Its About Time wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:31 AM:Special thanks to Jeff Schwilk and Brian Berg.

It is so refreshing to return to our roots of hating the evil brown foreign hordes, instead of pitting citizen against citizen in lamenting the election outcome of the presidency and Prop. 8.

Great job, gentlemen!

You make be so proud to be an American!

NOT!

Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:12 AM:The nightmare day is over. I always wondered how liberals would survive a whole day designated to honor veterans and the military that they so loathe. Pulse must have been on suicide watch

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:05 AM:The letter from Eric Parish is spot on.
It will be interesting to hear the howls of protest from those who support Prop. 8 and its attendant discrimination when it is either overturned once and for all
OR
BETTER YET
when a majority of voting Californians do the overturning.
Then what will the bigots do when "the will of the people" is to ensure that homosexuals have true LEGAL equality in their relationships,
if not called marriage, to have homosexual "unions" with EXACTLY the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage?
I guess they'll cry in their holy water.
Regards, Alf.

Karo Syruptatis wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:55 AM:I'd love to own a moving company business in California, as the media is reporting: "Connecticut to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples"

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:58 AM:In her letter, Susan Mathur asks -
"How can this be? How can we celebrate the election of our first black president and also celebrate an amendment to our constitution that denies a basic right to a segment of our population?"
Well, Susan, it is highly probable that we were not so much electing Obama as we were rejecting the McGWB/Palin ticket.
As far as Prop. 8 goes, whether couched and shrouded in the name of religion or simply out-right; overt and covert bigotry, fear and hatred of homosexuals is, unfortunately, more acceptable than bigotry, fear and hatred of blacks or most other minorities, although some groups are as openly hostile to hispanics in general, Mexicans in particular, as they are to homosexuals.
That's how.
It really is a sad state of affairs and shows us that progress is happening slower than we like to think.
Cheer up,
in 2000, Prop. 22 won with 61% in favor,
in 2008, Prop. 8 won with 52% in favor.
Progress has been made!
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:18 AM:To "Marriage was strengthened"

When can we see the results of such "strengthening"? Tomorrow? Next Week? Next Month? Give us a date, please. And what shall we look for as indicators of such "strengthening"? Fewer divorces? fewer extramarital affairs? a decline in spousal abuse? a complete end to child abuse? All HALLMARKS of Heterosexual Marriage over the centuries...What?

Ron wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:26 AM:"Apollo" {Nov 11} @8:39 PM complains, AGAIN....

That >>>Ron continues to simply call names, when he says of the Democratic and Socialist Parties:
"Why do their political planks line up so well?">>>

1) Spreadh the Wealth, or as I like to call it, steal from other hard working Americans to endear yourself to voter groups.

2) Socialized Healthcare run by the government, dictating who'll provide it, how much they'll pay for it, and what types of drugs and treatments they'll cover. And let me warn my more liberal friends with this single word: "Prevention", you do not know it now, but this is a recipe for telling you what you can do in your personal life, i.e. No McDoanld's, pizza, riding motorcycles, you name it.

3) Universal Housing, as first envisioned by FDR's 2nd bill of rights, forced down our throats by CRA under Carter, creating a financial disaster.

Debbie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:36 AM:We'll continue to pray for you, Alf :)

christine wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:43 AM:Yea, Debbie, at 6:36 AM, let's all pray for Alf's salvation :)

Always a laugh wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:43 AM:I love the way Ron threatens us with preventative healthcare... like it's a bad thing. "Oh no! The government is going to ban pizza! Whatever will I do?" What a nork.

Debbie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:45 AM:Alf can take care of himself thank you. Perhaps Debbie2 and christine can practice looking in the mirror.

BuyTreasuryNotes-tatis wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:54 AM:I just looked on an internet finance page, and you can invest in an ultra safe US 3 month TBill for .1%. That shows you what a massive flight from the markets has done. It wouldn't surprise me, if this continues, that there will be a negative interest rate on US Treasury bills, as the world looks for anything that is safe.
And what is worse, the moron Bush fails to even recognize we are in a recession. He may be right, we may have skipped right over recession, right into a depression.

Ron wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:56 AM:Let me again repeat for the class today, this subject I have covered many, many times before for my dear friend, LibJim, who today is going by the pseudonym "Republican Socialist"
{Nov 11} @8:52 PM, one of his many.. many mutliple personalities.

Now, I have asked my dear friend before, let me ask again...
Can you name for me which of the many private Oil companies working in Alaska, which one is owned and operated by the People, or the Government of Alaska? That's right Lib... the answer is NONE.

Here's the way this works.
Oil companies find oil, the life's blood of our economy, on land in Alaska.
They make a proposal to the owner of that property to access the land, and drill for the oil.
They pay a "rent" or a "lease" for access, then they also pay a "royalty" or a "percentage" of the take to the owner of the property.
It really depends upon the "contract", which is a private business term you may not be aquainted with, but that means, I agree to do "X" and so, if you give me access, and find oil.
Now, me, personally, I have some experience with this. My grandfather deeded over to me some property. An Oil company approached me to do some drilling on this land. Under my contract with them, I receive a "portion" by contract, a "royalty" of whatever they pull from the ground.
In short, I get a piece of the action, while they.. do ALL the work.
It is fundamentally understood, that I not only own the land, but everything that falls underneath the surface of the ground on that particular piece of land.
Now, in Alaska, most of the land is publically owned, by the State.. "The People of Alaska.
Hence, whatever is underneath the surface, the Oil, which is then pumped out by "contract" between the State Government of Alaska/"The People" and the privately owned & operated by the Oil Company, is divided up by "contract".
This is called a "Royalty" payment, a portion of the "Profits" paid to those who own the natural resouce, which would be the Oil.
Alaska, under the leadership of Gov. Sarah Palin thought the "royalty" payment was not high enough, that Big Oil was gettin too large a piece of the "Profits."
She, and the State Legislature, who represent "The People", and on the people's behalf, then renegociated the "royalty" payments to the State of Alaska/"The People", who own the natural resouce.
"The People" of Alaska, hence.. The State government of Alaska DO NOT own, nor do they operate any... ANY Oil companies. They have "contracts" with privately owned firms, who by contract bring the oil out of the ground, and sell at market prices this Oil, and a percetage of those "Profits" are paid to Alaskans in the form of a Royalty payment, thru the State goverment who re-negociated the higher payments, and back to the individual citizens to spend as they see fit.
In short, NOT socialism.
Here's the difference, the State would own the oil, they would also own the oil companys, and they would own the profit. Under Alaskan law, they own none of the above.

Class dismissed...
and.. your welcome.

Debbie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:59 AM:The only people who deserve to recieve money are the ones who work for it. giving money to someone just because they dont have any is simply foolish. We give money to people to reward them for good work. not because we have personal feelings for them, not because its right or moraly correct. only because they EARN it.

I work my ass off for minimum wage and dont ask anyone for a thing. and i'll be damned if the goverment takes money out of my hard earned check to give to someone else who didnt earn it.

Debbie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:06 AM:Let's hope by the time all the people who were rejoicing in the streets because Obama was elected, realize that we are in danger, there will still be enough time to get him out of office, and restore our freedom. I can see all those dummies right now. The information is there, left and right, but they just don't want to SEE it. It's kind of like those mothers who claim their child "didn't do it" just because that's what they want to believe. Then when they steal them blind, harm them, or get caught red-handed committing a crime, they want to cry foul, and act like they had no idea. FOOLS, just FOOLS.

Ron wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:09 AM:Here's the way "preventative medicine" works overseas for my good buddy "Always a laugh" @6:43 AM,

Pizza, which can lead to obesity, and diabetes if used improperly...
Hence, some cubicle sittin bureaucrat shall decide that "pizza" is bad for you, and will need to be deleted from your diet, to meet State specific guidelines. Since you've eaten Pizza, and now exceed State specific guidelines, you will need to undergo "diet" restrictions, in order to bring you back into State specific gudielines. {I know I'm repeating, it's indoctrination}
All you have to do is listen to the "Obesity Police" now, wanting to ban corndogs, potato chips, and soft drinks for all, in order to protect so few.
So, make fun of me know, when you are called upon to meet specific State guidelines in order to qualify for medical treatment, remember...
Ron will be here, a shoulder to cry on.

No Rights Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:12 AM:A homosexual has the right to marry. The state doesn't care what you do behind closed doors.

The ban is on same-sex marriage.

CORRECT wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:23 AM:Mr. Schwilk and Mr. Berg both realistically portray the state of affairs with the illegal alien crisis. They, the politicians they cite and millions of others like them fully understand exactly what is at stake to our nations safety and security with this most dangerous of invasions.

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:29 AM:To Chuck,

I am a Veteran, member of the VFW and the American Legion AND a Liberal. Is your head exploding?

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:30 AM:To "No Rights Denied"

How does that "marrying someone you are not attracted to" working out for you?

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:54 AM:Debbie[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:06 AM:
OBAMA 365 McCain 162. Get over it. You can not get a man out of office until he is in office. Try around 01/20/09.

Ms M wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:55 AM:Debbie
[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:06 AM:...exactly what is it that we don't "see"? Just what is left to "see" after almost 2 years of having everthing looked at by Obama's opposition. You continuosly post vague statements. What is it that YOU seem to "see" that the Clinton and Rove machines did not "see". Give specifics about what we don't "see"!

Oh Please wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:58 AM:Debbie[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:59 AM: You prove by your own posts to be a liar. You are not a minimum wage earner.

Surfer wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:01 AM:Debbie[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:36 AM:
LOL. God is a Libertarian. You should beg Alf to put a good word in for you. See ya!

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:04 AM:To "Marriage was strengthened"

Still waiting for you to give us the timetable of when Marriage will be strengthened and what indicators to look for that it HAS been strengthened.

Liberaljim wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:12 AM:To Ron at 6:56 am. I have never used the the alias "Republican Socialist." I, Liberaljim, stopped responding to Ron's ungrammatical diatribes some time ago because I have no intention of continuing to waste my time in an attempt to wade through his illiterate and sophmoric essays to find meaning in them. Ron should do himself a favor and take a classes in remedial English in order to get respect. He needs to focus on grammar, syntax and punctuation. I am not and have never written under "Republican Socialist, so he owns "Republican Socialist" an apology. Oops, I forgot. Poor Ron's ego is so fragile he never acknowledges his mistakes. This is another of Ron's hallucinations.

But 645AM Debbie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:17 AM:Don't tempt them, they'd break out singing "I said Lord, it's hard to be humble when yer perfect in ev'ry way,
I can't help but look in the mirror,
Cuz I git better lookin' each day.

Apollo wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:17 AM:Re: Ron (6:26 a.m.)
The real problem with Ron is that he does not actually have any ideology or governing philosophy.
He is just floundering around, looking for reasons to complain about those who want to put an end to his eight-year party. Ron is like the teenagers who have trashed the house while Mom and Dad were out and are now chafing under the looming reality that the grownups are about to come home.

Ron complains about "spread the wealth" but simply ignores the fact that this was discussed yesterday and he simply didn't address the response.

Again, Ron, and put your reading glasses on this time:
You are selectively to the point of misrepresentation in citing a quick, off-hand casual expression "spread the wealth" in an impromptu question about TAX CUTS for working people in the PRIVATE SECTOR as somehow linked to Socialism, without any ties to the actual philosophy or ideology from which Socialism arises.
Yet you completely put your head in the sand and avoid the point that numerous Republicans have made the exact same statements, which were cited with references in the blogs you purport to be responding to, yet you selectively look the other way. Did you vote for McCain? Did you vote for Palin? I do not call them Socialists, nor do I call you a Socialist, since your overall views do not conform to Socialism.
But based on YOUR CRITERIA, they (and thus you) could be called SOCIALIST far more than any Democrat could.

And now you change the subject to HEALTHCARE, but you again describe it DISHONESTLY.
Neither loser Hillary nor winner Obama have proposed anything remotely similar to what you describe.
Obama's proposal (similar to Hillary's) allows you to KEEP YOUR EXISTING private medical coverage if you have it, through private insurance companies and private providers.
If you can't get it, or are not happy, you will be able to buy it through regulated PRIVATE MARKET sources, and go to the PRIVATE MEDICAL PROVIDER of your FREE CHOICE.

The only reason you have misstated this is because you are trying to justify that which you really cannot justify in any way that is intellectually honest.

Ron's problem is that he claims (unverifiably in this anonymous blog) to be a tremendously wealthy defense contractor with some oil stocks on the side. In other words, if true, he admits he has been feeding at the public trough, living on corporate welfare, profiteering off the thousands of brave soldiers killed in a senseless war of choice, and benefiting from the sweetheart deals of Bush oil cronies.

The real reason Ron is devastated by the election results has nothing to do with ideological consistency. As a (self-described) receiver of corporate welfare he has none.
The real reason Ron is so upset is that the grownups are here and are telling him:
THE PARTY IS OVER.

But bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:26 AM:Did you have to give it to him all at once? That's like playing The Indian Love Song (When I'm calling you-ooo-ooo-ooooo) to a Martian like they did in Mars Attacks. Great movie, that one!

To Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:29 AM:I am a veteran and a liberal and I take great offense at your snide remark. I have some choice words for you but they wouldn’t be printed, so I’ll leave at this. Any time you want to question my patriotism or bravery say it to my face, not hiding away in the comfort of your bedroom, tapping away at your keyboard.

Jeff and Brian wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:33 AM:Two examples of people always trying to keep the spotlight on their agenda.First of all Brian, illegal alien or not, those of us with European ancestory will ALWAYS be the ALIENS in the Americas.You can never ban any language because that would be denying U.S. citizens of their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.And Jeff, why don't you use the word that starts with "W" that you use on the videos posted on certain video websites.Show us your true colors Jeff.

Critical Thinking wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:36 AM:Once again Ron at 6:56 a.m. makes a guess (confusing Republican Socialist with LiberaljIm).
Once again Ron gets its wrong.

Why should anyone take seriously the policy proposals supported by those who have NEVER GOTTEN ONE THING RIGHT in the last eight years - on foreign policy, domestic policy, military policy, civil liberties or the economy - but have completely enriched themselves while trashing every aspect of this great nation.

Where is the credibility on any policy issue?

Dear Frances wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:37 AM:Are you an expert in human biology. How do you know for certain the purpose of homosexuality? Did man create homosexuality on his own? Did nature intend for homosexuality as a means of controlling the populations reproduction or perhaps to halt the continuation of certain genes in the human race? Tell me more Frances, you seem to know so much.

Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:39 AM:>>>I am a Veteran, member of the VFW and the American Legion AND a Liberal. Is your head exploding?>>

No, my head is not exploding. Liberals generally hate America and loathe the military as long as Bush is in office. The day Ostalin gets inaugurated, all will be peachy. And to prove my point why dont you chart back 1 year on this board, the number of liberal posts that have bashed Bush, America and the military, and compare that to the numbers of liberals who have bashed the terrorists.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:52 AM:Richard Baker's letter shows that, with only his two-year degree, any understanding of the depth and nuance of Harvard Law magna cum laude Barack Obama's international policy just goes sailing right over his head.
He seems unable to distinguish between "preconditions" (concessions or agreements before talks begin) in meeting with foreign leaders and "advance work" (preparations by lower-level negotiators).
I'm glad we elected a smart, thoughtful president, and not another shoot-from-the-hip "maverick" with no intellectual curiosity or depth of thought.

jvc wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:07 AM:How do we justify the bailout of the homeowner before the homeless?
Obviously, there is more at stake here
than just morality!

Karl wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:10 AM:It's getting really ugly between yesterday and this morning. I think I'll go clear my head and play some pasture pool.

Someone send me some vibes when it's safe to get back in.

Fore!!!!!!!!!!

Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:15 AM:>>> Any time you want to question my patriotism or bravery say it to my face >>

I'm not afraid of you! Meet me on the home page after school.

Debbie wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:20 AM:"No Rights Denied
[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:12 AM:
A homosexual has the right to marry. The state doesn't care what you do behind closed doors.

The ban is on same-sex marriage."

And WHO does the homosexual have the right to marry? Someone of YOUR chosing? Someone of the correct gender?

Your statement is foolish.

Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:23 AM:Yes, homosexuals have the right to marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite sex, right? And then they can have relationships outside of marriage with the ones they truly love, right? Or they could meet the needs their unloved partner cannot provide by meeting strangers in a public bathroom, right?

That's your solution?

Sicko.

esteban wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:36 AM:Wonder what Chris did on Vets Day? Cry? Surfer, you back? Did you get any waves?

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:41 AM:Submit 8:52 a.m. - resubmit 9:40 a.m.

Richard Baker's letter shows that, with only his two-year degree, any understanding of the depth and nuance of Harvard Law magna cum laude Barack Obama's international policy just goes sailing right over his head.
He seems unable to distinguish between "preconditions" (concessions or agreements before talks begin) in meeting with foreign leaders and "advance work" (preparations by lower-level negotiators).
I'm glad we elected a smart, thoughtful president, and not another shoot-from-the-hip "maverick" with no intellectual curiosity or depth of thought.

Oh Poo wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:45 AM:"Liberals generally hate America and loathe the military as long as Bush is in office. The day Ostalin gets inaugurated, all will be peachy. And to prove my point why dont you chart back 1 year on this board, the number of liberal posts that have bashed Bush, America and the military, and compare that to the numbers of liberals who have bashed the terrorists."

Chuck, ... You refuse to face the fact that bashing terrorists is a waste of time, it goes without saying. What liberals are more concerned with is the actions of OUR government and OUR military, because we TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for those actions.

Your straw man comforts you, I know, but the truth is still the truth.

I call BS on your play.

PS Karo Syruptis is not so regal after all, just kinda sticky.

To esteban wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:46 AM:Same thing you did on the day Mooseburger went down in flames. Cry. Boohoo.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:48 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 8:39AM,
as I have pointed out before -
I expect a terrorist to act like a barbarian,
there is nothing noteworthy in that,
when the president of the United States becomes the terrorist with "Shock and Awe",
that is noteworthy because we, the United States, are supposed to be civilized, not behave as barbarians.
We are supposed to have rules such as -
attack only those who have attacked us or those who pose a REAL, IMMEDIATE threat. Iraq did not meet either of those two criteria.
It speaks volumes that Obama wants to get rid of Gauntanamo, a constant reminder of the depths of barbarism to which we have sunk, a sufferating pustule on the behind of the U.S.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:59 AM:I just had to peek again and it is getting uglier. Alf, pustule? Gross! Oh, the visual, ouch.

More of the Same wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:59 AM:Chuck at 8:39 a.m.:
"Liberals generally hate America ... The day Ostalin gets inaugurated..."
There, Chuckie boy, did you feel better after venting.

Did ya notice how successful all that name-calling was for you before the election?
Now that you LOST, did you think all your crying is going to change it?

Einstein supposedly defined insanity this way: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Anyway, I hope you feel better.
As was said earlier, THE PARTY IS OVER and those who trashed our foreign policy, civil liberties and economy not only have to face the GROWNUPS, but they got one doozie of a hangover.

Ms M wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:03 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:39 AM:...Chuck....this is from a liberal mother who is sending her son BACK to Kuwait in March. This liberal spends Sundays baking enough goods to feed just about everyone in Kuwait. This liberal mom has gotten the notice from Family Readiness Group and even though my son is based out of Fresno - this liberal was the first to volunteer.

Did you know that my son was based in Orange County at a facility that would not be deployed in this war. My son lives in Orange County. He is a liberal and he transferred to Fresno so he could be deployed.

I am so sick of you right wing nuts who think you are more patriotic than libs and more American. You know, that attitude helped you loose an election. PATHETIC!!!!

Nick wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:06 AM:Seems not a lot has changed around this little piece of blogospere...too bad.
Peace to all my friends...they know who they are.
Cheers, Nick.

Voter wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:08 AM:I bet those winning candidates are thrilled to have the support of Jeff Schwilk and the Minutemen.

OMG wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:12 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:39 AM:

Finally, the truth is revealed that Chuck's entire point of view on the world comes from blogs on the internet, you know, the ones he references to justify his lack of intelligently thought out commentary.

And to "To Chuck" at 8:29:
Don't take it personally, Chuck is an equal oportunnity offender that wouldn't have the guts to look anyone he offends in the eyes, except from behind his momma's skirt.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:16 AM:Well, "Karl" at 9:59AM,
un poquitito sorry, I developed a cast-iron stomach because Dr. Mrs. Alf and her mother, the biology Professor used to get into a "gross-out" match at the dinner table. They never succeeded, but almost.
Dr. Mrs. Alf used to get a dermatological magazine called "Cutis", the covers pictures could curl your hair (or make it fall out).
Regards, Alf.

Olaf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:20 AM:Still people are fighting and calling names. Prop 8 passed and still saying bigot, etc. There is no proof in any person's DNA that makes them gay (emphisis added)Now I am open minded and someday the gene may be found and then and only then can you call someone a bigot. Keeping marriage between a man and a woman is not hate. It is regulation. Now go find the gene and quit complaining and name calling. What people CHOOSE to do is thier business, shoving it at people is another.

My solution by the way. Take marriage business out of government hands and make everything a civil union. Marriage can then be done by a church (of which most of you all hate so vehemently in here)Problem solved and the WORD marriage is saved. It is just a word YES?

OMG wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:21 AM:Susan Zesky's letter asking the NCTimes to start running articoles that actually promote the healing of our counrty is welcome, but unlikely.

NCTimes, after coming out in support of McCain late in the race only shows how out of touch they are with the American people.

Also, after reading this blog daily during the election I have come to the (perhaps delusional)conclusion that the NCTimes has used employees of their offices to post right wing commentary to influence those that visit here daily and stir up the "liberal" bashers.

NCTimes is, and will always be, a bird cage liner at best.

But Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:23 AM:Sufferating pustules? Eeeeeeeeewwwwww.

Ron wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:30 AM:>>>Liberaljim @8:12 AM:
To Ron at 6:56 am. I have never used the the alias "Republican Socialist.">>>

All you Lib's look alike, hence..
You people...
Also, notice when they do not have a logical argument to come back at me with... they attempt to correct my grammer. LOL
Maybe... I do it especially for you?

Focal Point wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:31 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:39 AM I also take exception to your snide remark regarding military and liberals. The anti military comments have not been made by liberals but by leftists like Chris. Take your own advice and review the past blogs. Being anti Bush is not being anti military. Focal Point

Surfer wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:35 AM:esteban[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:36 AM: Dude. I am back. I did catch a lot of waves down Costa Rica wave. But, one caugt me and did a nasty job on my right tibia.
Still in the recoup mode. Thanks for asking. See ya!

No Rights Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:37 AM:Prop 8 is short and to the point.

It places no restrictions on homosexuals.

No rules against marrying somebody that you're attracted to, who you truly love, or who makes you happy.

No stipulation of the government "choosing" for you.

If you don't like marriage, don't get married!

gracchus wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:41 AM:at 4:12 a.m., chuck, you wrote that liberals loathe the military. then at 8:39 a.m. you assert that liberals on this site have demonstrated a lack of respect for the military.

i do not dispute that many on the extreme left do not honor our military. but i have read writings of the extreme right that do not honor our military. timothy mcveigh, the reactionary responsible for bombing the federal building in oklahoma city was one such individual. but only a fool would consider him representative of conservatives.

deeds are more important than bluster, chuck. the gi bill has helped millions of of veterans obtain a good education, given them preferential hiring in federal jobs, and offered them preferred loans for the purchase of housing and homes. who's responsible? liberal democrats.

during the viet nam war, over which lbj presided for 3 years, a standard tour of duty was 13 months. a conservative republican administration, because it did not sufficiently prepare the nation for a war of aggression in iraq, has extended a standard tour to 18 months. it has placed an immense stress upon the nation's military.

conservative republican defense secretary, donald rumsfeld once famously told a soldier in iraq who had complained of the absence of essential logistics, "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want."

compare that to the response of george c. marshall, later to serve as liberal democrat harry truman's secretary of state, who worked tirelessly as the u.s.' senior military officer under liberal democrat fdr to mobilize the entire nation against the facists in europe and the imperialists in asia.

that liberals and democrats loathe the nation's military people is a despicable lie. and its most outspoken purveyors rarely have served in our armed forces.

But No Rights Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:44 AM:The government determines that you must marry someone of the opposite gender, that is CHOOSING FOR YOU.
You are full of sanctimonious bull and your lie, repeated ad nauseum, is still a lie.

Wanda wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:49 AM:Regarding Chuck's contention that liberals hate the military, the Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America (IAVA) keeps a scorecard on how politicians rate on veterans affairs.

Look it up. You may learn something :)

Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:54 AM:>>>I am so sick of you right wing nuts who think you are more patriotic than libs and more American.>>>>
I dont care what you're sick of. The fact is that you havent stopped bashing Bush and America, and you've never bashed the terrorists. So, what would you like me to conclude?

But Olaf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:56 AM:That's the problem, there's domestic partnerships and civil unions and blah-blahs, the type of people who favor prop 8 won't let an equal status be created under any name. Proof of the anti-gay bigotry is the Defense of Marriage Act "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.",
if that is not bigoted, discriminatory ... I don't know what is.

But Voter wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:58 AM:Is the Schwilk endorsement as much a kiss of death as a Bush endorsement?

Bob wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:59 AM:Regarding Chuck's 10:54 AM post, I'm a liberal and I think flying airplanes into buildings is wrong :)

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:03 AM:Chuck: Not true. Liberals have always criticized terrorists both domestic and foreign. We have also criticized Bush. He deserves each and every criticism. Liberals have not based the military. In fact, most liberals have served and their children now serve. Get the full data before making conclusions. Hope you can pull your foot out of your mouth.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:07 AM:Well, "Olaf" at 10:20AM and others,
I don't hate churches, I got married in one to Mrs. Alf and I go there sometimes to hear her sing.
I hate the ACT of churches trying to codify THEIR SPECIFIC beliefs into law and into the Constitution.
I hate the sin, not the sinner's church, most of the time.
Regards, Alf.

liberaljim wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:09 AM:To Ron at 8:12 am. I didn't need to provide a "logical argument." The very fact that you imply I did demonstrates your lack of logical thinking. You wrote I was posting under the name "Republican Socialist". I let you know I never did. My post also made it very clear why I don't respond to your sophmoric themes. It's because it is not worth my time to try to make sense of your terrible writing.

Translator wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:09 AM:When Ron at 10:30 a.m. gets caught with a boo-boo, instead of admitting it, he says:
"All you lib's look alike."

Translation: Being Ron means never having to admit you're wrong.

Ron wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:13 AM:Ever notice with these Lib's...
when Your a Lib, you never have to prove anything to them, you just say it, and it's taken as God's Word?

Hence his name: messiah {small "m"}
and his obedient follower "OBAMAPREZ"
@8:52 AM.
Kinda spooky, really, this cult of personality.

But notice what he says:
>>>Richard Baker's letter shows that, with only his two-year degree, any understanding of the depth and nuance of Harvard Law magna cum laude Barack Obama's international policy just goes sailing right over his head.>>>

Now, none of us here have seen his "legal product", have we?
So by what standard are we grading him?
Sure, he might have been a good student, but that hardly works out to be a great legal mind.
Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
It's the TRACK RECORD that's important, to see how all that knowledge, has worked it's magic in the real world.
Remember back when everyone, well nearly everyone.. was so excited that we had our first MBA grad in GWB? LOL
How'd that work out? Next thing you know, he's giving away the store, new drug benefit for seniors, so the bingo business could stay afloat.

But why is it, that all this guy has to do, is make pronouncements, and they all buy it up? With no evidence, with no facts, with no real track record of accomplishments?
How many of you would have hired him to run a company as the CEO?
{In my best Jim Sasser voice}...
"Oh, I see, I see here, ah.. Mr. Nobama that you were the.. ah.. head of yur class.. in ah Havard? But, what did you do after Havard? Looks like you.. it says here.. were a communty organizar?
What business was that wit? Could yabe spisific on what your duties were.. when.. ah.. you held that position?"

He'd get laughed out of the room!

Oceansidian wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:25 AM:I am disappointed to see Mr. Jack Feller is a member of the San Diego Minutemen. Why would he nestle up to that group? I have read many reports about them, and now I am concerned about Jack Feller being able to make decisions on what is best for Oceanside or what his friends the San Diego Minutemen are demanding from him. I hope Jack knows that he has put himself in a very compromising position. I will definately keep my eye on him. I hope our Mayor and City Council will do the same.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:28 AM:If Paulson isn't using bailout money for banks and carmakers, is he going to use it for homeowners or just keep it?
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:34 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:54 AM:...what have I said about Bush that wasn't true? What have I said about Bush that other cons have not said? When did I ever bash America?

Chuck your thought process is such that any conclusion you seem to come to is extremely irrational.

You are beyond PATHETIC!!!!

gays in military wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:45 AM:Perhaps this is the time gays realize they should not enlist in any military branch. Why would anyone who is being denied of such a simple right as marriage fight for a nation of bigots? What would gays be fighting for if the very people they are trying to defend do not stand behind them.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:54 AM:Nick[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:06 AM:
Thanks for dropping by. Happy Birthday
111008. FP

hardtack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:30 PM:“The state doesn’t care what you do behind closed doors?”

Somehow, I don’t think those gun owners who were practicing religion in Waco would agree with that.

Looking Glass wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:34 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:28 AM: Given the corruption that exists in our government today, I'm betting that he keeps it.

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:39 PM:To "No Rights Denied"

If no rights are being denied, then you won't mind if we amend the CA Constitution to eliminate one societal dynamic YOU belong to. After all, you don't have to get married.

To Gays in the Military wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:40 PM:If you are trying to make military people unhappy by having gays not serve in the military, you had better pick another idea!

He Said wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:58 PM:Oceansidian @ 11:25: Where did you hear that Feller is or was a member of the Minute Men. Nice rumor. It wasn't in Schwilk's letter. Who are you, one of Oceanside's fine firefighters?

Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:06 PM:Give me a school name and time and I'll be there.

grj wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:11 PM:ron is out of control bashing obama and spewing lies.lies,lies, what a hot air fest, go back to your bill o'reilly and rush limbaugh hate radio tv all your negative energy will die with george war monger bush and the dieing republican party
Listen to the great song by wil.i.am.
it's anew day, a positive time for positive change in america!!!!

Olaf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:13 PM:It is funny I didn't mention you ALF but you spoke up. Using your reasoning then what if the people of the church don't want some other persons (or groups) beliefs hoisted on them or their church. I believe in a lot of things and I still don't believe a lot of Americans would oppose unions between what-ever or whom-ever as long as it doesn't in turn destroy what they believe in.

Get the next prop on the ballot to get the government out of the marriage business. Each persons church (what-ever that may be) can then "marry" them as they see fit. No destroying of others beliefs, problem solved.

Ms M wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:17 PM:Did anyone see the Paulson press conference this morning? Capitalism at it's best.

Did anyone see the recent party AIG had at tax payers expense? Capitalism at
it's very, very best.

I sure hope we gave the fatcats enough money for their Xmas bonuses. I would really feel bad if they were short changed!

PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:21 PM:Well, "gays in military" at 11:45AM,
WHY?
Because one can love the country and disdain some of the people in it.
I love this country and its Constitution and if you keep in mind that 48 percent of those who voted in California voted AGAINST Prop. 8, you can see that there is, indeed, something worth fighting for.
Remember Vietnam and the p***poor reception many American Troops got upon their return FROM SOME, it was the rest who reminded us what we were fighting for.
Remember the old saying "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".
That's why.
Regards, Alf.

jvc wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:32 PM:Who are we as a people? With 55 delegates made up of white slave and
land owners who created our constitution! With the barbarity of owning slaves and justifying the slave with the Christian Bible.
With a Jim Crow supremacy of one people over another!
With over 4000 lynchings for no reason but for skin color! With a time span of
over 230 years before a black was elected president! With a prevalent society today made up of the privilege!

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:35 PM:Well, "Olaf" at 1:13PM,
like the either hypothetical or real church that was in the adoption BUSINESS, only those which perform a PUBLIC service could be effected and only if they refuse to comply with the same rules as any other BUSINESS performing the same function. Otherwise, no church in California was forced to change a darned thing during the last 5 months.
I really like the idea of a ending ALL governmental involvement in marriages.
The idea of a "civil union" that would apply the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS to ANY two consenting adults regardless of gender combination and leaving "marriage" to churches is another good one.
Either way, the current discriminatory situation (should Prop. 8 be upheld - GAAACK) is unacceptable on many levels.
Regards, Alf.

But Chuck wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:37 PM:Will there be a crowd yelling "Fight, fight fight!! to egg you two on?

To Liberaljim wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:37 PM:You might want to spell check your first post. Becareful about living in a glass house.

God help us wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:43 PM:I shutter to think these elected officials are cozing up to the San Diego Minutmen, Brian Bilbray, Darrell Issa, Martin Garrick, Joel Anderson, Kevin Jeffries, Sam Abed, Jack Feller Duncan D. Hunter, Nathan Fletcher and Diane Harkey. I wonder how objective they will be now that they have sold out to this vigilante group. Those voters who voted for them should have been better informed as to their ties to this band of maladjusted misfits. If any of these elected officials agree with the tactics used by this group I fear for all Americans.

Karl wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:47 PM:Golf was good, finished 2 over and did not hit anyone with the little white pill. "gays in military @ 11:45 AM", here's the problem that I have with you and your position. Your words "nation of bigots" is extremely offending to me. Look at this blog, are the opponents of prop 8 bigots in your mind? Last time I checked the vote was 52% for and 48% against. Does this qualify our nation in your mind a "nation of bigots". Not hardly in my mind although I'm starting to come around. The word 'bigot" and "racist" are bandied about with such lack of forethought that I can see how everyone in this nation could be labeled in your small world.

Peace and wishing the best for Ms. M's son.

gracchus at 1041 wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:49 PM:Please don't use facts when talking with Chuck. It's like adding a gallon of water into a one ounce cup.

Karl wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:50 PM:Nick @10:06 AM:

Nice to hear from you friend.

jvc wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:54 PM:Who are we as a people? With a
profession in our history called land speculators whose only criterion for the job is being European and barbaric enough to kill or drive off the natives from their land!

Equality wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:57 PM:<<The idea of a "civil union" that would apply the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS to ANY two consenting adults regardless of gender combination and leaving "marriage" to churches is another good one>>

I think this is the best way to settle the gay marriage debate. Both sides are happy - Nuff said.

No Rights Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:57 PM:To "But No Rights Denied":
You're close.
The government says that IF you marry, it must be someone of the opposite gender.

To Bodecea:
Homosexuals are looking for MORE rights than straight people.

Karl wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:58 PM:bodecea
[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:39 PM:To "No Rights Denied"

"If no rights are being denied, then you won't mind if we amend the CA Constitution to eliminate one societal dynamic YOU belong to".

I can guarantee that if you liberals (who all look alike) take golf away from me and my golf buddies, there's gonna be hell to pay. Bank on it. Do you feel lucky punk? Well do ya?

Peace

Karl wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:08 PM:jvc @ 1:54 PM, hopefully one day you will reach the status of "old fart" and be frogiven for a bad memory from 2 days ago much less 100 years ago. Try living in the present, it's quite fun with all these new computer gadgets.

Discrimination wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:15 PM:Has anyone considered that a "civil union" is ONLY available to Gays?

Two cohabiting straight people cannot avail themselves of this "union."

Straight people are being discriminated against!

What other Civil Licenses wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:31 PM:What other Civil Licenses will I be denied as a gay person? CA Driver's License? Can I have the same one as a straight person or do I need one for gays only? Marriage and Drivers are both issued by the state, so I must not be allowed to have the same licenses as a straight person, right?

Bill wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:33 PM:Alf

As you know, I voted against Prop 8.

However, I hate to tell you but it has zero chance of being overturned by any court. The Warren court (I forgot the case) defined marraige as a "basic right". However, the argument was made on another case and was a reference to the "privacy rights" argument that Warrens court espoused in Roe v. Wade. The Warren court said that marraige between a man and woman was a "basic right" but thats not binding precedent and other courts have ignored it as a source of pursuasive authority. The court never mentioned gay marraige. So far, the gay lobby has ignored filing challenges on the seperate but equal grounds and continues to make weak legal arguments based on civil rights claims. That argument will continue to lose as there is nothing to base a legal challenge on. The couple in Mission Viejo CA were denied by the court as they had no legal standing since they were never married. Now, after the 9th circuit decision allowed them to marry this last year, they re-filed their claim and were denied the claim once again even though the court agreed that they now had the legal standing. Their argument was shot down on the merits as the court threw their case out and determined that there are no basic fundamental rights being denied. The judge claimed the plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action as the gay couple had the option of a civil union which grants those rights albeit in an unequal manner. Other than the Warren courts decision years ago, there is no other precedent to claim marraige is a civil right. As long as the gay lobby continues to wage legal arguments based on civil rights claims, they will continue to lose. Many suspect that the gay lobby isnt concerned with equality but rather wants gay marraige to be recognized as a civil right. I do not think the rank and file feel that way though.

That argument wont work.

Not now, not ever!

I voted against Prop 8 because it is discriminating but only on seperate but equal grounds. That would qualify as an sound argument and I have said that many times in here.

But thats not the argument the NO on 8 people are making.

Im starting to think the gay movement wants to attack the church and not gain equality for their ranks because they are ignoring a compromising remedy that has legal merit. There is no binding precedent or pursuasive authority for any judge to reference that supports a civil rights argument. Because of that, all challenges will continue to get denied at both the state and federal level.

The 9th circuits decision is inconsistent with the precedent already set (or LACK OF)

Until the No on 8 crowd can make a sound legal argument, that is supported by a claim of inequality, they will continue to get shot down. I see nothing on the horizon that paves the way for Prop 8 to be overturned on the grounds it is being fought on.

Zip, zilch, nada, zip!!!!!

Nothing.

I know this is going to ruffle some feathers but its true as the No on 8 crowd has no leg to stand on as long as the civil union is available as an option.

The civil union lacks full faith and credit and is discriminating to gays.

They need to make that argument and base it on the 14th ammendment.

Otherwise, they will continue to lose this battle.

The courts are already growing tired of their worn out claims that have no merit and is already refusing to hear plaintiffs claims based on those grounds.

So how will it get overturned as the No on 8 crowd is saying?

I dont see any higher court touching this.

Do you expect them to alter their arguments?

If so, why havent they done so already?

I smell activism and it is hurting gays more than the Yes on 8 crowd is but the rank and file dont know this and need to bark up the right tree. Instead, they are waging a silly battle that they are being denied civil rights drawing comparisons to blacks and their struggle. They need to stop this silly battle based on calling their opponents bigots, vandalizing Prop 8 supporters homes, and claiming religious people are bigots because of their beliefs that are based on Gods word.

Did you happen to catch Roseanne Barrs comments?

That only hurts the gays.

What am I missing?

Please dont give me a personal opinion either as the opinions of appellate court judges are all that matter. However, there are only district court decisions and nothing binding on an appellate level.

What do you see that I dont that makes you think it will be overturned?

The Detroit Lions will win a SB before that happens.

The No on 8 crowd needs better legal counsel. Either that or less activism that makes silly legal arguments with no basis in constitutional law.

Fill me in on what Im missing.

ORWELL wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:37 PM:What hoot, watching Ronnie Boy at 6:56 a.m. try to spin and spin so much he's getting us all dizzy, as he tries to explain why it is "socialism" when a Democrat talks about tax cuts, but not when several Republican governors use terms like "collective" and "share the wealth" and "commons" to describe a commercial venture, the means of production, owned by the government, which goes to the very core of Marxist ideology.

Up is down, black is white, war is peace, Orwell would be so proud!

By the way, Ronnie Boy, the fact that they contract with private sector independent contractors to help with their "collective" and "communal" state-owned, state-run business that returns DIVIDENDS to "share the wealth" with each citizen of the state, has no more relevance than when the oil company of the old Soviet Union made deals with U.S. private corporations.

Ron actually has not political ideology or economic principles.
He is only trying to justify why rich should take from poor, and defense contractors and oil stockholders should feed at the public trough of corporate welfare and sweetheart deals.

hardtack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:42 PM:“Did anyone see the recent party AIG had at tax payers expense? Capitalism at it's very, very best.”

Anyone who associates 79.9% government owned AIG with capitalism doesn’t understand capitalism. No wonder “capitalism” gets a bad rap.

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:43 PM:To "No Rights Denied"

You are right, of course. We are looking for MORE rights than Heteros. Heteros are not allowed to marry and for us to expect the right to marry, we are asking for SPECIAL rights...above and beyond that of Heteros.

And Up is Down, Black is White, and More is Less.

Martin Niemoellers poem wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:43 PM:When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-by Martin Niemoeller

Bill wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:54 PM:Alf

A police officer is not supposed to do anything to a suspect other than apprehend them right?

But what happens when the suspect doesnt cooperate?

Extra force is not only needed but it is justified too.

The cop can do WHATEVER necessary to quell the threat from a resisting suspect.

That includes deadly force.

Are you with me so far?

Im willing to give our fighting men and women the same leeway to use whatever necessary to stop a terrorist from nuking us.

That includes torture.

Your thinking is dangerous and only cripples our ability to fight the war on terror. Much like the cop on the street, sometimes reasonable force isnt enough. This combat veteran is freightened of those who think like you.

The truth is that one day in combat would change your thinking as the terrorists are counting on you to think like that and handcuff our forces.

How nice of you to cooperate in the name of love for your country.

Thats what people mean when they criticize liberals for caring more about terrorists than our country.

Your ilk are the same ones that would give a cop on the street the benefit of the doubt to fight street thugs but you wont give our fighting forces that same lattitude to fight terrorists.

Am I correct in thinking you are more concerned with street crime than you are another 9/11?

Utterly amazing!

WACO Religion wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:58 PM:Hardtack at 12:30 p.m. refers to "gun owners who were practicing religion in Waco." What an absurd comment. Rampant child sexual abuse and spousal abuse are no more protected practices of religion than polygamy or human sacrifice.
You make a mockery of justice, Hardtack, that offends all sense of justice, which is designed to protect the most helpless and defenseless.
Dismissing those as mere pawns of religious extremists is beyond any sense of decency.

liberaljim wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:03 PM:to" to liberaljim at 1:37. Yes, I omitted an "o" from sophomoric. You wrote "be careful" as "becareful." It should be two words. Glass houses, indeed.

POLICE POWERS wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:17 PM:Bill at 2:54 p.m. misstates the extent to which police can apply force to an uncooperative suspect.
He says, "The cop can do WHATEVER necessary to quell the threat from a resisting suspect.
That includes deadly force."

His emphasis on the word "WHATEVER" is his.

You are WRONG, Bill.
Police may NOT do "WHATEVER" to restrain an uncooperative suspect.
The restraint must be PROPORTIONAL to the extent that the suspect is uncooperative.
Deadly force is rarely an acceptable option, and would only be appropriate if the officer were threatened to that extent.

As for giving our fighting men and women "the same leeway ... to stop a terrorist" remember that we are in Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorists. We are supposedly there to liberate them from a nasty dictator (since the WMD thing didn't pan out so well). We are there to help them. The standard for violating the rights of those we are there to help is extraordinarily high.

Don't like it?
The locals don't appreciate it?
Fine. Then bring 'em home.
Utterly amazing!

No Rights Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:24 PM:To Bodecea:

Every citizen has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

You advocate expanding that right for every homosexual citizen to include marrying to the same gender.

Bill wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:33 PM:The claims of Koresh molesting children, drugs, spousal abuse etc. were proven to be false in the WACO hearings as witnesses directly contradicted these claims and no evidence as found.

However, the public didnt care so the issue went away.

As for Prop 8?

Nobody is coming for gays in the manner the Nazis came for Jews. That kind of talk hurts their cause. Comparing their struggle to what Jews and blacks have endured is downright silly and puts the legitimacy of their cause in question.Comparing Prop 8 to what the Nazis did is insulting and absurd.

When are the No on 8 crowd going to realize that argument has no chance?

They need to start analogizing their cause to fit a legitimate legal argument like seperate but equal.

They could then use Brown v. Board of Education as binding precedent but they arent doing that. The No on 8 crowd is their own worst enemy as they squander their opportunity to get equality by making silly comparisons like that.

Its a 14th ammendment issue people.

They would win on those grounds but they wouldnt get their pound of flesh from society that many supsect the radicals want.

Gays need to question their leadership on this issue and find out why they continue to hurt their cause with arguments that wont work.

Maybe they want more than just equality after all.

It sure is looking that way.

Why else would they ignore a legal argument that would get them the eqaulity they seek?

As long as they make that argument, I will defend the church's rights as vigorosuly as I defend the gays rights.

The US Constitution applies to EVERYONE!

Ron wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:47 PM:>>>Liberals generally hate America>>>
according to Chuck at 8:39 a.m.

But according to Ostalin...
once inaugurated...It will be time to "remake America, brick by brick, and block by block", says the lover of America.

Now, NObama never said rebuild America, he said: Remake America.
Key difference, very key.

To rebuild means to build another.

To remake means, into something different.

I can have my human body rebuilt if it has been damaged.

But to remake my human body would not be possible, unless I visited Sweden or Trinidad, CO.

to to Liberaljim wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:56 PM:Yes i knew -- i did so unpurpose as i thro roc (sic).

Bill wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:56 PM:The poster above is correct about Police authority.

I stand corrected as the PD must use force in proportion with the threat. I will clarify my claim for this person as they are obviously slow in comprehension. The PD can use whatever necesasary to accomplish the objective in that context. Nothing changes that and if a suspect points a weapon at the cop, he can be shot and killed legally.

What does this guy think our enemies were trying to do to us in Iraq?

We defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq as the "Lions of Islam" movement drew them as mercenaries just like we thought they would. We anticipated that we would have to fight foreign mercenaries. We fought AQ in Iraq so Im wondering whether the person who wrote that above will also stand corrected for their innaccuate claims.

We drew them into the fight just like Bush said we would.

We werent fighting the Iraqi people as he claims.

We were fighting Baathe Party loyalists and Shiite radicals who then called on AQ for help.

All of them are our enemies.

However, I didnt hear anyone answer my question about why they dont give our fighting men the same benefit when they were fighting AQ from day one in Iraq. The guy ducked my question rather skillfully as he must feel that Baathe Party loyalists and Al Sadrs people arent enemies after all.

Are these the "Iraqi people" liberals refer to?

We were doing what was proportinately needed to quell the threat.

Weak response dude.

Answer my question on why you wont give our fighting forces the same leeway to torture those who have info on those trying to kill us.

This guy must think terrorists have civil rights that we are violating.

Now, if Obama gets his way, we will prosecute these terrorists in open court where then can expose undercover CIA operatives by subpoening them to court to talk about classified information. They would be denied their right to face their accuser if the agent didnt show up.

Libs think this is a good idea too.

How naiive are some people.

JD wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:21 PM:@ No Rights Denied: Of course, heterosexuals could also then marry people of the same gender. So there are still no "special rights" coming into play here.

Of course, two heterosexuals of the same gender getting married makes about as much sense as a homosexual marrying somebody of the opposite gender.

It comforts me to see how the infusion of youth voting in this more recent election also dropped the pass rate on Prop 8 from 67% to 52%. Gives me hope for the future.

Of course, when 70%+ of the black population votes FOR Prop 8, you need to wonder. How long ago was it that a black person COULDN'T marry a white person?

How quickly we forget...

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:27 PM:Well, "Karl" at 1:58PM,
I wouldn't feel lucky, especially since you only went 2 over.
Good game!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:35 PM:Well, "No Rights Denied" at 1:57PM,
the government ONLY said that people are free to marry ONLY someone of the opposite gender AFTER Prop. 22 passed.
Prop. 22 passed with 61% in 2000 and was overturned in 2008.
Prop. 8 passed with 52%.
If you'll recall, in 1945 a white guy was free to marry ONLY a white gal.
Discrimination is discrimination.
Lipstick on the PIG of discrimination does not change what it is.
Regards, Alf.

Skip wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:38 PM:Illegal Aliens are now called "Foreign Nationals", in the state of Arizona. I can live with that, as we pretty much all know what it means.

Anyone using the following terms is an "immigration reform" scam
artist:

"Undocumented Persons" - removing "illegal" masks that the alien is a lawbreaker and sounds so much better!

"Illegal Immigrants" - an oxymoron. Immigrants obey US laws by applying for and receiving a visa to enter the US. How can someone who obeys the law be "illegal?" Just one more term to confuse voters.

"Migrants" - irrelevant to the immigration debate. An immigrant isn't
automatically a migrant. As well, a US citizen can be a migrant, totally removing them from the immigration issue.

That they intentionally use terms that confuse rather than clarify is
automatically suspicious. They'll stop at nothing to stop public discussion of immigration issues. Those who insist on using clear and accurate terms will be intimidated with accusations of "racist," "xenophobic," "hate-mongers," "anti-immigrant," and "bigot" and the rest of their tired litany.

In their attempts to manipulate American immigration policy and
Americans' opinions, Hispanic-rights groups like MALDEF and LaRaza
have dictated that the term "illegal alien" is a "racial slur."
Baloney! "Alien" and "illegal alien" are terms found in federal immigration law describing both the individual and the violation.

On the tube wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:39 PM:Oh, how exciting to see Sarah Palin making the rounds on tv lately. And here we were all being scolded to leave her alone. But she won't leave US alone! Why, let me ask, would anyone be interested in her efforts to begin campaigning at this point in time? Is she using the media, the same media she avoided like the plague, to help her shape the next step in her career? Now that there are no tough questions that a potential President would have to answer, is she willing to be chummy with the wide world? Puh-lease. Talk about a celebrity mindset! Sarah: go away and be Governor. Or appoint yourself Senator when Stevens the felon is booted from DC. Do something, Sarah, that helps your country. Then, when you've done so, come back, if you wish, and run for something. You'll have earned my ear at that point. But trying to catapult a cynical and absurd appointment to a ticket into actual credibility? Yawn.

bodecea wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:41 PM:To "No Rights Denied"

So you admit to DISCRIMINATION based on Gender. Good. That makes our court cases even clearer. DISCRIMINATION based on gender is Unconstitutional.

(BTW, Your argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia either)

Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:42 PM:"Every citizen has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender."

What is your reason that marriage must be defined as between someone of the opposite gender please? How does it affect you if your neighbor falls in love with someone who doesn't fit your criteria?

We are talking two consenting adults here. Period.

Why does God allow people of the same sex to fall in love if He is so against it?

Why would you deny two people in love the rights that come with marriage?

What exactly is your objection to same sex marriage? Can you be specific?

To Bill wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:45 PM:No torture, not ever, NEVER. There are no excuses or rationalizations that make torture ok no matter how afraid you are of the terrorists, Bill.

The United States will once again be a shining light for the world by setting the example. We will not lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator.

We will take the high road and encourage others to follow.

It takes courage, Bill, to live according to your better angels.

I suggest you look into it.

To No Rights Denied wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:48 PM:Those who fall in love with another consenting adult of the same gender do not have the same right to marry as those who fall in love with another consenting adult of the opposite gender.

This is not equal rights.

You can say the sky is not blue all day long but it still won't be true.

You can say no rights are denied to homosexual people all day long but it still won't be true.

I am sorry you have such a comprehension problem.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:58 PM:Well, "Bill" at 2:33PM,
your reasonong for a proper court challenge is quite sound and in terms of what will be the most compelling LEGAL argument, you are most likely right. As it was for 5 months it was still not equal, see DOMA below.
Then there is the question (I know, my opinion) of discrimination by a state (government) agency, which denied, didn't deny and now denies again, a marriage license based on gender of one and sexual orientation of both.
Then there is that stinking, rotten, misnomer of a law -DOMA, look at it and see what you think.
Too damn many paths that have been systematically destroyed, all so that some religious sorts and those who are bigots don't get their sensibilities offended.
The fact is that some, if not many, are using religion to cover up their bigotry because using a religious objection is more acceptable in society than just "coming out" and saying the truth.
Regards, Alf.

I am not gay wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:58 PM:I am actually heterosexual but I would also like the right to marry whomever I choose without government getting involved with my choice.

Should I fall in love with someone of my gender, it would be MY business if I chose to marry that person, no one else's.

Personally, I believe that everyone has a little bisexuality in them, but that's just me.

Either way, it is neandrathal to believe that gay people are any different than straight people. What is sad is, judging people by the way they look.

If it happened that humans had evolved with a gender-neutral appearance on the surface, meaning that if men and women looked alike but had different sexual organs that you don't see in public, then no one would have any idea who was gay and who wasn't. And who would care?

The truth is, some people just don't like to "see" two men together... (although interestingly enough, two women together is a very popular fantasy for many men). Of course it would be embarrassing to admit this objection (it just looks icky (or was that sticky, Karo Syrupticus?)) so those who object to homosexuality come up with reasons like God (who created gays) or family values or sanctity of marriage (what a laugh) to cover up their immaturity.

Pfffft.

Olaf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:18 PM:Bill has the point on my argument. He states exactly why prop 8 won. Stop comparing your plight with slaves or Jewish people. Not the same. Seperate but equal (I believe Plessy v. Ferguson?) is the case and that is where the case is.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:18 PM:Well, "Bill" at 2:54PM,
one of the local Sheriffs told me that their policy is "force plus 1" except in the most dire sitation - perp brandishing a knife or trowel justifies the use of a gun, taser, etc.

Torture -
"Bill", we are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and we have a Constitution.
Torture violates both of the above.
Perpetrating torture in a U.S. base on foreign soil violates both of the above.
"Enemy combatant" is a made-up term specifically and solely for the purpose of getting around both of the above while also denying those people habeas corpus.
I am a man of honor and everything related to torture; that entire area, that entire concept and the lies that surround them are so thoroughly dishonorable, disgusting and disrespectful to the letter and the spirit of the United States, the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions that I can not believe that you provide rational discussion about legal challenges to Prop. 8, on the one hand, and then delve into the depths of depravity, lawlessness and anarchistic attitude regarding torture.
Suffice it to say that we completely disagree about torture.
Regards, Alf.

WACO Religion wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:24 PM:Bill at 3:33 p.m. is either just making it up as he goes along or is getting his info from propagandists Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the phony "news" folks at Faux Noise.
While it is true that no "evidence" was presented in a court of law since all the defendants were DEAD, the facts for probable cause, on which warrants were issued (back when we had a President who actually used warrants) were very clear.
We don't need propagandists defending child sexual abusers and those who oppress, demean and abuse women. All in the name of religion.
Gee, where have we seen that before.

And Bill 3:56 p.m. continues to present a bizarre distortion of reality. He mentions defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq, but conveniently forgets to mention that there was NO AL QAEDA in Iraq until we removed Saddam (a secular enemy of the religious Al Qaeda) and they rushed in to fill the power vacuum WE CREATED.

Bill then mentions the "Shiite radicals who then called on AQ for help."
What?
He is as ignorant of mid-east realities as John McCain, who repeatedly made the same absurd blunder before embarassingly being corrected, on video, by Joe Lieberman.
Do you not understand the difference between the Sunni and Shiite Islamic divisions, the core division among Moslems, as vicious as the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland?
Do you really not understand this?
AL QAEDA IS SUNNI (from Saudi Arabia).
The Shiite in Iraq are, well, SHIITE.
They do not work together, and for you to say this confirms that you don't know what you are talking about!

gracchus wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:26 PM:ron, at 3:37 p.m., you mimic chuck's ridiculous sobriquet which he used at 8:39 a.m., calling obama ostalin. neither of you knows very much about stalin or stalinism.

i defy either of you to indicate one characteristic of the president-elect of the united states of america which bears the remotest resemblance to one of the most evil men who has ever lived.
i additionally defy you to state any of the president-elect's proposals that are stalinist.

both of you pervert and pollute the discourse when you capriciously and ignorantly misuse political terms.

Olaf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:26 PM:To I am not gay: God gave you and everyone a blank slate. He didn't make anyone gay(my first post early this morning) If you choose to be gay then so be it. But do not hoist your preferences on everyone else. Do not "MAKE" churches marry you. Leave the religion loving people alone and I bet they leave you alone. Just my two cents.

To Discrimination wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:40 PM:Yes, a "civil union" is ONLY available to gays." Just like the back of the bus was only available to blacks. HaHa, poor whites were being discriminated against. You'd be funny if you weren't so out of touch with reality.

CIVIL UNIONS wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:59 PM:Discrimination at 2:15 p.m. can't get his facts, er, straight.
Civil Unions are very much available to BOTH GAYS AND STRAIGHTS.
Though rarely used by straights, who have a BETTER (not equal) option, they are sometimes used by the elderly who do not want a formal marriage but do want certain legal protections.

The options are not equal.
Straights have both options;
you are trying to block gays from EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

For gays, these unions are not so civil.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:04 PM:Olaf[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:26 PM: You are believing your own propaganda. It was not the wish of gays to be married in any church where they were not members and not welcome. It has nothing to do with your church or region. It has to do with equal and same rights for every citizen. My brother, David, was gay. He suffered discrimination, self hatred, police harassment and a few beatings a long the way. I inquired of him about being gay. Do you really think that I want to be this way? Everybody is born with a blank slate that is until the hormones erupt. Then you know if you are homo or hertro or bi or whatever. And just for the record, I laugh when you attempt to tell other people what to do. Just my two cents.

Surfer wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:06 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:18 PM: Dude, you did it again. I am aces with your post. See ya!

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:10 PM:Well, "Olaf" at 5:26PM,
if being a homosexual, "gay", is a choice, then being heterosexual must, by definition, also be a choice.
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
I know that I never made a choice to be heterosexual, I just am.
If no decision point, no point at which heterosexuals made a choice to be heterosexual can be presented by heterosexuals, then the notion that homosexuals made a "choice" to be homosexual is invalid.
A homosexual can choose to try to be hetero, and will eventually revert to his/her natural state in the same way that a person can choose to hold their breath, but eventually the part of the brain that controls breathing reasserts itself.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:14 PM:Well, "Surfer" at 6:06PM,
Thanks,
How's the leg?
Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:27 PM:Re: Olaf (5:26 p.m.) and Alf (6:10 p.m.)
Alf is clearly right and Olaf is clearly wrong. There is much science (and just common sense) to support that being gay is not a choice - and why would anyone choose to be hated, despised and outcast?
This doesn't make any sense, especially when so many who are gay not only didn't choose it, they don't want it (for religious or cultural reasons) and go to great lengths to try to change - CHOOSE - something different and CAN'T.
In contrast, those who are naturally heterosexual never make any such conscious choice and can't even understand the feelings of being romantically attracted to someone of the same sex, though we can and do understand that not everyone is the same as us.

But even Alf misses the real point.
So what if it were a CHOICE?
The issue is irrelevant!
It does not matter!
THIS IS AMERICA.
People can make choices.
And if those choices don't hurt anyone else, they cannot be discriminated because of them.

First point: Olaf is wrong.
Second point: Wouldn't matter even if he were right.

Its A Lock wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:28 PM:"Olaf
[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:26 PM:To I am not gay: God gave you and everyone a blank slate. He didn't make anyone gay(my first post early this morning)."

Olaf uses himself as a source, it must be so.

hardtack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:42 PM:Well, “WACO Religion,” I’ll take your over-the-top reaction @ 2:58 PM as agreement with my premise: The state DOES care what we do behind closed doors.

Just out of curiosity, which word pushed your button, “Waco” or “religion.?” And I’m not ruling out my alluding to the Second Amendment either.

Olaf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:58 PM:Olaf: How can we leave religion-loving people alone when they are ones intrudung upon the rest of us (e.g. who we should marry, what type of scientific research we should do, what we should teach as science, etc.). If religion-loving people stop telling the rest of us how to live our lives then we'll leave them alone.

The Bailout Problem wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:33 PM:NPR reported in December, 2005 that Toyota paid its non-skilled assembly line workers an average of $27/hour, compared to GM $31.35. The number of hours that it took for Toyota to build a car was for Toyota was 27.9 hours compared to GMs 34.3 hours.

That is not so bad – but here is the “bad” – the hourly workers at Toyota costs Toyota $48 per hour, but at GM it is $73.73 per hour.

The total result is that in 2005, Toyota MADE $1,488 PER VEHICLE. At the same time, GM LOST $2,331 PER VEHICLE.

It is union work rules, retirement and medical benefits that make the difference.

WACO Worship wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:53 PM:Hardtack asks the wrong question at 6:42 p.m.:
Was it the "Waco" or "religion" that was the hot button?
The fact that this is his choice shows how far removed he is from the common decence of basic legal purpose: to protect the helpless among us.

The answer is NEITHER, "Hardtack."
What pushes my buttons is child sexual abuse, spousal abuse and, amazingly, those who defend such vile perpetrators.

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:35 PM:To OBAMAPREZ: Obama may be smart, but don't be fooled. He knows how to talk to people and that is his only gift. He does not know how to run a country let alone defend one. The only people running this country will be his Liberal Kronies. They will make all the decisions for him. Watch out for this man. He is very dangerous indeed. The American people will find out very soon.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:08 PM:Olaf[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:58 PM:You got it backwards. It is your religious loving people who are telling people what to do.

jvc wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:08 PM:Watch out for Obama? What garbage!The
people to watch out for lost the election! They lost not because of Bush
or Palin or the economy, they lost because we were tired of their lies and dirty tricks!

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:12 PM:aDAMANT[-] wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:35 PM:
Obama 365 McCain 162. You do not know one thing about Obama. You never met him. In fact, the only info you have is probably from Rush,Hannity and Cunningham. We all know how objective they are. Nuff Said.

To Oalf wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:20 PM:Being gay is not a choice. You don't choose sexuality just like you don't choose to be left handed or right handed. There are Christian religions that accept homosexuality, so even among Christian religions there is not total agreement. State sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage. No church is required and will never be required to perform a gay marriage. That is freedom of religion in America. This will never change. The only thing we want is civil marriage. State marriage....not religious marriage. My partner and I own a business and together we applied for a business license in CA and got it years ago. Two gay guys with one business license together in CA. The same license straight couples and yourself can apply for. We were not treated any differently. The same license. No difference. Why should the state treat us differently when it comes to a state marriage license? They shouldn't that's why. Just as they don't treat us differently for our drivers license or any other state issued license. No different, but according to YOUR religion we should be treated differently. What does your religion say about my CA driver's license or two gay guys having a business license together. What does it say? Nothing. It doesn't. Why because it is the state. Not your religion, but you haven't been able to conclude this rational thought. This is why the foundering fathers fought for separation of church and state since they left the old world with people like you where the lines blurred state and religion into hate. The same hate the Mormons ran from and now are doing it to gays. I don't believe as you and that is okay. We can all have different beliefs which makes America great. We should all be able to apply for state licenses without any one belief dominating or affecting each others lives. You are simply forcing your beliefs on my family when it comes to the state and that is not right.

To aDAMANT wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:25 PM:You mean like the last 8 years of Bush where he was a puppet of the Republican'ts Kronies. At least Obama is smart. Bush is a very dumb man. If Bush were a Democrat I would have voted Republican't.

To Illegal Alien Activists wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:27 PM:Jeff Schwilk is at it again with his misguided patriotism. I mean come on, it's not about who's crossing the border. On the contrary, the problems that Mr. Schwilk is addressing in his letter started on the American side of the fence. The 1962/1963 Supreme Court said that prayer and Bible reading in the classroom were illegal. As a result of that decision, our nation has become #1 in drug useage (legal and otherwise). Oh and by the way, Ecuador's currency is now the U.S. Dollar.

To Eric Parish wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:09 AM:First off, marriage originated back in late 1200's and was associated with Biblical terms in which a man and a woman became one. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (wedlock). Basically husband and wife.
I am by no means a bigot, a homophobe or against a persons sexual preference, to set the record straight. I know, work with and have friends that are "gay". I have no problem with Life Partners", "domestic partnership" or any other name. Call it what ever you want, but obvoiusly the majority does not want it called "marriage".
I just want to say, it really set me off to hear you say "So if your religious beliefs are hurt by gay people getting married ��“��“ tough". That is a completely ignorant comment. The other side could easily say "if you feel second class..tough". It was voted on, it passed, get over it! Yes, if you vote on the same issue enough times and plug along or ramrod a concept, you might get closer or succeed. Kind of like a 2 year crying till they get what they want. It is not that the parents accept this behavior or want to accept the childs demands...they just want the kid to "shut up". So, if it eventually passes, I am sure there will actually be more resentment and it will probally arouse more hate and seperation, but people will not have to deal with the whining any more. But, obvoiusly after 8 years, it is still the same.
In my opinion, people protesting against Prop 8 passing are only causing friction and distancing themselves form the crowd they are so adamant about joining. It was up for vote, again, and passed. The people have voiced their opinion. In fact, I am honestly leaning towards opposing any future same-sex marriage votes strictly based on the "temper tantrum" like response that has come about.
Here is a thought. How about trying to make people receptive to diversion of sexual preference and stop trying to force something to just prove a point. Kill them with kindness. Obvoisly, everyone can not be "gay"..that would not really work, but it is more widely accepted today. There has been huge strides in the acceptance of same-sex relationships. I look at the mentality of "tough" or labeling anyone who was opposed to it as a "hater" or a "bigot" as a huge step back for the "gay" community and only see it it creating distance between those for and those against same-sex marrige. I think it is time to move on and just simply find another word with an equivilant meaning to join two people together. Remember, with marriage comes adultry and divorce as well. Is it really a word worth chasing?

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:55 AM:Well, "WACO Worship" at 7:53PM,
do you believe that a thief or a vandal who has served their sentence, whatever it is, has "paid their debt to society" and is done with the legal system?
Let that sink in.
Roll the answer over in your head.
Now, if you believe that a criminal who has served their sentence whether probation or 25 years in prison is now forgiven in the eyes of the law,
how about a person who committed a sex crime and has served their sentence, whatever it is/was?
Are you one of those who believe that the Constitution and its rights only apply to those people who live within the law and/or commit crimes that you deem to be "acceptable" crimes?
Or are you one of the people who believe that the Constitution and its rights apply to everyone and that there is a very good reason why murderers are given more harsh sentences than shoplifters,
that sex criminals are given more harsh sentences than people who trespass?
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:34 AM:"Some of my best friends and coworkers are gay so I can't possibly be a bigot"....where have we heard THAT before?

WACO Worship wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:25 AM:I'm really puzzled by your response, Alf at 6:55 a.m.
Was this blog from the real Alf?
Love your blogs and you are usually spot on, but your response is so completely unrelated to what I wrote that I'm wondering if you understood me clearly.
What on earth are you talking about in regard to those who have "paid their debt to society" or served their sentence or whatever?
I was talking NOTHING about such things, or about efforts by those who try to change laws after the fact to increase penalties, add additional conditions to those who have already completed their sentences, or whatever. I do not support such laws, consider them unconstitutional on ex post facto grounds (and yes, Apollo, because they apply after the fact to CRIMINAL sentencing), and there was nothing in my blog remotely related to that.

I was talking about the Waco standoff.
There were warrants for a number of violations, INCLUDING ONGOING CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND SPOUSAL ABUSE. These were current, ongoing activities. These had nothing to do with anything in the past for which people had previously been convicted and completed penal sentences.

So help me out, Alf, what were you talking about and how does this related to my blog at 7:53 p.m.?

hardtack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:29 AM:ALF, I’m not sure I follow your point @ 6:55 AM.

I see the irony of Waco and, moreover, the irony of “WACO Worship’s” reaction to my earlier posts as this:
The Waco incident was alleged to have involved women and child abuse; as a result of government action, a total of 82 men, women and children were killed. The operative words here are “alleged” and “killed.” Obviously, people were “abused,” along with the state’s sense of power.

It’s ironical that “WACO Worship” will accuse me, for some reason, of condoning and defending alleged women and child abuse. Should we similarly accuse “WACO Worship” of condoning and defending the states’ factual abuse of power?

I pass.

To Debbie wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:27 AM:If you make minimum wage, you will be the one on the receiving end of the "spreading the wealth" policy. No one is going to take your money from you being that you apparently live below the poverty line so chill out!

To Apollo wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:33 AM:I want to be your friend!!! You rock!!!!

Hey Olaf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:09 AM:I am a religion loving person. I am not Christian, but I love my religion. My religion also welcomes homosexuals and many of our ordained ministers are happy to marry them, well, affirmations until 8 is overturned. If your churches have a problem, that is on them. They don't have to marry them. Send the couples our way. We'll do it. Problem solved.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:37 AM:Well, "WACO Worship" at 8:25AM,
You said "What pushes my buttons is child sexual abuse, spousal abuse and, amazingly, those who defend such vile perpetrators."
It was the "those who defend such vile perpetrators" that pushed one of my buttons.
I got hung up and was recalling the rhetoric back on Prop. 83. When the proponents were all for the punitive ex post facto aspects of it, I came to the defense of the Constitution and the people who were about to have their Constitutional rights violated.
So I do defend such vile perpetrators IF the Constitution is involved. I spoke with and emailed Dennis Riordan, who was the first lawyer to challenge Prop. 83 immediately after its passage, several times.
Regards, Alf.

WACO Worship wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:16 AM:To Alf at 10:37 a.m.:
I also opposed - strongly - Prop 83 as a violation of the Constitution.
That had nothing to do with NEW investigations, with Constitutional warrants, of new allegations of ongoing child sexual abuse and abuse of women.
I was speaking out against "those who defend such vile perpetrators" in regard to those who are still perpetrating, which was what the ALLEGATIONS (with warrants) were all about at Waco.

I share your viewpoint, but remain completely perplexed as to why you changed the subject.
Your point about Prop 83 had no relation to my comment.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:30 AM:It is obvious, "WACO Worship" at 11:16AM, that I did what I have accused others of doing, I took your comment, your part of a sentence out of context.
I apologize for any insult made or inferred.
SNL once had a skit were a guy going on vacation from a nuclear power plant said, "Remember, you can't give the reactor too much water."
One person thought he meant "do not give the reactor too much water" (limit supply) and another person thought he meant "there is no such thing as too much water" (do not limit the supply).
Regards, Alf.

beth wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:34 PM:Susan Zesky of Cardiff should start her own propaganda paper. Real journalism should inform the public what is going on. the nctimes should get an award from the liberal agenda