Art wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:10 AM:CalFire has made it a point to announce they've moved equipment into place just ahead of the forecast santa-ana winds expected later this week. What they haven't said is whether they have enough "spotters" to make it possible to use that equipment. The last time CalFire was here fighting a fire, they responded to questions about idle equipment by saying there were no spotters available. When asked who was supposed to supply the spotters, CalFire said "we do that". Are we going to go through that whole thing again, or is CalFire going to actually be prepared to fight the fire this time? Enquiring minds want to know!

Voted Yes on Eight wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:27 AM:It is well reported Proposition 8 to protect traditional marriage was approved by a vote of 52.3% to 47.7% against

However it should be noticed that the 78.7 % of the votes from the entire state of California excluding San Francisco and several nearby counties approved Proposition 8 to by 56.3% for to 43.7% against.

On the low side it was approved by only 24.8% in San Francisco and 25.0% in Marin County, and in several nearby counties it was approved by 33.9% to 44.6%. This brought down the statewide average. A large number of counties approved by 54 to 56 percent.
Some counties approved protecting marriage by 67 to 75% yes.

This information calculated from data posted on the Secretary of State's web site at close of 11-12-2008

Mixed Signals from Bob Ference wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:32 AM:Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob...

While my ol' buddy Ron would love to call the class into session and agree with you about the cost of illegal aliens in regards to the Social Security System, but even a die-hard right leaner like Ron will agree with an old political southpaw like me that you're lamentation, "It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone," is correct, but (yes, left wingers and right wingers always have big buts (is that with 1 t or 2...well, probably both)...Social Security was never designed to be a retirement plan that would be your sole source of income in your golden years.

Ron, on the right, even though he has contributed much to the system, is not counting on SS to be his primary retirement source (help me out rightee, Ron, am I right or wrong on claiming you have not planned your life to revolve around SS to be your primary or only support in your retirement years), and I on the left, am not so naive to belief the same.

So, for the sake of argument, I'll give you your right to be irrate about others who are not legitimate citizens to access SS, but you need to reevaluate your perception of the role of government in taking care of you later in life.

Somehow, I'm sure Ron will call the class to order, and pronounce you just one of millions of victims of socialist programs, and me as a socialist who doesn't want ire to be pointed in the direction of New Deal policies.

Your turn, Ron!

To Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:55 AM:Alf, regarding your several bloviations recently that the Supreme Court's job is to protect the constitution and the rights of the minorities basically is cvorrect. However when those judges fabricate their legal conclusions out of thin air to achive their own biasis and support it only by several pages of gobblygook it is necessary for the people to get involved and clarify what was intended by wording in the law or constitution.

Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:36 AM:>>>CalFire has made it a point to announce they've moved equipment into place just ahead of the forecast santa-ana winds expected later this week.>>>
But they havent announced whether they intend to immediately use the military helicopters or not. We know it rips precious overtime pay away from the firefighters yoonyun, but it saves homes. The problem is the OT pay is a higher priority

To Bob Ference wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:48 AM:What in the world are you talking about? Illegal immigrants are not entitled to any benefits that are yours and mine as an American citizens. It is unfortunate that you would use this forum to promote a lie but I am sure that you are well aware it is a lie. However, it is sure to ignite anger in some very scared senior citizens and pretty much all Americans well those who are naive enough to believe it. I dont think your tactic will work because we are little bit smarter than you give us credit for. Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive ANY benefits. Why didn't you provide statistics(true statistics) or proof of your ridiculous allegation. Oh I know why, because their is none. You just wanted to drop a bomb let it explode and see what happens. Disgusting!

Ron wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:50 AM:To my good friend...
"Mixed Signals from Bob Ference" @
2:32 AM,

I don't think Bob is giving mixed signals at all. In fact, I think Bob is much like this other lady mentioned by Vincent Morrison, i.e. Peggy the Moocher: "I never thought this day would happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help (Obama), he's gonna help me."
I think between Peggy & Bob this represents a vast majority of NObama voters. One thing that struck me, as I watched the messiah's {small "m"}throngs in Grant Park, were their faces.
Such elation, such hope... such a bunch of dolts.
When NObama said THEY would be required to sacrifice, the puzzled look upon many of the faces would have been worth the price of admission. LOL
Huh? Me? Sacrifice? But you said "the Rich?!?!"

But it is, as you say, Social Security was to be but one leg of a three-legged stool, today, in Bob's mind, it should pay for everything.
Peggy, doesn't even want to worry about putting gas in her car. What? We're gonna start issuing gas cards now?
In World War II we issued stamps, rationing stamps.
Here's what I see coming...
Since were talking about "spreading the wealth around", and not growing the economy to make more people richer, I think we can expect NObama to ask those who currently visit the doctor twice a month, to reduce down to once. I mean.. it makes perfect sense, Liberals always think of a closed economic system, where they simply redistribute existing "wealth", in whatever form they may find it, and spread it around.
If you use 40 gallons of gas a week for your business, well... in a NObama administration, you might only have to use 20. I could see a family with two cars, having to give one up, and ride the bus to save gas.
If your drugs you take for your heart condition are expensive, but another citizen has none, why not share "your wealth" with him?
Now, I know some people may laugh and snicker about this, but hey...
think about it.
The Lib's can already tell you the minimum wage you can pay someone, they are working on the maximum wage you can pay. The squeeze towards the middle is in the works, the "equalizing", an evening out they've wanted for a very long time. In a Universal healthcare system where the government pays the bill, they will have every right to limit or exclude drugs they find to costly.
And they will eventually work their way down to you, asking you to "sacrifice", cause your richer than someone else.
There's always someone poorer, than you.
After all, YOU are your brother's keeper, whereas "The One" has a half brother livign on $12 bucks, and an illegal Aunt living in public housing.
That's right, he talking about "spreading YOUR wealth", not his.
Making more sense now, huh?
"Sliding Scale Socialists?"
I knew you'd get it, eventually.

Ron wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:57 AM:Wow is right! Mary-Jo Meyer...

I think someone needs to tell her that blacks who voted for NObama, also voted for Prop. 8.

I'm telling ya folks, the left is just as angry as they can be about this.
Rage, actually.
But with blacks and hispanics, they don't quite know yet how to handle this.
So, their being coy, trying to blame the Mormons, and white evangelicals.
But the anger, and the rage is beginning to seep ut, they can't help themselves.
What did I tell you just the otherday?
Even though they won this election, the rage has not subsided.
Stay tuned for more kookiness! LOL

TripleWhammy wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:25 AM:On top of the homosexual indoctrination that cast upon todays youth, and the planned abortionhood indoctrination, all behind the backs of the parents, now our Saviour wants to form the Ostalin youth to turn them into good little wards of the state. Who was that moron back in the 40's with the mustache and distinct greeting that did the same thing? Heil Saviour

Nick wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:39 AM:Well Peter Benson, there is hope for a 3rd Party and it is alive and well.

If you haven't had the chance, I urge you to take a look at Ron Paul and The Campaign for Liberty.

Part of the major idea for change is starting at our local and state level and ridding ouselves of Democrats & Republicans alike, and voting in independents and libertarians.
Peope who will not continue with the same nonsense that has been going on for years by the Democans.
Thus setting ourselves up for a real 3rd Party takeover 4 years from now when people realize that Obama is not the great hope and change they thought he would be.
The Republicans have already proved this to the American people and now Democrats will have 4 years to show that they can't do it either.
Then America will finally wake up and realize the only hope we have is for a 3rd Party.
Give it a look and you might just like what you see.
Cheers, Nick.

Good one wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:39 AM:Whether commenting on the illegal alien crisis, social issues or government, Gary Walker tells it like it really is. Too bad he's not a columnist for this paper because he's got many fans. Good one, Mr. Walker!

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:02 AM:Yesterday, "Martin Niemoellers poem" at 2:43PM, presented, what else, Martin Niemoeller's poem.
The original poem details several things -
1) the chronological sequence of persecution of sub-sets of a society by the Hitler regime as it gained power,
2) that a society can be overtaken in small increments,
3) that attacking the rights of the reviled (the pariah du jour), though popular to some, ultimately is an attack on the rights of all.

Within the last few years I have seen and heard people say that -
1) illegal aliens have NO rights, not even to be treated as another human being (sdmm and other groups),
2) sex offenders should not have ANY Constitutional rights, that the Constitution should not apply to them even though it applies to Charles Manson and GWB (Prop. 83),
3) that the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, the Constitutional protection from discrimination based on gender and the Constitutional protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation should be and can be null and void for homosexuals (Prop. 22, Prop. 8 and DOMA).

Do the United States Constitution and the California Constitution apply to all Citizens of the United States of America or merely those of whom some people approve?

Do our laws about the treatment of everyone, i.e. the most basic human rights, apply to everyone in our country, on our American soil whether here illegally or not?

Even though some of the attitudes I have seen and heard thoroughly disgust me, people have a Constitutional right to those attitudes and a Constitutional right to express them.

Taking any of the 3 attitudes that I listed in my second paragraph and codifying them, making them into law or incorporating them into our Constitution, whether state or federal,
is the penultimate perversion of our Constitutions, the ultimate being voiding them altogether or becoming a theocracy.
Regards, Alf.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:08 AM:OMG, as the reality sinks in that the American people have utterly and totally rejected their campaign of slime, disinformation, fear and Internet rumors, those who waged the failed, rejected smear campaign are squealing ever louder.

Vincent Morrison's letter admits that it is based on a pure Internet rumor that has been rejected by serious news sources. And even in the unlikely event that it has some remote resemblance to a real event, it would only mean that one misinformed woman somewhere had the wrong impression that Obama's serious economic reforms were aimed at moochers rather than those in the MIDDLE CLASS who actually WORK FOR A LIVING. I do note with interest that Morrison, or the others in this blog who have forwarded similar falsehoods, are never able to relate them to actual proposals by Obama. The inability by far-rightwing extremist conservatives to distinguish between WORK and WELFARE goes far in explaining their total economic failure.

William Ficere's letter shows a different failure to understand how the world works. The same people that complained that Obama lacks EXPERIENCE are now complaining that he is, what? Hiring people with experience!
Let me explain to William: the President decides policy. The staff implements the policy. What better than to have POLICY decided by someone with fresh ideas from outside the beltway, and then implemented by those who actually have experience making the machinery of Washington work.

Oh boy, then there is Darrell Beck's letter. More name calling and nothing more. Marxist! Socialist! Like all that name calling and scare tactics really worked well for you before the election. As if! Cite programs such as CRA that worked quite successfully when implemented by presidencies that used them for their actual purposes, and only failed when undermined and distorted by greedy corporatists trying to make a quick buck off the most disadvantaged.

Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:26 AM:Hopefully one of the outcomes of Prop 8 will be for churches to lose their tax exempt status. If they can afford multi-millions to force political decisions (be it against gay rights, stem cell research, abortion, evolution, electing political figures, etc.) then they can pay taxes like the rest of us. Why should we support them (by paying the taxes they don't have to pay) so they can use their savings (from not paying taxes) to force their ancient religous views and intolerance onto the rest of us. If I'm correct, the Mormon church alone paid $25 million to fight prop 8, while paying nothing in taxes. If people want to use their church only for worship I'm OK with that church being tax exempt, but when that church is used for political purposes I'm not OK with them being tax exempt, becuase not only do they reduce our rights, we have to pay to have our rights taken away.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:30 AM:Chuck @ 5:36 AM:

Since being slapped by the carpenters onion as a young man for moonlighting on non-onion projects, I hold the same disdain for onions as you do except my disdain comes from first hand experience. I like your nifty nickname "yoonyuns" and it got me thinking. How about "goonyuns", "roonyuns","toonyuns" or my favorite loonyuns? Next time you see the carpenters loonyun picketing a drywall contractor or those two losers standing on a corner under an umbrella holding a banner that says "shame on blank, unfair labor pratices", ask them how much they are being paid (including benefits) by the loonyun (hint, they are not card carrying loonyun members and are not receiving a loonyun package). What hypocrits, these loonyuns.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:31 AM:Well, "Nick" at 7:39AM,
I would think that an open primary would be a good step toward "third party" viability.
Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:39 AM:Are you going to insult selected veterans today like you did yesterday? Do you ever insult people to their face, or just behind their backs? Obvioulsy you are not a veteran, because from my experiences cowards are quickly weeded out of the military.

Third Party wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:41 AM:Peter Benson's heart is in the right place, god love him (and fond, cherished memories of his late father Perry), but he is behind the times.

I am a proud Democrat, and while I acknowledge that there has been way too much insider corporate and lobbyist support for our party, the failure is with Republicans who have obstructed reforms. Until there is meaningful campaign finance reform, and electoral reform such as IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), also known as "ranked" or "preferential" voting, Democrats can only compete by playing by the existing rules. Please join with Democrats who are actually in a position to fight for such changes.
In the meantime, to conclude (as some do, not necessarily Mr. Benson) that because Democrats play in the same ballpark there is no difference from Republicans, is absurd.
On every issue, from war/peace, international respect, support for working people and consumers vs. CEO's, labor, rights for minorities, women, GLBT, disabled, etc., environment, energy, health care, electoral reform, medical privacy and choices (abortion, end of life issues, stem-cell research), and on and on and on, having Democrats in power will result in significant differences from what we would see with Republicans in power.

In the meantime, the REALLY good news, and why Benson's letter is outdated, is that the current election of Obama shatters his paradigm.
Because Hillary was predicted early to have a cakewalk to the presidency, she locked up corporate and lobbyist insider donors early and, in a truly brazen act of political chutzpah, required them to sign exclusivity agreements prohibiting them from donating to other candidates, or risk being shut out of future influence.
So in order to compete, Obama had to go in a whole new, unprecedented direction.
He turned to the Internet and, instead of corporate lobbyists, built his donor base on millions of small donors (like me). This is partly why he was so successful in getting out the vote - you're willing to donate, you become invested and will certainly show up at the polls.
Most importantly, what it meant is that - having now been elected - for the first time in history, Obama owes his allegiance not to corporate donors or lobbyists, but to a broad base of the American electorate.
As it should be.

Oh, and if by "third party" you were referring to how many times we should have been celebrating Obama's historic win, you're way too late. I staggered through my THIRD PARTY before election night was even halfway through.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:42 AM:Well, "To Alf" at 2:55AM,
your bias is showing.
The phrases -
"fabricate their legal conclusions out of thin air"
and
"to achive [sic] their own biasis [sic]"
and
"and support it only by several pages of gobblygook",
prove that your mind is made up and that no amount of legal reasoning, whether valid or not, is sufficient for you.
Regards, Alf.

Karo Syruptatis wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:43 AM:>>>Hopefully one of the outcomes of Prop 8 will be for churches to lose their tax exempt status>>>
My, my, how tolerant of the same-sex racketeers. It's no wonder people vote against your cause. Tolerance is a one way street with you people. You lost, get over it and go get a civil union, with exactly the same rights as a marriage

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:45 AM:Right on Nick @ 7:39 AM, I just received an email from a liberal golfing buddy after he read a commentary by Ron Paul titled "Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track". In the commentary Ron listed his beliefs;
• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

In the subject line of the email my liberal friend typed "I like this Guy". The 20 million dollar question is "why doesn't the press"?

Peace

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:50 AM:Alf @ 8:31 AM, the democans will go kicking and screaming on that one. We the people need to cram it down their throats.

Peace

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:53 AM:I must correct part of my 8:02AM post.
It should be -

Does the United States Constitution apply to all Citizens of the United States of America and the California Constitution apply to all Citizens who reside in California or do they apply merely those of whom some people approve?

Regards, Alf.

Great post from Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:54 AM:Thanks, Zeus for a succinct statement about church tax exemption. It is outrageous that organizations whose preachers stand up and advise parishoners about political matters, and who donate millions to political causes, are tax exempt. I'm for putting a proposition on the ballot to allow the people to decide this matter, at least in our state. Then watch the billions go from the churches to fight this. What a joke. Religion in general should no longer be seen by the nation as an organization that sits in some special position outside the laws that apply to everyone else. People should be free to worship as they please, absolutely. But what this has to do with tax exemption, I don't know. (By the way, if, as Ron and other say, "Liberalism" or "Global Warming" are religions, then I would ask that the Democratic party and the academies of science also be given tax-exempt status. LOL)

Social Security wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:54 AM:Bob Ference's letter is founded on an inaccurate premise, when he says:
"If the government gives benefits to illegal aliens who have never contributed..."
The reality is that the government already requires proof of citizenship or LEGAL residency before allowing eligibility for ANY benefits, and the contribution requirements are the same for all applicants.

I never cease to be amazed at the extent of false information, Internet innuendo, and other misleading, race-baiting falsity that this paper allows to appear in its print edition.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:59 AM:To Karl,

Onions make me cry.

Open Primary wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:00 AM:To Alf at 8:31 a.m.:
How would an open primary "be a good step toward "third party" viability"?
All it does is draw more people AWAY from 3rd parties to vote in parties they are not registered with, thus also undermining the right of organizational members to choose their own leadership, which is why such a requirement was declared unconstitituional (though individual parties can choose to allow open primaries, as the Democrats did and the Republicans did not).

The only electoral reform that will really make 3rd parties viable is IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), also known as "ranked" or "preferential" voting, as noted by Third Party at 8:41 a.m.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:01 AM:I am one Conservative that hopes President Elect Obama is one of our best Presidents ever. It can only bode well for all of us. If he decides to forego spending a gazillion dollars on an Inauguration Gala and use the money for something substantial that will be a great start. Spending obscene amounts of cash on a party at this time (or any time past or future for that matter) would be very counterproductive IMHO.

700 Billion Bailout wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:37 AM:I actually have a different subject to rant about. The news is reporting today that the 700 Billion Bailout is being completely mismanaged, with no oversight, no clear idea on how to disburse the money, complete chaos. This is according to Henry Paulson.

I keep hearing how this bailout is going to cause me, my children and my grandchildren untold amounts of tax liability in the future.

But I have news for the government. If they can't get their act together and make this happen to benefit the American People, then I predict there will be a massive middle finger raised to the government by the American People come next April 15th.

If they think I am going to pay taxes to fund this kind of BS, they have another think coming.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:40 AM:Well, "Karo Syruptatis" at 8:43AM,
the separation of church and state is a two way street.
The government keeps its grubby hands off of the church and the church keeps its grubby hands off of and out of the government.
If either one violates that agreement, the deal is off.
If a church does performs a PUBLIC function (run a medical clinic or arrange adoptions, etc.), it must comply with the state regulations governing that PUBLIC function.
If a church refuses to comply with state regulations governing that PUBLIC function,
it has two choices -
1) cease performing that PUBLIC function or
2) lose its tax-exempt status, its preferred status and be treated and taxed like any other business.
You will note that a church is NOT required to perform any PUBLIC function at all.
BUT churches cannot have it both ways,
they can not perform a PUBLIC function
while declining to comply with the rules governing that PUBLIC function.
As I have said many times before -
with every right there is a responsibility.
That even applies to churches.
Regards, Alf.

Gay Rights wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:43 AM:You can't argue with people who are so ignorant that they think marriage began in the year 1200 or that marriage is exclusive to the Christian religion or the Bible, or that think God specified marriage to be between one man and one woman, or that think the words in the Bible are absolute truth.

Faith is beautiful. Religion is a recipe for ignorance. Bummer.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:51 AM:To Alf,

Well said....the sad thing for the "Yes on H8" religious organizers is that they don't seem to see the obvious...that they have opened wide the door between religion and government. Do they seriously not see that the government will now walk thru?

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:51 AM:Well, "Open Primary" at 9:00AM,
I disagree.
While "the field" needs to be narrowed by having two elections,
the inability to vote for the best person for the job if that person is not in your "party" is the biggest reason for open primaries.
Of course that assumes that people will vote for the best person instead of attempting to nullify someone else.
Call me simplistic or a dreamer,
just don't call me late for dinner!!
Regards,Alf.

Bailout Blues wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:53 AM:The blog titled "700 Billion Bailout" at 9:37 a.m. observes:
"The 700 Billion Bailout is being completely mismanaged."
How true!
The ultimate bait and switch, reverse Robin Hood take from the workers and give to the wealthy.
The whole Bush administration needs to end up in jail.
January 20 can't come fast enough.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:58 AM:To Karo,

We get it, you want other TAX-paying, law-abiding citizens' civil rights stripped while your churches get special NO TAX-paying privileges. We ALL get it.

Funny how we are whiners if we want EQUAL rights, yet you cry like a baby if your SPECIAL rights are even verbally threatened.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:05 AM:Well, "Zeus" at 8:26AM,
you said "not only do they reduce our rights, we have to pay to have our rights taken away".
We have the same thing expressed by some about Iraq.
We bombed them in an invasion, we have occupied Iraq for over 5 years while rebuilding that which we blew all to hell and some people are suggesting that Iraq should pay for rebuilding what WE blew up out of their oil money while we are STILL an occupying military force.
What's wrong with this picture??
Regards, Alf.

hardtack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:13 AM:I have one word for Peter Benson: Amen.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:15 AM:Well, "bodecea" at 9:51AM,
(is that pronounced bow-dee-sea-uh or bow-des-ee-ah or?)
"Pride cometh before the fall" springs to mind.
This is a 1040, the deadliest piece of paper in the world -
ya gotta ask yourself
do I feel lucky,
Well,
do ya, church?
OR
A church has gotta know its limitations.
Chortle.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:18 AM:Alf, some may say that you're a dreamer but your'e not the only one.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:23 AM:I'll second that amen hardtack @ 10:13 AM, do we have a motion?

Peace

Floyd wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:47 AM:The "separation of church and state" means two things: that the government cannot establish an official church and that government cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not mean that any church must refrain from politics, something we've seen with the Reverend Wright and his "God d--m America" comments or from Bill Clinton when he gave addresses in churches during his presidency.

What I have seen in church is that politics is relegated to "unoffical" status -- the minister clearly announces "the service is over, feel free to leave, but there will be a presentation in five minutes for those who wish to hear it".

Blaming the churches for the passage of Prop 8 misses the point. You don't have to be religious to be repelled by the thought of homosexuality. Equating it to marriage is wrong, and that was the core issue.

Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:54 AM:>>>Funny how we are whiners if we want EQUAL rights,>. Why dont you explain to us what rights you dont have in a civil union?? Why do you spend hundreds of millions to change the definition of one word, and then rip the words "Mother and Father" and "mommy and daddy" out of the schools. No one is interested in your indoctrination agenda, especially when its done behind the back of parents.

Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:59 AM:>>>Chuck[-] wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:39 AM:Are you going to insult selected veterans today like you did yesterday? Do you ever insult people to their face, or just behind their backs? Obvioulsy you are not a veteran, because from my experiences cowards are quickly weeded out of the military.>>>

I see the usual suspects are back to using my name to make posts. Are they chicken to use their own name, or just totally devoid of any character that they have to resort to their kindergarten style deception

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:03 AM:Well, "hardtack",
see my post at 10:37 in the letters from the 12th to answer your question posed earlier.
Regards, Alf.

Wanda wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:07 AM:The 9:53 AM poster quips: "The whole Bush administration needs to end up in jail."

The cover story in this month's (December 2008) "Harper's Magazine" is: "Justice After Bush: Prosecuting an Outlaw Administration".

It's a good read. May be available online.

jvc wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:13 AM:How or what did the bailout amount come to be 700 billion if no one knows what it was meant for?

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:18 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 10:54AM,
MANY differences have been posted MANY times.
Lack of interstate recognition is one.
If the current "civil union" is so "equal", why don't you trade in your marriage, if you are married, for one?
It's legally identical, RIGHT??
You know perfectly well that a "civil union" and a "domestic partnership" do NOT have the same LEGAL status as marriage.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:20 AM:jvc @ 11:13 AM:

Two words, Ouiji Board.

Peace

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:25 AM:To Floyd,

You realize that churches poured more than $40 million dollars into "Yes on H8"?

You realize that churches organized phone banks at the church?

You realize that churches cancelled services to have parishioners stand on street corners?


Take away tax-exempt status now.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:30 AM:Poor Chuck,

Yesterday he showed his ignorance of American Veterans and today he shows his ignorance of American Public Education.

See what happens when you take your talking points from right wing radio and don't think and look for yourself.

Poor Chuck.

Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:33 AM:Floyd: First, thanks for your honest comment “you don't have to be religious to be repelled by the thought of homosexuality.” At least you admit to being a bigot, unlike many of the others who voted yes on 8. As for not blaming churches, I’m sorry but millions of dollars were donated by churches to spread the lies of Prop 8 (e.g. it would force teachers to teach about gay marriage, or Obama supports Prop 8), so yes churches get a lot of the credit (or blame) for the passage of Prop 8. What does the separation of church and state have to do with the tax exemption that churches enjoy? Why should giving millions to take away the rights of others be a tax exempt endeavor in a country that claims to supports equal rights? I understand that you hate gays and that you proudly voted against Prop 8, what I don’t understand is why this makes someone like yourself (or an organization with the same agenda) tax exempt. Please clarify.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:34 AM:bodecea @ 11:25 AM, I assume that you also would like to see 501(c)(3) organizations who's employees contribute heavily to PAC's that benefit the organization lose their tax exempt status also?

grj wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:00 PM:todays letter to editor referring to baloney and unimformed voters, well I say any body voting for mcCsame was unimformed. Voting republican after 8 years of bush/whaker and his abuse of power and human rights.The country was in bad shape and bush kept denieing it.It going to take awhile to straitin out this mess the countrys in, and get out of all these wars,etc. It's a new day, consertives quit your cryin' sore losers!

But Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:08 PM:Didn't you mean to say that Floyd proudly voted FOR Prop. 8?

Floyd wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:10 PM:Calling me a "bigot" demonstrates that you don't know what "bigot" means. That pretty much invalidates the rest of your posting.

As for the tax exemptions, it was the Supreme Court that declared "the power to tax is the power to destroy". To preserve the separation of church and state, they must be tax-exempt. Scroll up just a bit where you'll find Alf saying "This is a 1040, the deadliest piece of paper in the world - ya gotta ask yourself do I feel lucky, Well, do ya, church?"

Can a homosexual couple meet all the criteria for marriage? No. That's why Prop 8 passed.

grj wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:25 PM:Good news today! walmart stock down. I hope they go out of business buying all this stuff made in china. China is a major polluter and this is leading to major pollution all ovewr the world. All this supporter of china just so the american consumer can pay a few cents less. Greed greed greed, do not shop at wal-mart!

To Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:39 PM:As you probably know, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, permits States to determine what “marriages” from whichever States it is they wish to allow. (“Yes” 85 – including Joe Biden, “No” 14.)

This may appear to fly in the face of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, but it has not been tested and remains the law of the land.

Prop. 8 would not have made anything either acceptable to other States, or denied by other States,

Therefore your first point is moot insofar as “Gay Marriage” is concerned.

Under current law, each State may elect to recognize it from another State, or not, so long as DOMA stands and Prop. 8 has no effect on federal law.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:21 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 12:39PM,
a very good question is when DOMA will be challenged and how. It would seem that by targeting ONLY homosexual marriages, there should be good case in there somewhere. On the other hand, I frequently get a poker hand that looks like it SHOULD BE SOMETHING and it isn't.
Yes, I know that Prop. 8 was strictly a California Constitutional Amendment. Part of the problem is the unholy alliance between the LDS and Catholic churches and their rather systematic method of financing campaigns either as churches or directing members to contribute (under fear or penalty of WHAT??), see immediately below.
Out of state money or influence FOR EITHER SIDE should be banned.
It is also curious that the only commercials (ads) that are exempt from truth in advertising laws are political ads, the very ads which SHOULD NOT be exempt.
An electorate informed by lies and deceptions FROM EITHER OR BOTH SIDES is not a truly informed electorate, is it?
Regards, Alf.

But Floyd wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:27 PM:What do you declare to be the criteria for marriage? Is it two adults who consent to marriage? Is it the ability to reproduce? Is it one man and one woman which was voted into law in 2000? Watch out, those are loaded questions.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:29 PM:When has DOMA been tested in a federal court? I've asked this question before and gotten no answer.

bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:31 PM:To Karl,

If no politics is part of their 501.3(c) status criteria and they break that rule, yes. If a church has a charitable portion, let them apply for 501.3(c) status with all that entails...and follow the rules of such.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:35 PM:Well, "Floyd" at 12:10PM,
See my 9:40AM post.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:38 PM:And to top it off Alf @ 1:21 PM, our polititians are exempt from the national do not call list. I'd rather hear from an Al Bundy clone trying to sell me womens shoes than from these boobs at dinner time.

To Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:41 PM:Well for starters we don't have Civil Unions in California. We have Domestic Partnership. Surprising coming from the side which wording (Marriage) is so important that you don't even know what California allows. Both are state issued just like a marriage license. Just like a drivers license. Just like a business license. State issued. Should we not allow gays to have the same driver's or business licenses as straight people?

SND wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:54 PM:Floyd when and if you ever answer the question of marriage criteria you can't use procreation since my 60 year old mother just got married to my new step-father of 67 years. There won't be any lil bros or sisters on the way. They married because they love each other and wanted to protect each other in the event of one of their deaths. No other reasons. The same as two gay people want to do.

Bill wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:56 PM:Challenges the the DOMA are not going to work as there is adequate precedent in the federal courts to establish the traditional marraige argument.

The discrimnation arguments have a stench of desperation.

All federal case law defines marraige as between a man and a woman.

If the gays are to succeed, the state courts are far more likely to agree with them IMO.

But talking about stripping churchs of tax exempt status only seeks to exact revenge as the churchs members have an individual right to donate money or volunteer time for political purposes.

The church was nor acting as an entity but rather as individuals.

No dice.

Also to Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:58 PM:I've posted this several times but here's one more shot. Chuck and others claim that gay partnerships have the same rights as heterosexual marriages. I know this is not an example that arises from state law, but, to repeat: imagine that you are from another country, here legally. You must leave the country when your student thing is over. But you have a partner with whom you have a committed relationship. If your partner is of the opposite sex, you marry, you get to stay. If same sex, you cannot marry and stay in this country. Is that a large enough discriminatory difference for you?

gracchus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:13 PM:alf, regarding your claim at 1:21 p.m. that he mormon church fianced support of proposition 8, THE NEW YORK TIMES calls this assertion into question.

according to the article the church encouraged its members to provide money and labor to support its passage. but supposedly the church itself provided no money to the political campaign.

apparently, then, opponents to proposition 8 cannot legitmately charge that a religious institution, at least regarding the mormon church, has financially meddled in state affairs.

there are conflicting reports whether the mormon church itself contributed money to finance the passing of proposition 8. if it did, it certainly acted inappropriately. but we need more evidence to ascertain whether it did.

if the mormon church and other religious institutions did not offer money to finance proposition 8, then opponents will have to find other ways to criticize its passage. for example, can a cleric from his pulpit exhort his parishoners how to vote on politica issues and for political candidates, and still enjoy his tax-free status for his religious group? based upon reports that i have read about a cleric in pasadena who supported john kerry from his pulpit in 2004, i don't think so.

to grj wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:15 PM:can you deposit lots of money into my account so I can shop at ralphs and macys? If not, walmart is the store for me, I have to feed my family, and yes, I know it sucks,but I have to do what I have to do

SND wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:20 PM:Chuck, Don't answer that question since it is a trap. Once you start to answer it you are going to start realizing that there is no reason to keep gay people from getting a marriage license. If people start realizing that it is just another state issued license and has nothing to do with religion then it is all over for the yes side. Perpetuating the myth that marriage is only religious is important. People shouldn't know that straight people get married everyday without religion. Straight people get a civil marriage by the state and no religion is involved. If people find out about this then the party is over!

to Mary-Jo Meyer wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:37 PM:Maybe you should re-read Doug Schaden's letter to the editor. I think there was an element of sarcasm in his "lording over" comments. No need to be outraged and appalled. He's on your side.

Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:48 PM:gracchus: I asked a lawyer friend of mine and he replied that he was not sure but he mentioned that I consider tax exempt organizations like the Sierra Club which are obviously involved in politics. He was going to look into the exact rules that churches are under. I'll let you know.
I do have one idea. Using the Prop 8 proponents argument (that the will of the people trumps the constitution) what if we initiate a proposition to do away with the tax exemption status of churches involved in nonreliguous activites (i.e. politics), or do away with religion (OK, perhaps that's dreaming too big). We can use Prop 8 tactics (e.g. fear, lies) to get it to pass, and then tell them it's the will of the people, get over it.

OBSERVATION wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:57 PM:U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Federal Defense of Marriage Act

Orange County, CA, October 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Unites States Supreme Court today issued an Order declining to hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case is Smelt v. Orange County, and it is one of the last remaining challenges to DOMA. Liberty Counsel intervened in this case on behalf of Campaign for Children and Families in 2004 in order to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to defend DOMA.

Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:05 PM:Floyd: Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “bigot” as: person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. You stated “you don't have to be religious to be repelled by the thought of homosexuality.” Are you saying your statement treats this group (homosexuals) with love and tolerance? Or were you simply speaking for others, not yourself? Be honest Floyd. As for separation of church and state when does a church stop functioning as a church? I feel this question should be asked because with churches becoming houses of politics more so than houses of worship perhaps it’s time for society to examine the legal definition of churches, as they continue to invade politics like a cancer (thanks in large part to the last 8 years of Republican rule). If you love religion you may applaud this trend, but if you don’t love religion (or if you fear it) this trend is frightening to say the least. I was under the impression our constitution prevents this type of religious political power, but with Prop 8 it appears it all depends on the will of the religious fanatics. We’ll see.

To Floyd wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:20 PM:Besides the religious argument, is there any other reason that you can offer us why gay people should not be allowed to marry?

jvc wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:24 PM:At the Republican Governors Conference,
it is asked how the Republicans can revitalize the party! One simple formula to revitalize the party:
try being honest for a change! No more doing anything or saying anything to win!

Right to Privacy wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:26 PM:The best of the Web to day from the Wall Street Journal lists a few of the invasive personal questions that Obama expects answers from potential administration members:

"Please list and, if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication (including but not limited to any posts or comments on blogs or other websites) you have authored, individually or with others. Please list all aliases or "handles" you have used to communicate on the Internet" (page 2, question 10).

"Have you ever had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used--even unfairly--to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?" (page 7, question 61).

"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?" (page 7, question 59)."

Boy, Alf is going to be all over this administration on Constitutional issues.

(Not!)

Maybe So wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:31 PM:Bill[-] wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:56 PM: Some one attempted to bring a case against DOMA back in 1996. Supreme Court refused to hear it.

To grj wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:32 PM:"NEW YORK (AP) -- Wal-Mart officials sounded an upbeat tone for the holidays as the retailer posted a 10 percent increase in third-quarter profits on Thursday, saying that shoppers are responding to its early Christmas promotions."

Cry in your beer.

But bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:40 PM:DOMA hasn't been tested yet.

To grj wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:42 PM:I don't know where you got your bum dope, but my stock ticker says

Change:WMT +2.31 (4.39%)

That was at closing for WMT (Wal-Mart Stores.

I don't think I'll hire you to oversee my portfolio.

Chuck wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:44 PM:>>>Good news today! walmart stock down. I hope they go out of business buying all this stuff made in china>>>

Of course, all morons you wish those evil, rich corporations go out of business. Where are you going to employ the people who work there. And, if they do go out of business, how many people with WalMart stock in their retirement plan suffer. You couldnt be more shallow.Go put sprouts on your banana sandwich

gracchus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:48 PM:zeus, your proposal to abolish freedom from taxes is interesting, but it might create more problems than it resolves.

the civil rights movement of the 1960s owes much to the african-american churches which led the way to equal rights and voting rights. that movement might have suffered more harassment if an unsympathetic federal government had chosen to revoke the churches' tax free status. fortunately, lbj was a new deal democrat, and a tough southerner who could twist the arms of recalictrant congressmen.

churches have historically played a very important role in u.s. society. after all, the abolitionist movement was based on the church. and i was surprised when i learned that the baptists were the preeminent advocates of the First Amendment.

determining whether church participation in civic affairs is appropriate is very complicated. how do we figure out which political and social issues religious institutions may address and which they may not? i think that it's better not to tamper with their tax-free status and diligently oppose them in the civic arena when they take a position that we don't like.

Slippery Slope wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:50 PM:The Mormons could be next to have the state of California take away their right to marry. They are a minority and Christians view them as heretical. Just as the lies worked to pass prop 8 the same could be done by saying the Mormons practice poligamy and etc. When you take away others rights your right become endangered.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:52 PM:Well, "Zeus" at 2:48PM,
I like the idea at least as a mental challenge. To carry it one or two steps further, then they would do exactly what the anti 8 people are doing, challenging the Constitutionality, thus falling on their own sword.
The only problem is that most pro 8 people would not understand the irony.
Regards, Alf.

SONAR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:56 PM:USN 1; Enviromuts 0

Game Over

But bodecea wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:57 PM:I was wrong, DOMA has been tested. I hate being wrong. WAH!!

sprouts wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:16 PM:Actually I am quite tasty on a fried banana and peanut butter sandwich. I also agree that Darrell Beck will be quite humorous for the next 8 years as he bemoans the coming of world peace, worldwide prosperity and the lack of hate, crime and prejudice. I love America. We finally turned ourselves around. God bless us, each and every one.

Apollo wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:18 PM:Re: Observation (2:57 p.m.)
Thank you for pointing out that the refusal to entertain a challenge to DOMA was back in 1996.
Since no state recognized same-sex marriage at that time, there was no opportunity for any other state to either recognize or refuse to recognize the act of another state.
Therefore, DOMA has NOT been tested as regards the interstate obligation to give the "full faith and credit" recognition for acts of another state.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:31 PM:Well, "Bill",
at least one of the cases that went straight (if you'll pardon the pun) to the CA Supreme Court has as one of its points of challenge, the equal protection clause.
Let's see where it goes.
Sometimes the only to get out of a strangle hold is to remove one strangling finger at a time, permanently.
Regards, Alf.

Full Faith and Credit wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:41 PM:"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

The Congress DID "by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

It was called DOMA!

grj wrote on Nov 13, 2008 4:48 PM:Well for one thing chuck the corporote greed with no conscience is leading to pollution that is affecting the whole planet, they are chemicals in their milk in china that is killing kids, they don't pay their workers a fair wage, quality control lacks, oh just for making stock holders more money. Just trying to make people aware that greed is not the end all at the , the walton family are not hurtin but they don't pay their workers afair wage. These are just opions, no reason for name calling, sprouts and bananas(LOL) I'll have a hamburger with my six-pack tonight. Lighten up consetives , its a new day!!!

RIGHT ON wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:33 PM:“Measure J” passed in Orange County by 75% of the voters.

And what was so popular among the voters?

It was a measure to require that all future public employee pension benefits must be approved by the voters.

RIGHT ON! Next, we need a State Proposition.

if you think obama will brign world peace and prosperity... wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:56 PM:You're nuts. Jesus will bring peace when He returns. Obama is no Jesus.

Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:43 PM:Well, "Full Faith and Credit" at 4:41PM,
just as prohibition was made an Amendment andwas later repealed by Amendment,
so too can DOMA be repealed by another law or by Constitutional challenge.
Regards, Alf.

Not that different wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:50 PM:In response to Third Party post of 8:41 am, we need only look at the record. A number of presidential candidates, Democrats included, beginning in 1960, bemoaned the "missile gap" with the USSR in order to promote their chances of election. Kennedy later, as president, admitted it wasn't true. When Jimmy Carter ran for president in 1976 he relaunched the Cold War with similar claims. (A man of peace?) He went on to provide Iraq with seven strains of Anthrax to use against Iran and denied having special forces in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet move of forces into that country, which proved to be a lie. He managed to create peace between Egypt and Israel only by bribing the Egyptians with a similar deal we had with the Israeli's, a few billion dollars per year. Upon Clinton's assumption of office he continued all of his predecessor's policies, from NAFTA to most favored nation trade status for China to starving Iraq's children. He signed financial industry deregulation into law, and with his wife put an end to any possible overhaul of health care. Barack Obama's voting record in the Senate is less than stellar, and voting for telecom immunity and Wall Street bailout, among other poor votes is not a positive sign of the kind of change that you wish to see. Given that the Democratic Party was entirely complicit in the offenses of the Bush administration, to believe that Democrats are seriously better than that is little more than wishful thinking.

To Alf wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:33 PM:Do you expect a law passed 85-14 to be overturned by the same people?

A Constitutional challenge must consider the words of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to determine, "Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

That is exactly what Congress did with DOMA. The ONLY route is to ask Congress to reverse their vote.

Highly unlikely in view of THREE states having just voted against Gay Marriage. Even in Massachusetts, the legislature will not permit the subject of Gay Marriage to go to the people.

I understand that you think this is a civil right issue, but Blacks apparently take great umbrage at that.

jvc wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:45 PM:Obama is no JESUS but he is the closest
thing we have to Him And, we do know he is a Democrat!

Apollo wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:56 PM:Re: Full Faith and Credt (4:41 p..m.)
No, the Congress did NOT "by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" as respect the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
This provision sets forth that it shall be the Congress who is the arbiter of disputes based on this clause.
It specifices that Congress shall set the standards by which the provisions is ENFORCED, not by which it is DISREGARDED or UNDERMINED.
The provisions of the innacurately named "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which hardly defends marriages that it dissolves, violate this provision.
It says Congress shall enforce the act.
The provisions that essentially repudiate and repeal that clause (by legislation instead of Amendment) are not valid.
But of course, this has not yet been tested, since the only review that was denied was before any states had effected any same-sex marriages.

Ron wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:00 PM:Regarding several different posters, who are just plain old afraid to come right out and say it...
But, I will.

The same black church that marched in 1960, has rejected same sex marriage today.
I think they're a pretty good measure of who is an oppressed minority.
And who is not.
By a 74% margin, they have voted, and they, those who have lived through Jim Crow, and the firehoses know what it really means to be "oppressed", and to have real rights denied.
Get over yourself.

Floyd wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:14 PM:The dictionary definition of "bigot" that you've printed clearly shows that it is based on race or ethnicity. Homosexuality is neither because it's a behavior. If you wish to expand the definition to include any forceful belief, then you'll have to admit homosexuals have provided the best example of bigotry over the last few weeks.

No, the constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does prohibit the establishment of an official religion, similar to the Church Of England back in the empire.

And the definition of marriage was clearly stated by the voters when they passed Proposition 8. It hasn't changed, it's still between a man and a woman.

Zeus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:30 PM:Gracchus: Points well taken. My only thought is that black churches fought for gaining equal rights, modern religion is fighting to take rights away from selected groups (e.g. gays, pregnant females, science teachers, people with degenerative diseases, etc.). If nothing legal can (or should) be done, it's my opinion that religion should be more openly confronted (as opposed to politely tolerated) than it has been in the past. They deserve a little of their own medicine, to challenge their artificial moral superiority and their ridiculous superstitions.

Ms M wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:32 PM:if you think obama will brign world peace and prosperity...
[-] wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:56 PM:...not quite sure if he will, but there are a whole lot of folks around the world that are anxious to talk with him. We should all pray that he is successful in bringing the world together. See I think that's where God comes in along with folks around the world wanting peace - then you have that one someone to bring them together.

Just as we here in America are tired of being divided, the ugliness, the negativity and being constantly at war -folks around the world are no different than we are and they are also wanting peace and prosperity. If America falls it doesn't look real good for other other countrys around the world.

Remember God doesn't always do things for you - but he does give you the means and direction. We messed up - and we need to fix it - so say an extra prayer or two that Obama CAN bring people to the table - it can't hurt.

to if you think wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:36 PM:You worry me. I know that some say that the kingdom of Jesus will bring peace. But if I'm not mistaken, that "peace" will be won with many, many casualties. What a terrible idea! That thousands or millions have to be slaughtered to attain "peace". Is "peace" defined as "no one left those who agree with me"? That's "peace"? Any other ideas?

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:45 PM:Obama is no Jesus. People seem to think so. What people don't know is that this man has no idea how to run a country. Things are going to go downhill from here. People will then know that they made a mistake voting for this socialist. May God help us.

Surfer wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:52 PM:jvc[-] wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:45 PM: Oh so right. Barack was St John in his previous life. See ya!

Bill wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:56 PM:Alf

But that challenge doesnt make sense.

Have you read it?

The challenge must be consistent with the context of the court decisions that it uses as precedent and it isnt. They may yet find an argument that works but its going to have to be on those terms.
Personally, what two people do in their private lives is of no concern to me unless it harms or damages me and it doesnt. I have no dog in this fight and only want the US constitution to be carried out so that it is consistent with American ideals based on the framers intent.

I can live with the results.

I want everyones rights to be honored as one has a right to be gay in America no matter what others think.

Greenergy wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:32 PM:Sonar at 3:56 p.m. notes yesterday's PARTIAL victory of the Navy over environmentlists and concludes, "Game Over."
No. Not at all.
The game is just getting started.
The Naval policy is under the direct control of the Commander in Chief.
The Commander in Chief is going to change on January 20.
The next scheduled sonar exercise is not until February.
We'll see if the next commander-in-chief continues the same policy as the outgoing commander-in-chief.

Game is hardly over.
It is just beginning.

Jesus wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:49 PM:Jesus was back, but some of you may have missed him. He was busy waving a no on prop 8 sign. Maybe next time you'll join him. He tends to cheer for the underdog. Hangs out with people who aren't perfect. He's really big about spreading love and joy. Should come to no surprise he ended up on the side of bringing together more people committed to a loving relationship than splitting them apart.

SONAR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:57 PM:Greenergy, only if Obama is looking for his own "Gats in the Military Moment."

To aDAMANT wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:25 PM:You are a broken record. You have a case of the copy paste disease. Out of ideas. You must be one of those 20% left that approve of Bush. Now that is out of touch!

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 4:46 AM:Well, "To Alf" at 7:33PM and "Bill" at 8:56PM,
12 years have gone by since DOMA was passed. States have since "legalized" homosexual marriage where none had at the time DOMA was enacted.
Witness the difference 8 years can make in California - 2000 - Prop. 22 61%, 2008 - Prop. 8 52.something%.
Right now the CA Supreme Court is beginning to look at the several cases challenging Prop. 8.
Do you remember "banned in Boston"?
Now Massachusetts is one of several states which have "legalized" homosexual marriage.
Congress has had a few shake-ups since 1996.
The times, they are a'changing.
We will see about the current cases, it will be interesting, no doubt about it.
If not now, then in a few more years homosexuals will be able to marry or have a legally identical "civil union" in all states, recognized by all states individually and the federal government.
The only questions are when and who will be seen and recorded in history as the obstructionists.
Regards, Alf.

MiniMe wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:32 AM:To grj:
I am one of the millions of Americans that do not have health insurance. Walmart offered subscription medications for $4. I am very grateful to Walmart for this and will continue to shop there.

grj wrote on Nov 14, 2008 4:15 PM:To minime, i don't have health care, can't afford a place to live right now, my job maybe ending because of george bush failed economy, . I was trying to make a point about countries and greed and profit over human rights and also, if walmart keeps importing from china, who know where the drugs are being made they won't be safe for long.See the photo in NCT times today 11/14 so much smog you can hardly see the bike riders. America is resposible for supporting a country with know pollution controls, it will affect all the worlds atmosphere and oceans. Greed Greed greed mr.ceo and your fat pension.Bush gave the rich tax breaks, and my witholding taxes went up last year.