan while the wealthy have plundered this country! Will this change?

Republican Socialist wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:38 AM:Spread the Wealth at 8:48 a.m. asks why American voters were not repelled by a couple of very old snippets taken out of context that used the phrase "share the wealth" to describe efforts to put a halt to Republican and conservative efforts to redistribute wealth from working people to investors, and to privatize obscene profits while SOCIALIZING only the losses.

I guess when they saw VP nominee Sarah Palin's New Yorker interview where she discussed the Alaska "collective" oil enterprise and used the same expression, "share the wealth" to describe it, they just were not convinced that the Republicans were more sincere about NOT "spreading the wealth," just which direction all this wealth was being spread to.

Seems like if there is going to be any attempt to "spread the wealth," working people (and there's more of us than there are of you) would rather see wealth spread to working people than to those who already own and control most of it and who haven't done such a great job of managing it.

When some Republicans call everyone else "Marxists" or "Socialists" and then support corporate takeovers and "collective" state-owned enterprises to "share the wealth," it just looks like more of that pot and kettle thing.

Poor Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:45 AM:Debbie wants, more than anything, for her right-wing fantasies to be true. It even impairs her ability to read! How many posts from Obama fans here have talked about "no time for insults now, there's too much work to do!"? Answer: a lot! Debbie cannot imagine that "liberals" are enthusiastic and hard-working people, especially in the service of their ideals. I'm old enough to remember the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam movement. Millions of people working their rear ends off and even risking their lives for noble ends. Exactly the opposite of Debbie's fake-liberal who sits around getting government handouts. Given the choice between the propaganda she's heard and the reality staring her in the face, which do you think Debbie will choose to believe? Debbie: up to you!

TV GUY wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:50 AM:You cut out the TV guide booklet and replaced it with a daily sheet.But can't you at least get that right. Today's issue is a mess. Your way of getting us to buy the $2 version on Sunday?

Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:58 AM:Bush cut taxes for all taxpayers and is encouraging Congress to make those cuts permanent. Bush took the war on terror back to the middle east, keeping us safe. Bush has made the effort to insure our troops have proper funding despite the best efforts of the liberals in Congress to prevent it. That's three.

Bill wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:02 AM:As long as the No on 8 crowd continues to claim they are denied civil rights, they will continue to lose this battle.

Once again, there are no civil rights being denied.

The correct legal challenge would be on seperate but equal grounds.

For some reason, even legal counsel continues to make this legally inept argument. The proponents of gay marraige need to understand this fundamantal difference or they will continue to lose this one.

I voted against Prop 8 so nobody can call me a hate monger.

However, if youre going to use the courts, then at least make the correct legal argument. Civil rights claims are ludicrous as NOBODYs rights are being denied. You have no right to marry. However, you do have a right to equal protection and thats the argument they SHOULD be making. Claiming civil rights are denied is an absurd claim.

However, there is plenty of precedent for an equal protection argument.

Comparing gay marraige to the struggle blacks faced is an empty argument since gays have rights under the status quo. Gays can do everything that straights can with power of attorney with the burdening legal costs. Thats an equal protection argument so why are they continuing to claim they are comparable to the struggles the blacks faced?

The proponents dont seem to understand this.

They will continue to lose in the courts until they do. The 9th decision has no compelling federal interest which is why the SC wont touch it.

The SC wouldnt deny a writ to a civil rights violation.

The SC denied the writ based on the weak legal argument that fails to show a cause of action since nobodys civil rights are being violated.

They are being denied equal protection though but nobody is arguing that for some reason.

Fishy is right.....

Maybe they want more.

Dont blame the people for this.

A correct legal argument would clear this up fast but they arent making it.

Instead of directing their anger at the "bigots" that they claim are denying them rights, they should be firing their attorneys.

Indoctrination wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:07 AM:Hey, Chuck, are there any people that you admire for being willing to die for a cause? How about our Marines? Or is it only "indoctrination" when it's for a cause you don't agree with? Just checking, because from the point of view of some devout Muslims, the US is an invader and a terrorist nation, and fighting the US is noble defense of land, religion, and way of life. You know, all the stuff you admire, when they're yours.

Ms M wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:08 AM:NOBAMA
[-] wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:19 AM:...as i said in my earlier post - Bush is STILL the president. All these questions that you have for Obama, the president ELECT, should you not be directing them to our CURRENT "decider"? Since we are NOW in a crisis - what is YOUR guy doing about it? Just where is that great guy Bush that you cons are always accusing us of bashing? PATHETIC!!!!

To Ms M Economy wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:09 AM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:06 AM:To all the con bloggers out there: You have been so very busy bashing president "ELECT" Obama. Have you forgotten that YOUR guy is NOW the president. Now all together please tell us WHERE HE IS? We are having a financial breakdown (the worse is yet to come)....

Please see Barney Franks, Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the lefty gang that controlled the Financial Commitees. It is amazing how you guys can yell to keep government out of your lives and then demand it back in :)

Bill wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:14 AM:Ms. M

You are a PATHETIC hypocrite as Nancy Pelosi is talking about bailing out the auto industry right now and she isnt including Presidnt Bush.

I guess its A-OK when a union industry is bailed out but not when its a financial institution right?

You have selective ideology.

That type of hypocrisy is why your ilk will fail to implement their agenda.

The auto industry is where they are because they make an inferior product that nobody wants.

Explain to me why the bailout of Detroit is good but bailing out Wall St. isnt.

HYPOCRITE!

hardtack wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:15 AM:Clay Northcote has a good point as regards the Vatican’s published "seven new deadly sins." Moreover, if the Pope considers “accumulating excessive wealth” a cause of poverty then he needs to put down the Bible for a while and pick up a copy of Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt.

As P. J. O’Rourke said: "Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic policy.”

Bill wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:16 AM:I want everyone to do what Joe C. did.

Then we will see whether the middle class really likes the concept of spread the wealth.

I did that too Joe.

Keep up the good work.

Chuck wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:17 AM:>>>Hey, Chuck, are there any people that you admire for being willing to die for a cause? How about our Marines? Or is it only "indoctr>>>
All I can say is that I feel profoundly sorry for you if you dont see the difference between a Marine and a suicide bomber.

Ms M wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:19 AM:Debbie
[-] wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:58 AM:...oops Debbie - your list of THREE is PATHETIC!
The tax cuts for the rich, oh yes that was to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Okay well since we lost over a million jobs this year alone and the economy tanking - I don't really think that was very positive.

And on taking the war on terror to the middle east - are you talking about the billion dollar fiasco that we were lied into?

And funding the troops - well first of all if Bush had not lied us into a war we would not be talking about funding the troops. Now are you talking about the same funding that brought us inadequate body armour and equipment? Military vehicles that were built so badly they were unable to withstand IED's? Was it Rumsfield who said when folks started complaining about the ill equiped army that we go to war with the army we have?

Yeah great job Bushie. Sorry Deb, but if this is what you call positive achievements it really doesn't give us too much - but now we know why our country is in shambles.....PATHETIC!!!!!!

Bill wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:20 AM:Richard.

Please buddy.

A "loophole" is nothing more than a deduction and thats what Obama wants to eliminate.

Youre gullible I see?

But you said he wants to do it and youre right.

Confused but right.

Poor Debbie wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:26 AM:Debbie seems to have the belief that Bush made efforts to keep the troops supplied and was undermined by the liberals in Congress. Poor Debbie! From 2000 until 2006, the liberals in Congress had zero power, Debbie. They couldn't stop Bush from doing anything. Bush did not need to use the veto during that time, because he objected to nothing the Congress gave him. You might recall that when Rumsfeld was asked about how badly the troops were equipped,