Joe wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:37 AM:Whether one is for or against gay marriage, the argument that the "religious people" are bigots and haters and homophobes and whatever other names the rabid Left can toss out is laughable. LIBERALISM is a religion, and ABORTION is their sacrament. Those on the left cannot argue that "religious people" voted to take rights away, while the Left exercises their religion daily by aborting viable infants,... and then try to ease your conscience by calling it a "still birth." You leftist socialist Obama supporters complain about passionate Christians, but NO GROUP is less tolerant toward the beliefs of others and more passionate about forcing their beliefs down everyone's throat than the LIBERALS.

Local to Mark Atkins wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:24 AM:I voted for my first black president, Alan Keyes. Please forgive any misspelling. I don't give a crap about his pigmentation. He represented my ideals. Are you the former administrator at OG in Escondido? I am intrigued by your letter.

Poor Sherry Cahill wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:39 AM:... a ... misled woman. One wonders why letters are printed that contain nothing but lies? I wish her enlightenment.

Karo Syruptatis wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:56 AM:When told by his staff that today was a national holiday, Our Saviour declared "It take them long to honor me, did it". Unfortunately, one of his staff people told him it was the 4th of July, another told him it was Memorial Day and another told him it was Christmas. They decided to look it up on the internet and finally found out it is Veterans day. Hussein responded "Wat dat"

Chuck wrote on Nov 11, 2008 5:01 AM:>>>On Tuesday, our state voted to take away the freedoms of a group of our own citizens for no reason other than their sexual orientation.>>>
Emma, please go back to your public school teacher who had you write that, and ask "just what freedoms were taken away". You will find out the answer is "none" and that its just the teachers union's desperate attempt with their indoctrination agenda to ensnare you. Think for yourself. Just say no to the public school union, and for heavens sake, dont ever find yourself alone with one of them.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 5:42 AM:Today is Veterans Day.
The following is a partial quote from
http://www1.va.gov/opa/vetsday/vetdayhistory.asp

"World War I – known at the time as “The Great War” - officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles outside the town of Versailles, France. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of “the war to end all wars.”
"In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day..."
"The original concept for the celebration was for a day observed with parades and public meetings and a brief suspension of business beginning at 11 a.m."
No matter what you call it,
there is an irony to the fact that
"the war to end all wars" was not so.
We have had -
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Many smaller wars and
This war in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Let's take a moment to examine why "the war to end all wars" did not end all wars.
Regards, Alf.

Sally wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:08 AM:Have you noticed all the personal attacks from the opponents to Proposition 8? That's the sign of someone who has no facts or logic to support their belief. They tried to change the definition of marriage and failed twice because what they do isn't marriage.

Ron wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:35 AM:I think Sherry Cahill has a few real gems today.
>>>I think it's time our schools started teaching history again, the history that made our country great.>>>

As the public schools have moved away from teaching American history, moving towards the notion of global citizenship, these young voters were ready made to vote for Barackous Nobamous.

In an era where future citizens have no sense of real American history, or world history for that matter, The NObama celebrity tour has well struck a chord, much along the lines of American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars.

They have been "educated" within the structure of collective projects, where if one fails, they all fail.
Where if one receives a trophy, they all get one.
This is the group think, this collectivism, the Liberal Institutionalism I've been speaking to.
All leading up to the messiahship {small "m"} we have now.

Bob wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:51 AM:Craig Smith is on to something here. What with some 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, it's a safe bet we have no intention of leaving. Can't keep on borrowing money to pay for this indefinately. How about we sieze the oil?

Who would have thought Operation Iraqi Liberation had anything to do with oil?

What a concept!

Grownups wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:59 AM:Sherry Cahill's letter is the perfect example of another victim of right-wing hate-radio propaganda who can't think for herself, as she spews the bile fed into her unthinking ditto-head, using language that is both inaccurate and inflammatory to voice words of hatred for a President poised on the cusp of greatness - but who hasn't even been sworn in yet.

I think I understand where this deep well of visceral hatred springs from.

For the last eight years, the parents have been gone and the immture teenagers have totally trashed the place, profiteering from no-bid defense contracts, sweetheart deals for oil cronies, and corporate bailouts aimed at the pockets of failed CEO's rather than consumers and workers. (Did you see the Special Report on ABC World News Tonight last night about a single party for AIG top management that cost $250,000 of your bailout money for ONE PARTY?)

Now the parents are about to come home and these immature hooligans are terrified of having to face the grownups.

The only "Socialism" they really fear is the end of spreading the wealth from working people to their own greedy, slimy pockets.

Ron wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:01 AM:Now here, I'm just no following the logic here...

Now, what we are told by those who voted NO on Prop 8, is that voting No is a celebration of human rights, or marriage rights, really.


Linda Knight says he's amazed how the
Mormon church supported Proposition 8. >>>Aren't these the same people who were persecuted not long ago for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman ... ?>>>

Yes, and dropping polygamy was a requirement for entering the Union. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, which will tell you how far Vermont has fallen, today they are represented by an avowed socialist, ranked 4th, with NObama ranked 1st, and NOBiden ranked 3rd.
But, I digress...

I guess my question here is rather simple.
Why not just open the can up to everyone to individually define their own marriage? I mean...
That would ultimately be the "fairest" option, to everyone. Let each person, or couple define for themselves what their marriage shall be, who, how many, how long, etc., etc., etc.

But those in favor of same sex marriage only want these added rights given to themselves, while anyone else with a different idea will ride at the back of the bus.
I find that kind of thinking rather....
"bigoted" of you.

Worried wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:03 AM:If I did not believe God is in control and puts down nations and raises them up I would be freaking out right now. It is time to suk it up, plan for a bismal future as we free americans get to experience life in a socialist for once. Maybe in 2010 we will be more thankful for the nation we have/had, when it is taken away!!!

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:05 AM:Past societies that embraced homosexuality as normal have always fallen. It will be no different today.

The homosexual agenda claims to just want equal rights, yet in reality it is pushing for superior rights and special laws just for them. We now have hate crime laws that are unecessary. Past laws already covered assault, intimidation, etc for everyone. What people don`t realize is that these new special laws also encompass preaching against homosexuality. They can be twisted and stretched to prevent even a preacher from condemning homosexuality as a sin. He/she could be cited for inciting hatred if taken to the extreme.

If anyone disagrees with the agenda they are branded homophobic, hateful, bigoted, ignorant and backward. Look at California. The issue was put on the ballot, voted on.....all done according to law. The voters spoke loud and clear. But here we have the homosexuals protesting in the streets, spray painting church`s and carrying vulgar signs with hate filled sentiments. Basically having a major temper tantrum about democracy in action. lol Hey, they can put their own initiative on the ballot when the next time pops up and do things by the law just like this one was this time. They know it won`t work though, so they have temper tantrums and are hoping if they hold their breath long enough and stomp their feet "mama" government will give in. LOL Sad.

to Mark Atkins wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:07 AM:It is more important to be HUMAN first. We as humans will continue to exist without "America". As humans, people have the right to celebrate and never be denied of their heritage or ethnicity.If you can't accept a person embracing their heritage, then you are un-American yourself.We are a melting pot and we all contribute to this plante. We do not have to deny our roots, ever.

jvc wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:21 AM:If religion is so tolerant, why does it not let more women into the clergy?

Ms M wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:25 AM:Karo Syruptatis
[-] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:56 AM:...ignorance can't be bliss...did you feel good after your post - shame on you - BEYOND PATHETIC!

Caro Cogitatus wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:32 AM:Chuck (@5:01am),

You ask Emma "just what freedoms were taken away" by Prop 8. I'll answer for her. Here's the text of Prop 8:

Shall the California Constitution be changed to ***it's right here -->eliminate the right<-- it's right here*** of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

Can you spot it? It's pretty subtle, but keep looking.

To Mark Atkins wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:36 AM:President Elect Barack Obama is not the one who has labeled himself the first African-American or Black elected to be President. That is the doing of the media! Barack Obama shares my ideals, he has vision, and self control something McCain did not have. When I think of My New President I see HOPE. One more thing for the record Barack Obama is Bi-Racial. What title do you propose we label him now. He is American and so am I but we all come from somewhere and we can't forget that either.

Gotta Laugh wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:41 AM:Sally[-] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 6:08 AM: Not true. They are the voices of anger.
Hope to hear from you after the decision by the federal Supreme Court.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:42 AM:Hey Joe! I'm a liberal person. I don't support killing babies, neither do any of my liberal friends. We support a woman's right to have or not have a child by aborting a non-viable fetus. We especially support that right when some man forces himself on her, even within marriage; or when a fetus has no chance of living outside the womb, even if allowed to go full term. Your post is full of hate. Are you a Christian?

Wanda wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:43 AM:Craig Smith seems to think we have a public relations problem regarding our occupation of Iraq, and that by extorting oil from them to finance our occupation we would improve our image, or as he puts it: "...without being America, the unilateral democratic colonizer."

We currently have some 700 to 800 military bases in 63 countries, including 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. We are, obviously, imperialists, no matter how you spin it.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:44 AM:Joe[-] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:37 AM: Are you Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack?

Oh come on Sherry there you go again looking to past wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:45 AM:Hey Sherry that mudslinging didn't work during the election and believe me sister it ain't gonna work now. The Baracuda, Pit bull with lipstick, Maverick Sara Palin tried it and it didn't work!!! It was a landslide you see my friend the American people don't like slander nor do they like slanderers so perhaps its best if you just shuh. Thank you. Congratulations to our New President Barack Hussien Obama.

Poor Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:47 AM:Saddam violated UN sanctions. Perhaps, but most on the ground knew he had no WMDs nor any connection to al Qaeda. The UN weapons inspectors said so, as did our inspector. Bush told the inspectors to get out. The US also violated the UN and international law by patrolling no-fly zones and bombing Iraqi weapons for years before the war. Illegal. Debbie's claim that the Iraqi women/girls are going to school now unlike under Saddam is another example of her ignorance. Iraq was the ONE regime in the area that was NOT run by Muslim law. Iraq was a secular state, and girls were educated and more equal than in our ally states such as Saudi Arabia. Now, as the elected government is dominated by Shiites and is an allyl of Iran, girls will be much less likely to be treated equally than they were under Saddam. Debbie, again, don't believe me. Read things other than neocon propaganda. Saddam was an evil and brutal dictator. It is not US policy, nor legal under international law, to unilaterally invade, bomb, destroy a sovereign nation on the grounds that the leader was awful. It is not legal to destroy a sovereign nation because that nation "would be a good launching pad for a war" on other sovereign nations. Either you don't get this, Debbie, or you are a willing tool of the war-mongers of this rogue nation under Bush. Maybe you love killing Muslim children as much as bin Laden loves killing Americans. If so, you should at least know that your political philosophy would be condemned by the world as illegal and condemned by every church and synagogue in the US (except the Southern Baptists, who seem to have their own view of Jesus' Golden Rule). Dick Cheney said that 9-11 was "an opportunity". Maybe you agree with him. In that case, I can only pray that your moral values change, for your sake and the world's sake.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:49 AM:Worried[+] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:03 AM:
Me thinks you need to return to grade school. Learn to spell and compose sentences.

Chuck wrote on Nov 11, 2008 7:52 AM:On this veterans day, I read the NY Times epitheth to Gen. George Patton.
It merely said "He was not a Man of Peace".

One day, liberals will learn that he taught us how to win a war, and its not the way Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha want us to fight it. (at least until Our Saviour is inaugurated)

Roger wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:00 AM:Bob, at 6:51 AM, quips: "Who would have thought Operation Iraqi Liberation had anything to do with oil?".

Well, Bob, the unfortunate acronym pretty much gave it away :)

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:01 AM:Gay marriage would open a can of worms that would get out of control. Divorces? Adopted children? Benefit rights? OMG!!! The court systems would be backed up worse than they already are. Live together, have your private gay little ceremony, but stay out of the legal system!

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:02 AM:I'll take the Bible's teachings any day over the 'educated society'. and for the record i have not been 'brain-washed at an early age'. i'm a born-again Christian as of 2005...when i was 46. and as far as rationalism and education outside only the Bible, i would only ask that these educated society folks try reading and studing their Bibles...as i am certain they did not come to their well rounded conclusions with the help of Scripture...and btw...i don't hate gays...i do not like the sin of homosexuality, and i do not want them to try to force society to embrace it.

to Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:09 AM:Your grandchildren were-how did you put them- "non-viable fetuses."

I "choose" to fight for the rights of all women-born and unborn.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:13 AM:There you go again, "Vista Granny" at 7:42AM and 7:49AM, calling them as you see them!
Aren't you glad that the Colorado bill FAILED that would have made conception (fertilization) the definition of the beginning of life?
Regards, Alf.

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:16 AM:So you know how evil Hussein was and you still defend him? Have you forgotten the news reports that Hussein was interfering with UN inspectors? Do you really think the rape rooms treated women well? Did you miss the fact that the Kurds were slaughtered with weapons of mass destruction? The invasion of Iraq wasn't unilateral -- it was a multinational force that was enforcing UN resolutions. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please don't pretend it is fact.

Apollo wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:22 AM:Re: Debbie (11/10 9:36 p.m.)
Debbie says that we were right to divert our troops from Afghanistan (which was harboring the terrorists who actually attacked us) and unilaterally invade Iraq (which had done NOTHING to us), "Because Iraq was flagrantly violating UN resolutions."
Ah, but none of those resolution involved any threat to the United States.
Moreover, Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter (notably Articles 45, 48, and 50-51) specifies that enforcement of U.N. violations can ONLY be done by international action directed by the U.N., and NOT by individual member nations.
So in taking unilateral action not under U.N. auspices, it was actually the U.S. that was violating not only U.N. resolutions but, more seriously, the U.N. Charter itself!

Debbie blathers on: "Iraq is a good staging area for the war against terror."
Ah, but that is just the point, Debbie. THEY WEREN'T.
Well, at least not until Bush created a power vacuum there, which Al Qaeda rushed in to fill.
So NOW we have to deal with Al Qaeda in Iraq, which we never did before this misbegotten adventure.

More from Debbie: "The Iraqi people are better off now."
Maybe, maybe not. Those who have lost their homes, villages and loved ones might not agree.
But there are many people living under far worse dictatorships around the world, including North Korea, Cuba, Bush Buddy Saudi Arabia (which produced 15 out of 19 hijackers including Bin Laden himself), Sudan, Zaire, Burma (I refuse to call them by their preferred name), and many more far more brutal than Saddam ever was. Does Debbie propose we invade all of them?
Again, it was none of our business. If international intervention were appropriate, it had to be through the U.N.

Debbie pitifully brings up the thing about Kurds being gassed. Yeah, Reagan and Rumsfeld provided the gas, remember? Remember Rumsfeld's big bear hug of Saddam and making all kissy-face, AFTER the Kurdish massacres? But that, of course, was when we still had an oil deal favorable to the oil cronies. When they couldn't perpetuate their one-sided deals, Saddam became an enemy. Removing him opened up his oil spoils, and also sent a reminder to our "friends" the Saudis.

Roger wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:22 AM:Come on, Wanda, at 7:43 AM, we're not imperialists, we're just doing this to protect Chris' freedoms :)

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:28 AM:As for your belief that opposing homosexuality leads to a successful country, look at Iraq, they opposed homosexuality and they had their country invaded and occupied. In the United States our individual rights cannot (and should not) be taken away by majority rule as you suggest. Read the constitution. The majority once supported slavery (to which you would say, the majority has spoken so you cry-baby slaves better get over it). Do you really not see how wrong you are, and that your intolerance will never prevail? Would you sing your little tune of majority rules if your neighbors by majority rule said you have to move out of town? So yes, I for one do strongly believe your distorted view is homophobic, hateful, bigoted, ignorant and backward. I’m not saying this to call you hurtful names, I’m saying this to label your behavior and comments. How do you think your views should be labeled, loving, gay-embracing, enlightened and foreward thinking?

Wanda wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:34 AM:It's not clear who Debbie, at 8:16 AM, was responding to with: "So you know how evil Hussein was and you still defend him?"

Has anybody been defending Sadam Hussein?

To Worried wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:41 AM:You don't sound as though you have faith in your God you sound more like Eyore. What is supposed to happen 2010?

Apollo wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:44 AM:Re: Debbie (8:16 a.m.)
More misinformation.

Actually, Debbie, Saddam never interfered with the U.N. Weapons inspectors.
If you heard that from "news reports" (wow, that is specific!), then you need to stop getting your phony news from propagandists Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly.

The FACT is:
U.N. Weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei reported there were NO WMD.
Bush's own U.S. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported there were NO WMD.
The National Intelligence Estimate, prepared by a consortium of Bush's intelligence agencies, reported NO WMD.
Our allies the French and Germans, who supported us in the first Gulf War (authorized by a U.N. resolution), reported NO WMD and did not support us, despite overwhelming support for the U.S. after 9/11.

All of the above were ridiculed by propagandists Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly.
All of the above turned out to be correct.

But Bush got his oil war and Osama bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora.

Bob wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:48 AM:Debbie, at 8:01 AM, has no problem with allowing gays to "...have your private gay little ceremony..."

How "tolerant".

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:49 AM:Same sex friendships are not marriage. That's why the voters have reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman twice.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:50 AM:Well, "Debbie" at 7:05AM,
there is a difference between "embrace" and "accept" as an equal.
I neither "tolerate" nor "embrace" the homosexuality of my friend, I accept it. Mrs. Alf accepts it. We both embrace the person. We both feel that my friend should have the same right, the same ability to have an identically LEGAL relationship as we do and right now neither a "Domestic Partnership" nor a "civil union" is legally the same as marriage.
"Hate crimes" exist as a classification for the same reason that there are differing degrees of murder, the motivation for the crime is considered both in the charge and in the sentencing.
As to Prop. 8 "all done according to law", the California Constitution prohibits discrimination based on gender as well as sexual orientation, how does Prop. 8 square with that?
It doesn't.
That is why Prop. 22 was overturned by the CA Supreme Court.
If Prop. 8 had simultaneously done away with the anti-discrimination clauses regarding gender and sexual orientation, then there would be no conflict with the CA Constitution, BUT
there would have been conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
Equal protection applies to all citizens of all stripes, colors, genders, sexual orientations, etc., unless taken away in the course of a criminal conviction - convicted felons lose their 2nd Amendment right as part of their sentence,
or it applies to no one.
That's one of my points.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:00 AM:Did you hear on the radio that the racketeers in Sacramento want to outlaw the word "illegal alien". Its bad enough they outlawed mommy and daddy and mother and father. Now they want to outlaw "illegal alien". I guess it's in keeping with the present efforts to change the definition and meaning of marriage.
With a state so broke, corrupt and infested with gangs, you'd think they'd spend more time on the peoples business, instead of the states vocabulary. I guess it shows you what is important in Sacramento.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:08 AM:Well, "Debbie" at 8:02AM,
your scripture and your personal beliefs are your private right and you have the right to express them in public.
They are not, nor should they ever be, codified into law.
Why?
Because that would be favoring your religion over others or no religion.
Please take some time and study why the U.S. was formed, what we were revolting from and why. It wasn't just "the madness of King George", it was also the Church of England. Avoiding a theocracy is why we have a First Amendment, to prevent ANY religion from inflicting itself on The People as a whole.
Regards, Alf.

Ugh wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:09 AM:For some reason, I have been compelled to read these blogs for the last few weeks. My reaction is always the the same... I feel sick. Ugh!

It always seems to be the same conversation and the same bloggers. You do realize you will not change anyone's mind... you are just spitting at each other... over and over again.

Chuck, Debbie, Karo, and Alf... turn off the computer, go outside and take a breath.

I am done with you all. You are just creating cyber-pollution. I need a shower. Ugh!

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:13 AM:Before the vote someone published a link to the California code showing that homosexual couples had the same rights as those who are married. There is no discriminatin in maintaining the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:18 AM:Like it or not Sherry Cahill, President Elect Obama was the overwhelming choice of the American people. Let's let him at least warm the seat in the Oval Office before the carping begins. I say give him a chance, at this point we have no idea how his Presidency will work out. Even though I have serious, serious reservations, I hope that he becomes the best President that we have ever seen. That can only bode well for you, me and all Americans.

Peace

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:23 AM:Well, "Debbie" at 8:28 AM,
if you are responding to "Debbie" or your name is also Debbie, you are confusing things.
Might I suggest "To Debbie" or "Debbie1" or something???
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:23 AM:The Mormons have not practiced polygamy for many, many years Linda Knight. Their may be a few spilnter groups that still exist but they are not part of the Mormon church. I once asked a Mormon friend of mine "what's the deal with Mormons and polygamy"? His response "do you know anyone that can handle more than one wife, neither do I"?

Get your facts straight and argue your issues using the facts.

Peace

To jvc wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:24 AM:Because "religion" is currently in a Patriarchal mode... although there was a time before that when religion was Matriarchal and tribes had Priestesses instead of Priests. The Wheel Always Turns.

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:31 AM:Here's a shout out to all Veterans and their families today on your special day. While we should all celebrate your contributions to our nation daily, today we should turn it up a notch.

Here's hoping that you do something special for yourself today. Take a long walk on the beach, explore something in San Diego that you have been putting off, buy that gizmo you think that you can afford to live without, go to dinner at that special place and order your favorite meal or just relax and be a couch potato.

Today is your special day enjoy, me and mine salute your service and your families.

Peace to all Veterans

To worried wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:34 AM:Do you mean abysmal? What are you talking about? Our new President is going to make America great again for ALL Americans. He will not pander to the rich! He is concerned about you and me. Honey, God is still in control, honest, He is! That is exactly why he put Barack Obama in the position of President of the United States. Don't be so sad everything is going to be alright.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:36 AM:Well, "Debbie" at 8:49AM,
your blatant bias shines through in that first sentance "Same sex friendships are not marriage".
While technically and literally correct, that statement implies that you believe homosexuals are incapable of anything more than friendships, that they do not make the same commitments to each other as heterosexuals do.
If I am right about that implication, then you truly are one who discounts the humanity of others.
Regards, Alf.

Voter wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:37 AM:Is he black? I had not really noticed, but many of you sure did. Racism is alive and well just read your letters.

3D wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:43 AM:Karl at 9:24 a.m. exhorts a comment writer to "Get your facts straight and argue your issues using the facts." Sadly, however, his own facts are incomplete to the point of leading to an inaccurate conclusion.
Karl states that "The Mormons have not practiced polygamy for many, many years."
That is irrelevant to the point that a doctrine of alternative marriage was a central reason why they were persecuted, yet they are doing the same to others today.

More important, from a theological standpoint, Mormons do STILL PRACTICE POLYGAMY.
And no, I am not referring to offshoots, nor am I referring to earthly, civil practices of marriage.
Their original teaching on Polygamy remains valid.

1 - Section 132 of the "Doctrine and Covenants," includes the "revelation" on "Temple" or "Celestial" marriage, and still remains in full force and effect, with the option of reinstating earthly polygamy in the future.

2 - The active practice of Polygamy was banned by the Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff, which has subsequently been added to the Doctrine and Covenants, in 1890. This was done to cave in to political pressure (just like the 1978 "revelation" by Spencer W. Kimball, conveniently reversing racial discrimination), because Utah wanted admission as a state in the United States which, after the banning of polygamy, was granted in 1896. The ban ONLY refers to the state of marriage on earth.

3 - "Temple" or "Celestial" (according to D&C 132) means that those who are "sealed" remain married after death, in heaven. (Which violates the statements by Jesus reported in Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35 that no state of marriage exists in the resurrection.)

4 - Still today, women with "Celestial" marriages whose husbands die cannot marry again in such "Celestial" marriages, because they already have a husband in heaven; however, men with "Celestial" marriages whose wives die CAN have additional subsequent "Celestial" marriages, and Mormons believe that, in heaven, they will have multiple, polygamous marriages.
Blessings,
3D

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:43 AM:Vista Granny @ 7:42 AM:

If we could only all agree on what constitutes a "non-viable fetus", then we could all move on. What is your definition of a "non-viable fetus"?
Just curious.

Peace

But Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:44 AM:If the link was from the AFA or other biased groups, you were sadly misinformed. Nothing is the legal equal to marriage, no matter how they spin it. DOMA destroyed interstate recognition. Look it up on some site other than your usual.

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:53 AM:I count three Debbies now. I used this handle first, the other two can be Debbie2 and Debbie3.

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:53 AM:Voter @ 9:37 AM:

In my eyes most (see the word "most" Ms. M as opposed to all) polititians are green. As in the money that they crave from our back pocket.

Peace

Karo Whaticist wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:54 AM:Clearly Chuck is also Karo Syruptis or whatever. There can only be one Chuck.

Curious wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:55 AM:It was Reardon who first posted the yarn about stiffing the waiter, I wonder if it is also Reardon who is Joe C?

My Theory wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:57 AM:There are only about six people blogging on this thread, one or two of them using dozens of different names. Why else do the bloggers insist on posting the same old stuff every day?

Rude Chuck wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:58 AM:Why does Chuck say Karl is not a man of peace? Oh sorry, that was Patton Chuck was talking about. My bad.

Ms M wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:58 AM:Palin is saying today that if it is "God's will" that she be president then she will be elected. Now to all the christians who are bashing Obama, shouldn't you accept Obama's election as "God's will"?...hmmmm (Karl my head is killin' me already!)

Prop 8 wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:02 AM:The reason a Mormon will never become president and the churches should be taxed out of existence.

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:04 AM:Let's try this one again today.

What does everyone make of President Elect Obama's speech in which he said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

What kind of "civilian national security force" is he talking about? After perusing his website all I found was "Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad".

Does anyone have clue what he means by "civilian national security force"? By "just as well-funded", does he mean doubling the national defense budget? I am truly puzzled on this one.

Peace

grj wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:04 AM:More sour grapes over the election, sherry cahill. Well as far as sitting down with terrorists it just so happens that pres.elrct Obama is willing to talk to leaders of all nation regardless of ideology. Bettter than Pres. Bush who himself is a terrorist and he wanted to start wars with countries that did not attack us. As far as Ron etc callin pres elecedNobama very childish and wreeks of more sour grapes from the conservitives.Guess what Obama was not just elected by young people, I am 54 and a war protester since vietnam and proud of it.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:08 AM:Happy Birthday to the Marine Corps, a day late.
"On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia passed a resolution stating that "two Battalions of Marines be raised" for service as landing forces with the fleet. This resolution, established the Continental Marines and marked the birth date of the United States Marine Corps."
Regards, a tardy Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:17 AM:The letter from Sherry Cahill fails to mention the arrogant defiance of members of the executive branch, including The Cheney Branch, who refused Congressional subpoenas.
Why is that?
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:25 AM:Well, "Karo Whaticist" at 9:54AM,
you're right,
there can only be one "Chuck"!
The world isn't ready for more!
"Chuck", I had to do it, I really did.
Regards, Alf.

to Vista Granny- wrote on Nov 11 2008 809 AM wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:26 AM:I suggest that you leave my grandchildren out of these discussions. They were viable and were born and all but one still lives. You must buy a dictionary -- and use it, whoever you are. (viable means capable of living) BTW, the fact that someone supports anothers' rights, does not mean that they also practice whatever it is they suppport. (Oh boy, sometimes it gets a little convoluted, doesn't it?)

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:31 AM:3D @ 9:43 AM:

Is Linda's comment that Mormons were "persecuted not long ago" true or false 3D?

I just ran your 4 points past my Mormon buddy (a bishop by the way) and his response was "let him think what he wants, we have not condoned polygamy for well over 100 years).

Get over your bigotted feelings towards Mormons and argue the merits of your cause. Did you study under Karl Rove 3D? The fact remains that no Mormons have been "persecuted not long ago' for practicing polygamy. That's a fact Jack.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:33 AM:To Karl: I guess the definition of non-viable would be the opposite of viable. In other words, not capable of living once born.

OMG wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM:Curious -] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 9:55 AM:

Reardon's ego makes him think he is way to important to comment anonymously, if he did then he couldn't verbally puff up his chest and give us his righteous indignation whenever someone calls him on it.

What is hard to believe is that some intellectually sounding commentors on this blog actually expressed admiration for his slef-important diatribes when all they were is the rantings of a Republican tool that thinks if he posts the same trash everyday for long enough that some less sophisticated voters would actually fall for it, and I guess they did.

The question is will Reardon grace us with more of his wit and rhetorical genius, or just go away because their is nothing for him to influence now that the election is over?

jvc wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM:It was not until 1920 that the" wheel"
gave women the right to vote!
Speaking of which, since we are now a socialist country, whose hand will be
out in need for the next bailout?

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM:Karo Whaticist @ 9:54 AM:

He/She is either Chuck or someone mocking Chuck. He/she signed of as Chuck in one of the posts yesterday.

Peace

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:39 AM:Ms M @ 9:58 AM:

To her and people who adhere to her theory, yes.

I truly feel sorry for you Ms. M. It is a well known fact that people who are not too bright suffer far fewer headaches than the brightest ones among us. Me and my one remaining brain cell cannot remember the last time we had a headache.

Peace

For Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:42 AM:On newsstands last Sunday, the "In Box" Section of Time Magazine has a piece that addresses this subject.

“Walter Isaacson persuasively presents the case for a Civilian Reserve Corps that would harness the skills of American engineers, doctors, judges and teachers to help in troubled areas [Sept. 22]. I am pleased to inform TIME's readers that such a group, the Civilian Response Corps, is already coming into existence. The Corps will consist of Active, Standby and Reserve components. The Active and Standby components, which will be prepared to deploy abroad rapidly, will draw on the expertise and experience of U.S. government employees from eight departments and agencies. We are in the final planning stages for the Reserve. For Americans willing to make a commitment to service for a limited period of time, their experience with the Civilian Response Corps could change the way they see the world and, perhaps more important, change the way many in the world see us. The next President will have in his first year in office a new instrument to manage one of the principal national-security challenges of the 21st century. Ambassador John E. Herbst, Coordinator for the Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization, U.S. State Department WASHINGTON”

For more information on the Corps www.crs.state.gov

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:42 AM:jvc
[-] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM:It was not until 1920 that the" wheel"
gave women the right to vote!
Speaking of which, since we are now a socialist country, whose hand will be
out in need for the next bailout?

Me, me, me take me.

Peace

tjefferson wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:43 AM:To Chuck at 9:00 am. Chucken Little needs to calm down. Sacramento did not outlaw mommy, daddy, mother and father, no matter what some right wing nut job of a radio personality told him. When same sex marriage is again permitted by law, and it will be, the sky will not fall. (I can imagine Chucken Little running about his neighborhood crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling.") Chucken Little will always be able find someone to bash in order to feel better about himself. I hope this makes Chucken Little feel a little less afraid.

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:48 AM:Well, "OMG" at 10:34AM,
if someone took it upon themself to make posts under your handle on a regular basis, writing counter to your beliefs and making any post under your handle be suspect, I don't think that you would like it one bit.
Regards, Alf.

to Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:55 AM:It would seem that if we use artificial means to rid ourselves of the "non-viable" fetus, whereby we take away its means of survival, it would be only fair that we use artificial means of support to keep it "viable" when it survives the attempt to rid ourselves of it.

Unfortunately, President Elect Obama doesn't believe the coin has two sides.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:55 AM:AN OBSERVATION: The conservative bloggers are just playing mind games today (except for Karl). You guys are all falling for it. The subjects have been discussed previously. All the questions, taunts and attitudes have been answered previously on this blog. Back to Karl. Karl has made an interesting observation and asked a good question. Right now,however, IMHO, the Civilian Security Force is just a general idea. Nothing concrete yet. We already have Homeland Security. I think that is enough.

Karl wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:59 AM:Thanks, For Karl @ 10:42 AM. I'll read up.

Peace

Wanda wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:06 AM:What's a headache?

3D wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:10 AM:As he did at 9:24 a.m., Karl again at 10:31 a.m. cites the "Mormon buddy" (a bishop by the way) who he ran my points by.
I notice that the bishop carefully avoids actually denying the accuracy of any of them, but merely chooses to deflect them with clever evasions.

Karl exhorts me to: "Get over" my "bigotted feelings toward Mormons."
I harbor no bigotry. I stated some very specific facts whose accuracy can be easily confirmed, including from Mormon sources.
Please direct your concerns about "getting over bigotry" to those who are bigoted: those who demand that their own "alternative marriages" be recognized but persecute others for the same.

Blessings,
3D

jvc wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:16 AM:These blogs are of the middle class persuasions and not of the elite
intellectuals of the OMG class!

TFB wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:18 AM:The blogger responding at 10:55 a.m. to Vista Granny's EXCELLENT blogs makes an absurd, inflammatory statement that would be libelous if it were not about a public figure (president elect).

The person says that "President Elect Obama doesn't believe the coin has two sides."
WRONG.
The whole point of CHOICE is that the WOMAN is the one who gets to decide medical choices about the most private part of HER OWN BODY.
Choices may include: pregnancy to term and keeping a baby, pregnancy to term and adopting the baby out, or choosing not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Don't you remember all the criticism Obama took for the statement that for him to supersede the woman about choices regarding her own body is "above his pay grade"?
Obama was 100% right.

And get over the viable stuff.
There is no place in the United States where a woman can get a 3rd trimester elective abortion.
Only 4 out of 10,000 abortions are in the 3rd trimester, and they are ONLY done for reasons of extreme medical urgency, and almost all for women who WANTED their pregnancies.
For you to use them and ridicule them in their hour of tragedy is the height of cruel insensitivty.

Christian? ...

Alf wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:22 AM:Well, "to Vista Granny" at 10:55AM,
you speak in euphemisms.
Cut to the chase, you want to outlaw all abortions.
It will not happen.
Neither will females cease having abortions just because it becomes illegal.
You can not nor will you impose your religious beliefs on others via the law,
you can not and will not pervert the Constitution enough to allow it.
Regards, Alf.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:07 PM:to Vista Granny[+] wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:55 AM: You say we can keep a non-viable fetus alive once it is born by using artificial means? Does that mean you would keep a child with no brain alive for years and years by feeding it with tubes, etc.? At least it wouldn't suffer, but what about a child who could not walk, talk or eat and was in constant pain due to your "arificial means"? And who, pray tell, would pay the enormous price for such a life? You? I doubt it. Maybe the mother, who would then place herself and her other children in peril and poverty. You, whoever you are, are cruel and unthinking.

But Vista Granny wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:19 PM:Your post at 12:07 hits the nail dead on. Cruel, unthinking, controlling and trying to pass unfunded mandates over other people's lives just about sums it up.

Wanda wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:27 PM:Regarding Karl's 10:04 AM post, there's even talk of a new public service acadamy, fashioned after West Point, being promoted by Chris Asch. They're looking at Walter Reed Medical Center as the home for it.

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:37 PM:Huh?

Married wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:37 PM:marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman.Get used to it.

Debbie wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:40 PM:The link to the California Code points to the state of California website. And Alf almost gets it by acknowledging the differences. Homosexual partnering is not marriage because marriage is more than two people expressing commitment for each other.

Tommy wrote on Nov 11, 2008 12:46 PM:People are saying that Obama getting 52% of the popular vote is a "landslide", apparently following Bill Clinton's lead when he claimed that 48% of the vote was a "landslide". Getting half of the vote isn't a landslide, no matter how you look at it.